Faulty TV

Potential-Monke

Hi all. Quick query. I got a tv through Harvey Normans on Flexirent in October 14. The contract is up this November (2 payments left). But I have a problem. There seems to be some sort of condensation building up between the screen and lcd. Happening from the corners and going into the middle, nothing massive, but noticeable mostly in very bright pictures, you can see the shadow creeping from the origins. It's grand 99% of the time, but i'm a gamer, so I see it quite a lot (games loves doing white fade outs/ins).

I've contacted Flexirent, not their problem, they only cover for accidental damage or loss/theft. Harvey Normans said nothing to do with them as it's over the 12 month manufacturer warranty.

Now, I know some of my rights, but surely a fault on a tv that's less than 2 years old should be covered? It's a 49" 4K tv, so was about €1350 at the time. The person who sold it to me was surprised to see that I didn't have the extended warranty as he normally pushes it. I don't recall being offered it (I more than likely would have taken it). Regardless, should this not be something covered by LG? The tv hasn't moved since I bought it, and I had another non-4k tv there for 5 years before it and didn't encounter the same issue, so not my house.

And I say condensation, but it's there constant, and looks like it, but may not be it. Is there anything I can do? 12 months is surely not sufficient for a product that is supposed to last years? Again, I wouldn't have an issue if it was something I done, but there's nothing I could do to cause this issue!

Thanks in advance!

mittimitti

24 month eu warranty on electrical and up to 6 years on sale of goods act in Ireland

Call HN head office tell them you give them a week to fix it or you go straight to small claims court you will get sorted
take no sh*t

L1011

mittimitti wrote: »

24 month eu warranty on electrical

No, there isn't.

mittimitti wrote: »

up to 6 years on sale of goods act in Ireland

Far more relevant.

Letter to Harvey Norman's head office would be my next step.

mittimitti

L1011 wrote: »

No, there isn't.



Far more relevant.

Letter to Harvey Norman's head office would be my next step.

http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm

mittimitti

Letters are slow


Call HN head office and follow up with an email


you have minimum 2 year warranty under eu

http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm

mittimitti

L1011 wrote: »

No, there isn't.



Far more relevant.

Letter to Harvey Norman's head office would be my next step.

I love the quality of advice on boards people that know everything

theteal

mittimitti wrote: »

I love the quality of advice on boards people that know everything

The 2 year E.U. directive was never adopted in Ireland as the Irish Sale of Goods Act offers more protection.

mittimitti

theteal wrote: »

The 2 year E.U. directive was never adopted in Ireland as the Irish Sale of Goods Act offers more protection.

We get covered by the 2 year as we are part of the eu

And we also have our own sale of goods act

L1011

mittimitti wrote: »

We get covered by the 2 year as we are part of the eu

And we also have our own sale of goods act

No - we aren't, as the directive was never implemented here.

You can throw the "know nothing" insults around here but you are wrong here. Linking to a website does not implement the directive.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

mittimitti wrote: »

Letters are slow


Call HN head office and follow up with an email


you have minimum 2 year warranty under eu

http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guarantees-returns/index_en.htm

That is not enacted here and is not part of Irish consumer law. Our own Statutes give great protection.

theteal

Anyway OP, under the Sale of Goods Act the undamaged item must last a reasonable amount of time. I would agree that an expensive telly should last an awful lot longer than the <2 years you've had it (my Samsung is 7 now, I'd expect a few more years but wouldn't really complain if it died tomorrow).

Forget about this mentioned 12 month warranty - it's merely a marketing tool which has little/no significance in Ireland.

By all means, contact HN again by phone but in my experience a registered letter to head office has a little more punch.

donegal.

ignore everything so far in this thread (except the above post, its sound. wasn't there when i started)

1- nothing to do with flexrent. Your issue is with HM. (I'd contact the manufacturer. They're not legally bound to help you but they might and it could be faster)

2- 12month warrenty doesn't matter, 24 month EU cover doesn't matter. There is NO 6 year protection.
Theres no set time, its different in different circumstances. A product must last "A reasonable" amount of time. 2 years for a €1350 tv is not reasonable.

HM are required by law to repair your tv at no cost to you , is a reasonable time.

