Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

WARRANTY OUT..MY RIGHTS

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    brando75 wrote: »
    Im not looking for new for old. Im looking for replacement for faulty

    That's precisely the same thing. Your TV is old, not new.

    Where and how did Sony "admit" it was a manufacturing fault?


  • Options
    #33
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭slimjimmc


    OP, your statutory rights are with the seller. Many sellers will initially refer you to the manufacturer and people tend to go along unawares. Your rights entitle you to a repair (not feasible in this case), a replacement, or if neither is feasible, a refund.
    Note though that it's reasonable for the value of your TV after 2.5 years trouble free use to be taken into account when determining a replacement or refund. You are not entitled to a remedy which is disproportionate.

    I suggest you go back top the seller and see what they will offer you. Only then you can consider if the seller's offer or the manufacturer's offer is acceptable or neither. You don't have to accept either offer but you will only be able to take the seller to the SCC. If you feel you can do better by pursuing the seller you could send them a written request. Give them a reasonable deadline after which you will go to the SCC unless a satisfactory settlement is agreed.


  • Options
    #34
    brando75
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭brando75


    L1011 wrote: »
    That's precisely the same thing. Your TV is old, not new.

    Where and how did Sony "admit" it was a manufacturing fault?

    Faulty is not the same as old..what dictionary you working off?? Sony rep has admitted over the phone in recorded calls that television has manufacturers fault and offered me 335 as a buyback option


  • Options
    #35
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    brando75 wrote: »
    Faulty is not the same as old..what dictionary you working off?? Sony rep has admitted over the phone in recorded calls that television has manufacturers fault and offered me 335 as a buyback option

    In this case, you are trying to get a new TV for an old TV - there is no other way to avoid that.

    If you can get a recording of Sony admitting it is a manufacturing fault, by all means take an SCC case but don't expect to get any more money or get it quickly either - and you certainly won't get a replacement TV.

    You came on here looking for advise, but now you don't like the answer it appears you don't want to accept it.


  • Options
    #36
    brando75
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭brando75


    L1011 wrote: »
    In this case, you are trying to get a new TV for an old TV - there is no other way to avoid that.

    If you can get a recording of Sony admitting it is a manufacturing fault, by all means take an SCC case but don't expect to get any more money or get it quickly either - and you certainly won't get a replacement TV.

    You came on here looking for advise, but now
    you don't like the answer it appears you don't want to accept it.

    Ok, your advice is don't expect more money or replacement tv..I'll take that advice on board..thank you
    I don't accept old=faulty...im not taking a 14'' black and white portable my grandmother bought 30 years ago back to the retailer demanding they swap it for something new..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    eqwjewoiujqorj
    Registered Users Posts: 506 ✭✭✭eqwjewoiujqorj


    You have 2 choices.

    1. Take the 335 and buy a 40" Sony.
    This one is 429 at Harvey Norman. Link
    Is it a better spec than the one you have?
    You'll be out 94 euro but you should get it sorted quicker than option 2.

    2. Bring retailer to the small claims court at cost of 25 euro.
    The judge will probably agree that it's reasonable to expect a 770 euro Sony tv to last longer than 2 year 8 months.
    What will he rule - shop must fix tv? / give you a similar specd model? / shop must give you a partial refund?
    If the retailer doesn't turn up and you make a claim for 770, you might do better.

    Personally, I'd take the 335, this woman paid 981 for a tv and got 300 from the small claims court. tv was 2.5 yrs old.


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77624975
    I am in a similar situation with Komplett, court date on monday 2/20.
    They haven't sent in notice of intention to defend so I am left wondering if they'll turn up at all and I have to travel from Limerick to Dublin for court.
    Bought Samsung tv just over 2 years old, switched it on one day and the picture was all blurry, horizontal lines, goes dark intermittently, completely unwatchable. Paid €981 for it.
    Went through the usual hoops with Komplett, told me it was outside 2 year warranty etc.
    Long story short - small claims court route and court date on monday.
    Just wondering if you have any tips, advice re: Kompett, court?


