Issue with tv

L1011

Not the 2 year part.

I was being polite in saying you're wrong. I'm not going to bother now.

You're wrong, and not helping the OP in the process

dudara

The 2 year component was not converted to Irish law as our consumer protection is deemed stronger. Notice the phrase "Certain Aspects" in the SI title you quote above.

An EU Regulation must be converted to national law (e.g. the GDPR and the 2018 Data Protection Act), but Directives are a little more loose and countries have options on how they adopt them

0ph0rce0

I bought a macbook from Harvey Norman a while back and after the warranty was up the screen packed in.

Brought it back to them as Apple said it's HN's problem., They looked at it, saw the screen was knackered and had it sorted in a few days. No charge, no repair fee..

They said it was out of warranty but I/They were covered under the 2 or 6 year EU Guarantee (can't remember which one), Would this not apply in this instance? as you'd expect a TV to last for more than a year.

whiterebel

STB. wrote: »

I believe you are misinfomed.

Directive 1999/44/EC was transcribed through SI 11/2003.

Statutory Instrument. No. 11/2003 - European Communities (Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees) Regulations 2003

No, you are mis-informed. the 2 years was never brought in, as we deemed the SoGA to provide better protection. Even Apple acknowledge the SoGA on their support page for Ireland rather than the 2 year warranty.

dudara

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

They said it was out of warranty but I/They were covered under the 2 or 6 year EU Guarantee (can't remember which one), Would this not apply in this instance? as you'd expect a TV to last for more than a year.

Leave warranties out of the discussion for now. All that legally matter are your consumer rights. Under Irish consumer law, you are entitled to expect a product to last a reasonable lifetime, given no excessive wear & tear. This allows some interpretation, e.g. high end goods could be expected to last longer than cheaper versions. For a decent TV, I would be of the opinion that at least 5 years is reasonable.

However, if you’ve had a TV for say 3 years before it packs in, you have to acknowledge the fact that you’ve had use of the TV for three years. So assuming a 5 year life span, that means you can reasonably expect to get a refund or replacement to the value of 40%. There’s no hard and fast rules on this but more about applying a reasonable interpretation.

STB.

whiterebel wrote: »

No, you are mis-informed. the 2 years was never brought in, as we deemed the SoGA to provide better protection. Even Apple acknowledge the SoGA on their support page for Ireland rather than the 2 year warranty.

Actually the problem is that there are Two sets of regulations in relation to consumer rights and protection. One is the EU regs and the SOGA from 1980 which has been amended a zillion times by other acts and statutory instruments over the years. It's such a problem to follow that the Gov attempted to consolidate all 3 years ago in the Consumer Rights Bill. The draft scheme was actually published but put on hold as the EU were publishing directives in relation to digital content and online contracts.

Regardless under European Directive 1999/44/EC, every country in the EU must ensure a retailer is liable for “non-conformities” which happen within two years of purchase. The Sale of Goods Act gives you even more power and covers goods for up to six years depending on what it is. A 2 grand TV carries reasonable durability expectation.

The ECC Ireland published a detailed note for retailers in April such was the confusion over warranties internal shop policies and statutory consumer rights.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/faulty-goods-know-your-rights-if-things-go-wrong-1.3450322

L1011

We satisfy that directive with the SOG&SOS Act, though. That is the entire point. The "EU two year warranty" does not exist here and the EU directive is not what you use to get your consumer rights via the courts.

STB.

L1011 wrote: »

We satisfy that directive with the SOG&SOS Act, though. That is the entire point. The "EU two year warranty" does not exist here and the EU directive is not what you use to get your consumer rights via the courts.

Just to clarify. You said that the EU legislation on sale of goods and associated guarantees was never transposed into Irish law. It was and I quoted you the relevant SI earlier. Then you said that the two year part wasn't. I never said it was. The reason is outlined below.

Also Not once did I mention the word warranty. Or the words the "EU two year warranty". "Guarantee" is the word I used.

Now just to get back to this argument that you have created claiming the directive was not transposed. It was. I cited it earlier. What you are talking about is the harmonisation with the minimum standards that the directive set.

The Irish legislators at the time kept the existing levels of consumer protection for the sale of goods and guarantees because they were greater than those suggested in the directive. This was an option during transposition. The UK did likwise. To say that the directive was not transposed is incorrect.

Furthermore Ireland has transposed both 1999/44/EC (sale of goods and associated guarantees) and also 2011/83/EC (consumer rights national implementation) as of 13/6/2014.

A full summary of all members states conformity is attached and the nuances that exist.

On page 4 it summarises the implementation of the legal guarantee per member state under those directives for faulty goods.

Now tell me where I was "misinformed".

L1011

You said there is a 2 year guarantee. There isn't. You are wrong.

I said the 2 year legislation wasn't transposed after you repeatedly insisted it was. It isn't. You were wrong.

This is off topic and of zero help to the OP. Do not post about it again

STB.

L1011 wrote: »

You said there is a 2 year guarantee. There isn't. You are wrong.