The way out for HM is to claim the fault was caused by misuse (eg you hung the tv on the bathroom wall). But not with normal use , normal wear and tear.

Worst case scenario you go to small claims court but its VERY unlikely to go this far.

dudara

@mittimitti - if you have an issue with bother people's posts, then please use the Report Post to alert a moderator. Do not make comments on thread, especially if they offer no advice to the OP

dudara

ED E

theteal wrote: »

Anyway OP, under the Sale of Goods Act the undamaged item must last a reasonable amount of time.

I've tried arguing this with HN and Currys/PCworld before, they really dig their heels in even though the store managers are likely well aware they're in the wrong. Both occasions were small items so I left it and give any business I can to Amazon.

Really we need a "book of quantum for goods" to stipulate lifespans for classes of goods (Phones 2yrs, laptops 4yrs, fridges 8yrs etc) based on MTTF rates reported by the the OEMs. Save this "whats reasonable" bull**** every single time.

Kings Inns or bust

Actually this may very well have quite a bit to do with flexirent. I never studied up on the Irish equivalent of the Consumer Credit Act, but in England and Wales (and I believe Scotland too) when you buy on credit your contract of sale is with the credit company.

I welcome pointers to the Irish position.

I spent a good three paragraphs on this EU warranty malarkey the other day. This two year warranty is the misinformation that just won't die.

Kings Inns or bust

ED E wrote: »

I've tried arguing this with HN and Currys/PCworld before, they really dig their heels in even though the store managers are likely well aware they're in the wrong. Both occasions were small items so I left it and give any business I can to Amazon.

Really we need a "book of quantum for goods" to stipulate lifespans for classes of goods (Phones 2yrs, laptops 4yrs, fridges 8yrs etc) based on MTTF rates reported by the the OEMs. Save this "whats reasonable" bull**** every single time.

The lad who empties the bins in PC World likely has more discretion than the store manager. Given your wide range of technical expertise ED E I'm surprised you ended up in the stores belonging to that shower in the first place.

colm_mcm

Another thing to consider is you don't own the tv at the end of the rental. They may keep taking your direct debit until you call them. Also the purchase instalment is not agreed in advance, so they can pick a number out if the air.
They took 6 or 7 months off me past the end of the contract then made out I could use the money I overpaid to buy it from them.
Told them to take a hike, asked for recordings if all conversations I had had with them, and did a freedom of information request. I also quoted some distance selling law I made up that they were breaching.
Got put on hold for a long time and eventually told I would get a refund (I did) and could have the tv.

My understanding is they own the tv as you're renting it - and should replace it if it's faulty.

L1011

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

The lad who empties the bins in PC World likely has more discretion than the store manager. Given your wide range of technical expertise ED E I'm surprised you ended up in the stores belonging to that shower in the first place.

Emergencies and that they can occasionally be cheap are reasons I've bought there. Would avoid otherwise. Hard to find a 16 port switch or server PSU in Navan elsewhere.

Kings Inns or bust

L1011 wrote: »

Emergencies and that they can occasionally be cheap are reasons I've bought there. Would avoid otherwise. Hard to find a 16 port switch or server PSU in Navan elsewhere.

Why has anyone in Navan any need for such exotics :pac:

L1011

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

Why has anyone in Navan any need for such exotics :pac:

Local businesses that were paying me to get it fixed quick

ED E

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

The lad who empties the bins in PC World likely has more discretion than the store manager. Given your wide range of technical expertise ED E I'm surprised you ended up in the stores belonging to that shower in the first place.

Well at least it wasnt Maplin! *shudders*

Nah, haven't quite got to the point of ordering kettles and Toasters on Amazon though I probably should have. Poor posty must quietly hate my guts enough as it is with regular 20kg boxes coming in from NL.

Potential-Monke

Cheers for all the advice. I read up on the terms, and Flexirent are the owners of the equipment, and confirmed by the man in HN by saying that Flexirent buy it off them. I'll ring Flexirent again tomorrow and state the facts above, re: expected to last a reasonable time. See where i'll get with that. I'll keep this updated.

Potential-Monke

Ok, so rang FR today, and spoke to a female who first was adamant that under their terms, I am liable for any damage or defect outside of accidental damage or theft. I stated their obligations under the SoGaSoS Act, specifically Section 28 (3) as to the quality of the goods being fit for purpose, and I was again told that it's my issue, not theirs, or to contact the manufacturer (after she confirmed that they own the equipment).