    Hoping that the judge will agree that the tv is not fit for purpose as per the sale of goods act and that the normal life expectancy for a tv at that price should be longer than 2.5 years.
    Will just give the facts and see how it goes.

    Just posting the update on our case against komplett as we have only received the judges decision today, 15th march.
    We went to court on the 20th of February, there was a representative from komplett there so the judge heard their side. Komplett argued that the tv was out of warranty so they had no obligation.
    The judge told us that she could not make a decision at that time and the registrar would telephone us with the decision.
    Got a call today that we were awarded €300 based on depreciation of the tv and I assume that the same model would be cheaper in 2012.


    I am satisfied that the judge agreed in our favour and I think the reason the judge awarded €300 is because if we had to buy a similar spec tv today it would cost less than the original price in 2008.
    When I say a similiar spec tv, it would be a Samsung brand with the same specs.
    But I guess the fact that we had to travel to Dublin, take day off work, cost of fuel etc, if I'm honest I thought we would have gotten more but at least it's settled now.
    I will leave it at that and would still encourage anyone to pursue their rights through the small claims court if you have to and at least if enough people stand up for their consumer rights then company's like komplett might improve their after sales/customer service.


  • Options
    #38
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    brando75 wrote: »
    I don't accept old=faulty...]

    No, old = old.

    Your TV is old, it is not new anymore and you're expecting a new one as a replacement. This is not how consumer rights work here - the time and usage you got from the TV have a value which will rightly be considerd.


  • Options
    #39
    brando75
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭brando75


    L1011 wrote: »
    No, old = old.

    Your TV is old, it is not new anymore and you're expecting a new one as a replacement. This is not how consumer rights work here - the time and usage you got from the TV have a value which will rightly be considerd.
    Sorry. The manufacturer disagrees with you. My tv is faulty. Not old. Hence the compensation..do manufacturers offer compensation to everyone with an old tv set???Consumer rights also disagree..when you buy an expensive product which is not of merchantable quality and therefore becomes faulty within an unreasonable timeframe the retailers have legal obligations towards the consumer..


  • Options
    #40
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    brando75 wrote: »
    Sorry. The manufacturer disagrees with you. My tv is faulty. Not old. Hence the compensation..do manufacturers offer compensation to everyone with an old tv set???Consumer rights also disagree..when you buy an expensive product which is not of merchantable quality and therefore becomes faulty within an unreasonable timeframe the retailers have legal obligations towards the consumer..

    Your TV may be faulty, but it is still old. You are acting as if the two are incompatible with each other for no good reason

    You have received three years use from it, which is a good proportion of its reasonable life. TVs become obsolete these days, backlight bulbs have a finite life, etc.

    Its obvious Sony realise that there are obligations or else they wouldn't have offered you anything - but its pretty much all you can expect to get from the SSC. They are in no way obliged to provide you with a new TV and the sooner you realise this the better.

    Are you just going to continue to argue against advice you don't like rather than accept it? Take the money, buy a new TV - for not much more - and avoid Sony if you're that annoyed by it.


  • Options
    #41
    brando75
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭brando75


    L1011 wrote: »
    Your TV may be faulty, but it is still old. You are acting as if the two are incompatible with each other for no good reason

    You have received three years use from it, which is a good proportion of its reasonable life. TVs become obsolete these days, backlight bulbs have a finite life, etc.

    Its obvious Sony realise that there are obligations or else they wouldn't have offered you anything - but its pretty much all you can expect to get from the SSC. They are in no way obliged to provide you with a new TV and the sooner you realise this the better.

    Are you just going to continue to argue against advice you don't like rather than accept it? Take the money, buy a new TV - for not much more - and avoid Sony if you're that annoyed by it.

    Well i argued against the advice the retailer gave me which was...very sorry, out of warranty, go away, nothing can be done..also advice the repairers gave me..which was don't ring manufacturer they will do nothing for you...i argue if i feel i have a point and at this moment im 335 better off for it


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    brando75 wrote: »
    Well i argued against the advice the retailer gave me which was...very sorry, out of warranty, go away, nothing can be done..also advice the repairers gave me..which was don't ring manufacturer they will do nothing for you...i argue if i feel i have a point and at this moment im 335 better off for it

    And now you're getting advice from neutrals with experience of the process and you still won't accept its valid.