I said the 2 year legislation wasn't transposed after you repeatedly insisted it was. It isn't. You were wrong.

This is off topic and of zero help to the OP. Do not post about it again

So you accept now I was talking about Guarantees in the context of consumer rights.

The transposition of the directive on the sale of goods was satisfied. You are shutting me down because you still refuse to accept you are wrong.

The only difference is that Ireland did not implement the minimum period of 2 years because we already had 6 years since 1980. If you'd bothered to read the ECC summary sheet you would have seen that

This is helpful to the OP and not the first time nor the last that I have posted in the consumer issues forum. I don't come hear to settle fights with mods despite what you type in bold.

UKLad

Thanks everyone for the advice, I have given Harvey Norman until today to resolve before it goes Small Claims. They keep insisting they are trying to help and they are waiting for LG to resolve. Given i brought this up originally on the 31st July I have given more than enough time to resolve. I hope I am given some sort of store credit as I am concerned that if it was repaired that I may encounter the same issue again. How far can i push this as the sales of goods act doesn't specify other than their are options. how would small claims view if i did not want a repair? instead wanted a replacement to the value of the tv or a store credit?

.G.

You don't get to decide what recourse you are given as long as HV offer you one of the three R's they've fulfilled their obligations. If they keep saying they are waiting for LG you'll just have to wait for the SCC to make a determination and force them down whatever path the court decides.

When I went to SCC myself I was given a partial refund as I had use of my item for a period of time before it went bang. This is most likely what you'll get. It won't be the full cost of the TV as you got over a year out of it before it went.

UKLad

Harvey Norman got back to me tonight saying LG will get back to them now on Tuesday of next week as its a bank holiday. I've told them i will contact small claims and feel it has taken to long. I asked them to clarify why they are involving LG. According to them as its out of warranty there is a different process to getting it repaired? In my opinion this should have been resolved a lot earlier. Surely its just a case of ordering the parts to get it fixed, I put it to them that they are trying to get LG to pay for the repair but they deny this.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

UKLad wrote: »

Harvey Norman got back to me tonight saying LG will get back to them now on Tuesday of next week as its a bank holiday. I've told them i will contact small claims and feel it has taken to long. I asked them to clarify why they are involving LG. According to them as its out of warranty there is a different process to getting it repaired? In my opinion this should have been resolved a lot earlier. Surely its just a case of ordering the parts to get it fixed, I put it to them that they are trying to get LG to pay for the repair but they deny this.

You stick with HN needing to sort you out. Any decision from LG is between LG and HV and has no bearing on your issue or need for recompense.

theteal

OK, too much messing about at this stage. Anymore contact with HN needs to be in written form so you have documented your efforts for the SCC. You do not give two flying schits about what HN need from LG, your issue needs to be resolved by HN and you're very correct to be sticking to this point. I'd normally advise that you send a registered letter to HN HQ detailing the issues before starting the SCC claim but as they've messed you about for so long already it feels like it's more of a time waste - maybe send the letter as well as start SCC claim tomorrow.

Also any confidence in HN is completely gone at this stage so I would be requesting a refund in the SCC claim - you may not get it but I would regard it as a reasonable request.

UKLad

Very happy today as Harvey Norman have agreed to a store credit to the value of what i paid originally. Am now the owner of the latest LG OLED the C8 which they also gave me a discount on. They are going to pick up the faulty tv also. Manager called me today to advise which i didn't expect as i thought i may have to go small claims. What may have helped is i requested a data access request under GDPR for any information held about my complaint.

Hoping this helps others who may be in the same situation.

theteal

UKLad wrote: »

Very happy today as Harvey Norman have agreed to a store credit to the value of what i paid originally. Am now the owner of the latest LG OLED the C8 which they also gave me a discount on. They are going to pick up the faulty tv also. Manager called me today to advise which i didn't expect as i thought i may have to go small claims. What may have helped is i requested a data access request under GDPR for any information held about my complaint.

Hoping this helps others who may be in the same situation.

I’m a smidge embarrassed to say that I do get a little warm fuzzy feeling when someone succeeds in exercising their consumer rights in the face of this warranty bolloxology. Fair play OP







P.S. not actually embarrassed in the slightest

tedpan

UKLad wrote:

Very happy today as Harvey Norman have agreed to a store credit to the value of what i paid originally. Am now the owner of the latest LG OLED the C8 which they also gave me a discount on. They are going to pick up the faulty tv also. Manager called me today to advise which i didn't expect as i thought i may have to go small claims. What may have helped is i requested a data access request under GDPR for any information held about my complaint.

Nice, what size did you get? It's a beautiful TV

UKLad

tedpan wrote: »

Nice, what size did you get? It's a beautiful TV

55” had the B6 which had the issue with the banding and went for the C8. Delivery on Saturday!

dudara

Delighted you got it sorted and that you’re happy!

For future reference, you do not have to accept store credit if it is offered. You are entitled to an actual refund. However, store credit can suit a lot of people and they’re happy to take it. The main thing is that you’re aware.