So I looked for a manager, and another lad came on. And he basically stated the exact same, that they "have gone through this many times before and we are confident in our terms and rights", and that they are fully "within the Irish Consumer Law". So I got contact details for their head office, address and email, and I was advised to email and it would be quicker, so I banged them off an email explaining the situation, and stated that I am giving them 10 days notice to repair or replace, or I would have no option but to go to the small claims court. So let's see how that pans out!

Tell me, does Consumer Law supersede terms and conditions? Like, their terms say i'm liable, but it's a defect beyond my control, so would the terms screw me?

goodlad

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Ok, so rang FR today, and spoke to a female who first was adamant that under their terms, I am liable for any damage or defect outside of accidental damage or theft. I stated their obligations under the SoGaSoS Act, specifically Section 28 (3) as to the quality of the goods being fit for purpose, and I was again told that it's my issue, not theirs, or to contact the manufacturer (after she confirmed that they own the equipment).

So I looked for a manager, and another lad came on. And he basically stated the exact same, that they "have gone through this many times before and we are confident in our terms and rights", and that they are fully "within the Irish Consumer Law". So I got contact details for their head office, address and email, and I was advised to email and it would be quicker, so I banged them off an email explaining the situation, and stated that I am giving them 10 days notice to repair or replace, or I would have no option but to go to the small claims court. So let's see how that pans out!

Tell me, does Consumer Law supersede terms and conditions? Like, their terms say i'm liable, but it's a defect beyond my control, so would the terms screw me?

Absolutely not. Their terms and conditions can fcuk right off

Kings Inns or bust

Legislation trumps t&cs

theteal

Can you take the flexirent crowd to the SCC?
I mean, normally the contract of sale is between the seller and the purchaser. If flexirent own the device, would it not be up to them to chase HN? Where does that leave the OP? Sorry for not being of much help but the scenario has become slightly more awkward than originally thought.

A Dub in Glasgo

Is this some sort of hire purchase scheme? If you are renting the TV and it is faulty they are liable, they sound like a bunch of chancers and I am surprised that HN enter into an arrangement with them

893bet

If it was covered for accidental damages.....

Kings Inns or bust

theteal wrote: »

Can you take the flexirent crowd to the SCC?
I mean, normally the contract of sale is between the seller and the purchaser. If flexirent own the device, would it not be up to them to chase HN? Where does that leave the OP? Sorry for not being of much help but the scenario has become slightly more awkward than originally thought.

It's only as complicated as HN buy washing machines off a wholesaler, who buys them off Beko or whoever. In this case it's just Flexirent is the seller.

Sorry that's not meant to sound rude, I'm trying to be more concise.

Potential-Monke

No word today. I also contacted the CCPC (Competition and Consumer Protection Commission) and explained the story, and they were initially telling me that HN are responsible, but when I clarified that FR owned the product, I was told i'd get a call back but nothing yet either. As the email said, I gave them 10 days, so we'll see how this week goes.

JimsAlterEgo

who do you have a receipt for the product from? HN or FR?

vandriver

Just out of interest,were the onerous terms of a flexirent contract explained to you?
(ie stupendous Apr,final payment to own goods )

Potential-Monke

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

who do you have a receipt for the product from? HN or FR?

The receipt was from HN, i'd have to dig it out to see if there were any mentions of Flexirent being the purchaser.

vandriver wrote: »

Just out of interest,were the onerous terms of a flexirent contract explained to you?
(ie stupendous Apr,final payment to own goods )

Yes, it was. Well, the APR, final payment and terms were explained to me, as was the accidental damage or loss. There was no mention of FR being the owners though.

JimsAlterEgo

I would contact consumer agency (or whatever they are called now). You entered into a transaction with HN and this was facilitated by FR. HN provided the goods to you.

davo10

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

I would contact consumer agency (or whatever they are called now). You entered into a transaction with HN and this was facilitated by FR. HN provided the goods to you.