    If you want to waste a month or more with no TV and a extremely high chance of less cash, go for it - but its your own time and money you're wasting.


  • Options
    #43
    brando75
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭brando75


    L1011 wrote: »
    And now you're getting advice from neutrals with experience of the process and you still won't accept its valid.

    If you want to waste a month or more with no TV and a extremely high chance of less cash, go for it - but its your own time and money you're wasting.

    Ok. Thanks for that advice.


  • Options
    #44
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    L1011 wrote: »
    50% is pretty much what I'd expect them to award, especially considering the replacement cost is dropping like a stone too.
    The replacement must be of the same specs etc but if a refund is being given it is based on the original cost and not any replacement cost.
    Beano wrote: »
    read the op. the model is discontinued. You think they should be given a brand new tv after 2.5 years?
    The small claims court is there to make these hard decisions but yes I think the op should be given a new television purely on the fact that the retailer has treated them so badly by telling them to go to the manufacturer when they were obliged to deal with the faulty tv.
    L1011 wrote: »
    Just use the search function - the standard is for you to get a reduced amount for the age of the TV. Three years is a relatively long short time for a large screen TV and the replacement price has also fallen so the remaining value in the TV is a hell of a lot less than what you paid for it. Consumer rights are not a new-for-old home insurance policy.
    The "standard" is not always the reality!
    eqwjewoiujqorj wrote: »
    You have 2 choices.

    1. Take the 335 and buy a 40" Sony.
    This one is 429 at Harvey Norman. Link
    Is it a better spec than the one you have?
    You'll be out 94 euro but you should get it sorted quicker than option 2.

    2. Bring retailer to the small claims court at cost of 25 euro.
    The judge will probably agree that it's reasonable to expect a 770 euro Sony tv to last longer than 2 year 8 months.
    What will he rule - shop must fix tv? / give you a similar specd model? / shop must give you a partial refund?
    If the retailer doesn't turn up and you make a claim for 770, you might do better.

    Personally, I'd take the 335, this woman paid 981 for a tv and got 300 from the small claims court. tv was 2.5 yrs old.


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=77624975
    It is not stated in this case you quoted whether the tv was repairable or was beyond repair due to parts not being available.


  • Options
    #45
    dudara
    Registered Users Posts: 33,519 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    brando75 wrote: »
    Sorry. The manufacturer disagrees with you. My tv is faulty. Not old. Hence the compensation..do manufacturers offer compensation to everyone with an old tv set???Consumer rights also disagree..when you buy an expensive product which is not of merchantable quality and therefore becomes faulty within an unreasonable timeframe the retailers have legal obligations towards the consumer..

    Everything there is correct. BUT you have had use of the TV for several years, and in the meantime, TVs of comparable specifications have become cheaper. Depreciation IS taken into account.

    Your consumer rights do lie with the retailer. But in this case the manufacturer have made you an offer (which isn't bad IMO). It's up to you to decide on the effort/hassle.


  • Options
    #46
    EganTheMan
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭EganTheMan


    Check this out:

    EU Directive 1999/44/EC. Check, in particular, page 7: 'A two-year guarantee applies for the sale of all consumer goods everywhere in the EU. In some countries, this may be more, and some manufacturers also choose to offer a longer warranty period.'

    The EU rule also says buyers need to report a problem within two months of discovering it if they want to be covered under the rule.


    I am not a "legal head" but I had problems with my iPhone, the other day, and the guy in the phone shop told me that there are very strong rights under EU Law for products that didn't last as long as you would expect them to.

    Hope this helps . . .


  • Options
    #47
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    The "standard" is not always the reality!

    You have very little experience of large flat panels, I take it, with your inaccurate "correction" there.

    3 years is a hefty proportion of the reasonable expected service life of a large TV - this has always been the case, less so with CRTs but it is with panels (LCD or plasma) and other forms (retroprojection).

