LG TV - 16months old no longer working

Dav010 wrote: »

This is not true. After 6 months the burden switches to the buyer to prove a fault exists in the item.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer/shopping/repairs_replacements_and_refunds.html

There is a huge difference between analysing a problem and demonstrating a problem. The Op can easily demonstrate that the tv does not work thus proving a fault exists.
In addition a tv that fails after 16 months is “not fit for purpose” .

Dav010 wrote: »

Up to 6 months there is an assumption that the fault existed when it was purchased, after 6 months the onus transfers to the buyer to prove it existed when bought. Just because it no longer works does not automatically mean it was faulty, as other posters have said, a fault caused by a power surge is not a manufacturing fault and does not mean the TV was not fit for purpose when sold. Did you read the link I posted? The pertinente part is the text in the box relating to pre/post 6 months.

I am very much aware of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act.
What is “pertinent “ is decided by a court.

Do you understand the concept of “fit for purpose”.

If a component fails after such a short period (16 months) then it or another component part of the circuitry was “not fit for purpose”

A well designed and properly manufactured piece of electronic equipment should not fail in such a short period. The six month period covers the concept of component infant mortality, but then the component life moves into sustainability.

Speculation on a power failure being the cause is just that “speculation”
The retailers technical resource would determine the nature of the fault.
A purchaser is not required to have the technical expertise to determine the cause of failure.

Cerco wrote: »

I am very much aware of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act.
What is “pertinent “ is decided by a court.

Do you understand the concept of “fit for purpose”.

If a component fails after such a short period (16 months) then it or another component part of the circuitry was “not fit for purpose”

A well designed and properly manufactured piece of electronic equipment should not fail in such a short period. The six month period covers the concept of component infant mortality, but then the component life moves into sustainability.

Speculation on a power failure being the cause is just that “speculation”
The retailers technical resource would determine the nature of the fault.
A purchaser is not required to have the technical expertise to determine the cause of failure.

I agree it is speculation, but a retailer is within their rights to charge the consumer to investigate the source of the problem, if it is found to be a manufacturing fault, of course the consumer is entitled to redress under SOGaSA.

I certainly do understand the term “fit fit purpose”, I also understand that failure can occur due to actions/events beyond the control of the retailer/ manufacturer, for instance misuse or electrical surges. Again, if, and that is only an if, the fault was caused by a power surge, then neither the retailer nor the manufacturer are responsible for this. If the retailer agrees to open the unit and sees fried circuitry, then there is absolutely no guarantee the SCC will see this as it being not fit for purpose.

You said what is pertinent is what the Court decides, that decision must take into account the legislation on which its decisions are based, so I’m going to refer you back to the link I posted.

James Bond Junior wrote: »

I know, I was lucky as it was sorted out very well in the end. But being called a liar is the ultimate insult to me. I can trace it all back to an incident in 4th class when I was wrongfully accused of something by the teacher!

Nothing in that response suggests that they are responding to your incorrect threat of action under the EU directive.

The EU directive does not apply here and HN would have known that.

Panasonic probably did this as a goodwill gesture as you had no contract with them.

So I am correct that your assertion of threatening them with EU law did not elicit the response as your contract was with HN and they did not provide any remedy to you.


You may have thought so, but any recompense you got was goodwill gesture by panasonic.

James Bond Junior wrote: »

I did well then, fine. But don't call people liars.

I did not call you a liar - I said it was "possibly" made up as it simply did not add up as you had stated - and it doesn't. You got a goodwill refund which many decent retailers and suppliers will do (eg, buying something in a shop and changing your mind, shop gives you refund. They don't have to, but they do so hoping that you will continue to buy from them)

Too many people, harp on about this eu legislation not realising that they are wrong and actually have stronger rights. Posts that say someone was "successful" stating this eu law just re-enforce this error and make people look foolish when they quote it.

Im unclear, is the Sale of Goods Act 1980 the best to quote when dealing with a seller of a tv where they are insisting on a repair? I was told, its the law and they have a right to offer to repair first. I see from the CCPC website, they say for goods bought on or before 28th Nov 2022, that you can reject the item and get a full refund, I'm only looking for a like for like replacement, so not even a refund.

The CCPC info includes the following:

"If the business fails to repair or replace the item within a reasonable timeframe, you can request a full refund."