Not so fast. If you look at the flexirent website, it actually says you are entering a rental agreement with flexirent for the use of the equipment. The op may have picked it up at HN but by the looks of this arrangement Flexirent are the owners.

http://www.flexirent.ie/

It seems that you apply to flexirent when you want an item, they pay for it and the consumer then pays flexirent a rental fee.

I suppose the crux of this is, op did you actually pay HN using your credit/debit card or did flexirent pay them and you just picked up TV?

Edit: sorry I see from earlier post that op confirmed that FR are the owners, it is therefore them that have to deal with HN. The op's contract is a rental contract with FR so op can have no claim against HN, he/she is neither the owner not purchaser on the TV.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

I would contact consumer agency (or whatever they are called now). You entered into a transaction with HN and this was facilitated by FR. HN provided the goods to you.

Have you actually read the thread? It would appear he in effect rented from flexirent not HN.

Potential-Monke

Ok, so got a voicemail from someone in FR, rang back 3 times. First 2 times I was told the mailbox was full, 3rd time I went through to sale finalisation and got through to someone after 15 minutes. They put me through to the lad that left the message. He explained that they are covered by the Credit Consumer Act, and clarified when asked straight up, "are ye going to repair or replace the product?" to which he answered "no".

I ended the call, contacted the CCPC, who didn't have a record of my call and expected callback from last Friday, but the new guy went through it and basically said because i'm renting the equipment, their terms and conditions apply, and I don't have a leg to stand on. He mentioned possibly going for independent legal advice, and said that you can't take companies under rental agreements to the small claims court. He said he's going to try and find who I was talking to last week and see if they have anything else to do.

So it appears i'm stuck with a tv with a defect which i'll probably have to give back, because there's no way i'm paying any more for a defective tv.

Edit: I was reading up on the differences between hire purchase and lease/rental. According to law, lease/rental means the person does not have the option of purchasing the equipment at the end, whereas in HP you do. Seeing as FR give that option, is it not technically HP? In which case the law supersedes the t&c's?

mittimitti

Call Harvey norman they have a call centre that deals with all the stores

Don't mention the credit on the tv

Tell them its broke and that you will give 7 days to fix it after that you wont contact them again and that you will go straight to the small claims court

If you don't hear back lodge the complaint with the small claims court don't mention the credit

Then if you go to court which is highly unlikely you can explain everything to the judge they are a real person and you have a straight forward case

Potential-Monke

Unfortunately, HN don't work that way. They straight up said that because it was through FR, they have nothing to do with it. And even if I didn't mention FR, it's on their system that it was bought through them. I'd get nowhere.

I am however reading up on the Credit Consumer Act 1995, which was quoted to me by FR. He kept clarifying that it was a credit consumer agreement, and not a Hire Purchase agreement. But I've found that under the Credit Consumer Act 1995, and under Part VII, which is the section covering Consumer-Hire Agreements, there is section 88, which states that sections 75-83 apply to Consumer-Hire Agreements, and in that there is section 76 which covers the implied undertakings as to quality or fitness. I've emailed FR again with this information.

mittimitti

id still take them to the small claims court its worth it for 25€

I doubt they want to go and it might be worth them just fixing the tv

Potential-Monke

mittimitti wrote: »

id still take them to the small claims court its worth it for 25€

I doubt they want to go and it might be worth them just fixing the tv

Again, FR seem fairly hell bent on sticking to their guns. I've emailed them with the sections I've mentioned above, and I've also emailed HN more to let them know of their guilt by association, and how terrible it is to be dealing with a company that will do anything to get out of having to pay what must be a paltry amount to keep a customer happy.

The lad in CCPC told me that I can't take them to the SCC.

mittimitti

Id still for the sake of 25 take them to the small claims court

you file the case against the two companies and they have to defend themselves

unlikely that either party will want to go and spend the day in court

mittimitti

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Again, FR seem fairly hell bent on sticking to their guns. I've emailed them with the sections I've mentioned above, and I've also emailed HN more to let them know of their guilt by association, and how terrible it is to be dealing with a company that will do anything to get out of having to pay what must be a paltry amount to keep a customer happy.

The lad in CCPC told me that I can't take them to the SCC.