    My office would have probably 20 large panels and there may be one which is older than our office move (2009). There was another until last week but the backlight went. Lots of components in them have finite lifespans. In a home environment I would expect them to last a little longer - but I wouldn't realistically expect a 6 year old panel to work without having needed repair. You get exceptions, of course.
    EganTheMan wrote: »
    EU Directive 1999/44/EC.

    Not transcribed as-is to Irish law as our existing protections were deemed stronger.


  • Options
    #48
    sandra06
    Registered Users Posts: 305 ✭✭sandra06


    brando75 wrote: »
    How old was your washing machine when it broke ? Was it out of warranty? And where did you get the 4 year life expectancy from? I do have a receipt
    it was a month outside warranty 2 yr warranty ,,,when i rang the comsumer rights they told me the life expectancy was four yrs just contact them they have a template on their web page that you copy and send to shop


  • Options
    #49
    brando75
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭brando75


    So just a quick update on how the case finished. I argued a little further with Sony and ended up receiving 430 euro from them. I then rang the retailer and argued with them about the terrible quality tv they had sold me. I reminded them of their obligation under my statutory rights. They ended up giving me approx 33% discount on a tv with a price of 445 after discount. Also received a 5year warranty with new tv. All in all not a bad result. For 15 euro, some arguing and a headache i got an upgraded tv with better spec and a 5 yr warranty.


  • Options
    #50
    greasepalm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,263 ✭✭✭greasepalm


    yes reasonable life was very short for you,all tvs i have long life over 10 yrs and the hd was a killer with a scart lead


  • Options
    #51
    salamanca22
    Registered Users Posts: 1,179 ✭✭✭salamanca22


    brando75 wrote: »
    ALWAYS KNOW YOUR RIGHTS AND ALWAYS ARGUE THEM. EVEN WHEN YOUR TOLD NOT TO!!!!

    It was nothing got to do with your rights, you were just enough of a pain to them that they gave you some incredible good will. Good on the shop.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    brando75
    Registered Users Posts: 71 ✭✭brando75


    salamanca22 wrote: »
    It was nothing got to do with your rights, you were just enough of a pain to them that they gave you some incredible good will. Good on the shop.

    Yes good on the shop for selling a piece of crap for 770 and then taking another 445 off me....very nice of them...this after about 4 weeks off trying to fob me off that manufacturers warranty is law...


  • Options
    #53
    whomitconcerns
    Registered Users Posts: 4,319 ✭✭✭whomitconcerns


    brando75 wrote: »
    Yes good on the shop for selling a piece of crap for 770 and then taking another 445 off me....very nice of them...this after about 4 weeks off trying to fob me off that manufacturers warranty is law...

    not quite..they took 785 euro from you in total and you had a tv for 2 1/2 years and then a new tv!

    I think you have done fairly well here considering. Enjoy the new tv, but you have certainly received more than I would have exopected or were legally entitled to. Good on the shop!


  • Options
    #54
    db
    Registered Users Posts: 1,081 ✭✭✭db


    Most manufacturers quote life expectancy of LED LCD TVs of 50,000 - 100,000 hours so those who are saying that a 2.5 year old TV is nearing the end of its expected life have nothing other than anecdotal evidence for their claims.

    Well done OP for pushing this with both manufacturer and retailer and getting a reasonable outcome for all without having to resort to SCC. If the retailer had helped get the compensation from the manufacturer at the start and did the deal for the discount on the new TV I'm sure the OP would have been praising them for their customer service instead of criticising them.


  • Options
    #55
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    db wrote: »
    Most manufacturers quote life expectancy of LED LCD TVs of 50,000 - 100,000 hours

    Averages require there to be early failures too. Additionally, its far more likely that it was a CCFL backlit TV going on its age and price at the time, which have a far lower mean life on the backlight and also generally more failure-prone PSUs.

    Anecdotal evidence would be commenting on one failure, not nearing 20. That last elderly (and terrible brand at that - Elonex) panel here is still holding on for dear life but all its siblings and equivalently old units from other brands have gone to the great big WEEE facility in the sky.


Advertisement