UKLad

thanks to everyone for the advice much appreciated!

hardybuck

UKLad wrote: »

Very happy today as Harvey Norman have agreed to a store credit to the value of what i paid originally. Am now the owner of the latest LG OLED the C8 which they also gave me a discount on. They are going to pick up the faulty tv also. Manager called me today to advise which i didn't expect as i thought i may have to go small claims. What may have helped is i requested a data access request under GDPR for any information held about my complaint.

Hoping this helps others who may be in the same situation.

I am going through a similar process in relation to a Panasonic camera I bought in Harvey Norman, which we noticed was malfunctioning 50 weeks after we bought it, but we got home when it was about 53 weeks old.

Same process of trying to get the manufacturer to take responsibility, but after they wouldn't, they've basically told me that they can't/won't do any more for me.

I've been very patient to date, but my next step is to formally write to them to seek redress one more time before I am forced to go through the Small Claims Court.

Hoping for the best but this gives me some cause for optimism.

dudara

To be clear, it's not the manufacturer you take to the Small Claims Court, it's the retailer. Your contract of sale is with the retailer and that's who you need to engage with, and bring to the SCC if needed.

hardybuck

dudara wrote: »

To be clear, it's not the manufacturer you take to the Small Claims Court, it's the retailer. Your contract of sale is with the retailer and that's who you need to engage with, and bring to the SCC if needed.

Absolutely. The retailer have consistently tried to sell the line that the manufacturer and supplier are my only hope for getting redress, whereas I'm reminding them that it's them I'll ultimately be pursuing.

hardybuck

Just by way of an update, I formally wrote to the store manager this morning setting out my issue and explaining the type of redress that I was hoping for, and setting out that I would be prepared to go to the small claims court if I didn't hear back within the next week.

The store phoned me back this afternoon to say they're happy enough to go to the SCC. They feel that a 12 month manufacturers warranty is sufficient, and customers have the option of buying extended warranty if they wish to do so.

I feel the last bit is a bit cheeky as they seemingly feel that they can walk away from you as a customer if you don't buy the extended warranty.

Anyway, looks as though the SCC is my only remaining option to seek redress from them. Really unhappy with their customer service approach, I wouldn't recommend that any of my friends or family shop there in the future.

theteal

hardybuck wrote: »

Just by way of an update, I formally wrote to the store manager this morning setting out my issue and explaining the type of redress that I was hoping for, and setting out that I would be prepared to go to the small claims court if I didn't hear back within the next week.

The store phoned me back this afternoon to say they're happy enough to go to the SCC. They feel that a 12 month manufacturers warranty is sufficient, and customers have the option of buying extended warranty if they wish to do so.

I feel the last bit is a bit cheeky as they seemingly feel that they can walk away from you as a customer if you don't buy the extended warranty.

Anyway, looks as though the SCC is my only remaining option to seek redress from them. Really unhappy with their customer service approach, I wouldn't recommend that any of my friends or family shop there in the future.

That's a hilarious response. It just goes to show that at a store level they really have no notion about consumer rights. Tbh I probably would have sent that letter to the head office as opposed to the store but either way they've stated categorically that they won't rectifying the issue so off to the SCC you go

hardybuck

theteal wrote: »

That's a hilarious response. It just goes to show that at a store level they really have no notion about consumer rights. Tbh I probably would have sent that letter to the head office as opposed to the store but either way they've stated categorically that they won't rectifying the issue so off to the SCC you go

Yeah really, really poor. They either aren't aware of the consumer legislation or are quite aware and just don't respect it.

I'm going to go to Head Office and make a data request for any information they have on their systems regarding the complaint.

L1011

Chance of them even turning up in court is minimal

ED E

While Hardly Normal are a joke(losing money year on year) this does seem to cover a big portion of the electricals space. The Dixons Group pull very similar sh1t, consumer right? Ya didnt buy the warranty, fvck off.

That basically leaves Argos (Superb) and small folk like Powercity/Richer Sounds. The worrying thing is this probably means they walk all over people daily and get away with it as pushing these issues does take a little know how and persistence.

I'm reminded of the previous TV thread.

hardybuck

ED E wrote: »

While Hardly Normal are a joke(losing money year on year) this does seem to cover a big portion of the electricals space. The Dixons Group pull very similar sh1t, consumer right? Ya didnt buy the warranty, fvck off.

That basically leaves Argos (Superb) and small folk like Powercity/Richer Sounds. The worrying thing is this probably means they walk all over people daily and get away with it as pushing these issues does take a little know how and persistence.

I'm reminded of the previous TV thread.

I didn't realise that they were losing money...

I have since bought one TV from Richer Sounds, and another from DID. I found DID very honest from a sales perspective, no faults as yet. I also bought a cooker for €3k yesterday from a family business going back three generations, no chance in hell I was going to Harvey Norman for that.

One thing I also didn't like in HN when looking at TVs was that all the companies had their reps in store, and they really tried to upsell everything. DID did not try that at all, and Richer Sounds have a fantastic reputation on all fronts.