Just as an fyi the only people that can tell you if you can go to the small claims court are the small claims court

Potential-Monke

mittimitti wrote: »

Just as an fyi the only people that can tell you if you can go to the small claims court are the small claims court

Taken from the Small Claims Court webpage:

Excluded from the small claims procedure are claims arising from:


(a) a hire-purchase agreement

(b) a breach of a leasing agreement

(c) debts

I'm in contact with a solicitor in Dublin now, who deal with consumer issues. I'm not going to give up on this!

mittimitti

call the small claims court and explain whats happened and they will tell you what you can do

its the cheapest option

Potential-Monke

Surprisingly, I got a call from the manager in HN enquiring about the tv and the issue i'm having. I did email them straight after email FR again, outline that I wouldn't be purchasing from them again due to their association with Flexirent, and while they are separate from them, it looks bad on them to be dealing with a company that don't give a rattlers about the customer. So this lad from HN is ringing me back on Thursday to arrange for the tv to be collected to be inspected, but stated that if there is any fault found which points towards a consumer caused fault, I would be liable for any charges to fix same, all the while telling me if it's a screen/lcd issue, it's cheaper to buy another tv... Let's see how that goes. Hopefully the solicitor can tell me if i'm at something or nothing at all!

Vodafone tried to screw me over before, and I ended up in a 3 way battle with them, Eir and Comreg. I won in the end, so I've more than enough will to see this through.

davo10

mittimitti wrote: »

call the small claims court and explain whats happened and they will tell you what you can do

its the cheapest option

You do realise that no matter how many times you say the wrong thing, it doesn't make it right?

The op is not the purchaser, is not the owner and seems to be in a rental agreement. Why waste another €25 to be told you can't use the SCC against HN because of the above? HN will just say they have no record of ever selling a TV to the OP.

mittimitti

the small claims court only take payment if they accept the case

theteal

Apologies but I've only been half kind of popping in and out of this thread but I'm struggling to grasp this one a little. So the OP has been paying installments since collecting the telly - but they're not installments, they're rental payments?

Was the OP ever going to own the telly?
How much has been paid to date?

And because of this set up, it's looking very difficult to exercise consumer rights now that the device is faulty.

Anyway, hopefully HN do the right thing and repair the device without charge.

davo10

mittimitti wrote: »

the small claims court only take payment if they accept the case

"To be eligible to use the procedure, you, the 'consumer' must have bought the goods or services (or the service) for private use from someone selling them in the course of business. As a 'business' you must have bought the goods or services (or the service) for use in business from someone selling them in the course of business."

This quote is from the court.ie website, it clearly and in very simple terms it must be said, states that the consumer (op) must have bought the goods for private use. Now the op has clearly stated that under the terms of his agreement with Flexirent that he did not buy the TV from HN, flexirent did therefore they are the owners.

Not only that, the court.ie goes on to clearly, and again simply state that HP and lease agreements are excluded from SCC procedures.

"Excluded from the small claims procedure are claims arising from:

(a) a hire-purchase agreement

(b) a breach of a leasing agreement"


Baring all the above in mind and considering it is not my/other posters opinion but actually a statement on procedure by the court services, why would bother with the SCC?

The op has to deal with flexirent and because it is a lease or possibly a HP type agreement, it is also excluded from SCC procedures.

Potential-Monke

theteal wrote: »

Apologies but I've only been half kind of popping in and out of this thread but I'm struggling to grasp this one a little. So the OP has been paying installments since collecting the telly - but they're not installments, they're rental payments?.

I went to HN to say I wanted x telly on Flexirent. The tv was about €1350, and I agreed a 24 month installment plan with intent to buy at the end. I was intent on getting that point across, I wanted to own the tv at the end, and I was brought through the end of term options. It was explained to me that at the end of the 24 months, I can make an offer to buy it (usually 1 or 2 extra payments), give it back, or get something else on FR and keep the tv.

theteal wrote: »

Was the OP ever going to own the telly?.

If at the end of the agreement, I can offer another payment or two, and I can "purchase" the tv.

theteal wrote: »

How much has been paid to date?.

22x87.86=1932.92.

theteal wrote: »

And because of this set up, it's looking very difficult to exercise consumer

Exactly. They seem to be hiding behind legislation, but i'm fairly sure I've found a loop hole, or something they've overlooked. We'll see how HN can help, my contact with the solicitor has sent the information to the litigation department, and I've also provided further information to a reply from FR.