Hi, I bought this TV in November 2016. I paid a little less actually, it was $579 including shipping to QLD
It has since died see this video
Now, catchoftheday only provided a 1 Year Warranty, but I feel like surely I am entitled to more.
I have just requested a refund (or replacement), but if refused… what should I do? Do I have any rights?
I don't think it's a sense of entitlement to expect a refund when a TV has only lasted 1.33 years. I've looked into Australian Consumer Law (ACCC website) and I believe I am entitled, I have just left this question quite open ended to I know WHAT to say to catch of the day if I am refused….
Do you think I have a sense of entitlement for expecting a refund?
I'd say you're right
ACCC.
When you have a major problem with a product, you have the right to ask for your choice of a replacement or refund.
Just link them to this or start a complaint.
Use the ACL information on the ACCC website.
does the 2 yrs statutory warranty covers tv ?
No such thing. Consumer law dictates what a person would reasonably expect a TV to last. 1 year is not reasonable. Case Law has up to 8 years.
Thanks for you help so far everyone! This case will be useful.
I think it's worth it because I don't think it's acceptable for catch of the day to sell a product that only last 1 year. This TV was advertised as having a SAMSUNG panel. I did my research and nothing stood out that would make me expect it not to last 1.5 years.
It might be more effort for me to pursue a refund, but if everyone has this attitude, then that only incentivises more businesses putting poor quality products on the market. If everyone fought for a refund, then this disincentivises businesses putting poor quality product on the market and everyone win!. I plan to do the latter. But please… don't call me a hero…. haha. ;)
how much was 55" 4k samsung a year ago ?
not a few buck i guess, double that and more
you get what you pay for at the end of the day
12 month warranty doesn't imply that the TV will fail on its ass after 12 months.
No it doesn't. But it does state that the TV will last for at least 12 months…which it did.
Clearly there would have been no question if it hadn't lasted 12 months. Since it did, it's out of warranty and the question is, as the OP has correctly asked, is it reasonable to expect a tv of that price to last longer than it did, and the answer I'm pretty sure will be yes.
@SlickMick: Sure, I don't disagree. But the FACT is that the warranty was explicitly 12 months, a fact that the buyer knew when purchased the TV. I'm not saying he doesn't have a point only that he is SOL when it comes to making a claim. Doesn't hurt to try though I guess?
You need to watch The Checkout. Yes
So how much to repair?
Was there extended warranty on offer at the time?
(Buy it cheap, buy it twice is a motto that has served me well. :) )
Rather than ask the wannabee lawyers here, go to the ACCC and seek their opinion - simples!
The accc opinion would be to contact qld fair trading.
https://www.qld.gov.au/law/your-rights/consumer-rights-compl…
Yes but it'll take a lot of effort.
So you bought a POS TV and are now unhappy it clapped out after warranty? This site never fails to deliver…
I actually had a similar issue with Kogan that I asked about here. After initially being declined I pushed and ended up receiving a replacement. (Apple TV unit in this case).
I've never understood this "reasonable" service life is all about. It's so ill defined, undefined even, and it's absurd that it is referenced.
If I expect or if a product alludes to being durable and lasts for decades, I wouldn't buy it if it only offered a fraction of that as warranty. If I did, I'd only expect the chain of supply to be liable during that period.
Having said that, I do expect a TV to last several years so I'd be unhappy but I wouldn't feel entitled to compensation. My happiness and what I am entitled to is, more often than not, asynonymous.
This is why we only buy tv brands that offer at least a three years consumer guarantee.
Four months out of the manufacture’s warranty it a long time. The manufacturer should issue a partial refund as a gesture of goodwill. Somewhere between 10% to 15% would be reasonable.
Which TV brands offer "at least a three years consumer guarantee"? I thought ALL TV brands have to comply with the consumer guarantee and that the guarantee doesn't apply to different brands in differing numbers of years.
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/the-best-4k-tvs-under-120…
One of Hisense’s selling points over the competition is that their TVs come with a three year warrantyhttps://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/review/tcl/x2-lcd-qled-tv/630…
The TV also comes with a 3-year warranty.
A warranty is different from the consumer guarantee. A warranty is a voluntary facility offered by the manufacturer. The consumer guarantee is enforceable by law. TV brands don't have to 'offer' it. All manufacturers selling in Australia are bound by law to abide by the consumer guarantee.
Different definitions doesn’t take away the reality that some brands offer remedies above what is legally required.
Hisense provides a 3-year in-house replacement manufacturer warranty, which is something they’ve been doing for more than seven years.
@whooah1979: Mate you seem to have got warranty and consumer guarantee mixed up. It IS legally required to provide a more than 1 year (usually more even more than a 3 year) consumer guarantee. Even with TVs which come with a 1 year warranty, retailers/manufacturers cannot refuse to repair/ replace/ refund if it breaks after less than a 'reasonable period' of service. As for what a 'reasonable period' is, a previous case has established it as 8 years.
It may be less of a hassle to get service on a broken TV which has a 3 year warranty (if within the 3 years) but legally manufacturers are required to repair/ replace/ refund irrespective of the orginal 'warranty' provided.
Explained in the Checkout:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCW6NuLEMNA
http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT…
It IS legally required to provide a more than 1 year consumer guarantee.
this is a misconception. schedule 2 doesn't specify that manufacturers have to provide a minimum 1-year or 12-months warranty for their goods.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00375/Html/Volu…
the act allows the magistrate to determine what is considered a reasonable period of time.
peters v panasonic is one case where both parties agreed that eight years was reasonable. the applicant in this case wanted a full refund, which was unreasonable. they received a partial refund of 81%.
@whooah1979: You are again getting warranty and consumer guarantee mixed up.
I agree there is no legal requirement to provide a minimum 1-year guarantee. However, under the ACL it is expected that a TV will last more than 1 year. Each case does not have to go to a magistrate. I've seen mentioned in this forum that, for example Samsung consider 5 years to be a reasonable period even though their TVs come with a 1 year warranty period.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy your TV with 3 year warranty. I myself look at other aspects of the TV before purchasing as I know the ACL has me covered when it comes to repairs.
Have a great weekend!
Buy a better quality product next time and you probably won't have to ask the question.
"probably"
but yeah, first few comments in linked deal are a big warning - aside from being non 'brand'.
Even some better brands can suffer infant mortality for some products.
Hi, I bought this TV in November last year. I paid a little less actually, it was $579 including shipping to QLD
November last year? Only 4 months old then still in warranty
Ahh whoops. I'm still living in 2017 it seems. I bought it in 2016
LOL
I would keep at catch of the day using the ACCC lines. Their first instance is always to quote the warranty and hope you go away. We have a credit card that offers extended warranty on purchases.
the ACL stuff is always worded with plenty of leway for both sides, slightly unrelated but a good example, JB write it as "Consumer Guarantees have no set time limit but generally last for an amount of time that is reasonable to expect given factors including the cost and quality of the product or any representations made."
JB themselves place a $500-$1000 electronic at 1-2.5years old in the repair and only offer a replacement if it cant be repaired category, note it doesn't say refund, although every one of their category descriptions say the ACL can override it in certain circumstances.
tbh given its cotd and an unknown brand i'd almost call the 1 year warranty reasonable but its not a hard argument to make that it's not reasonable for tvs at large and they should at least be looking to repair or replace it, free of charge, but good luck getting cotd to agree to that.
if you feel that put out by the situation then keep hounding COTD or actually do what they know 99% of people want to and take it to the next level
I had an issue with an expensive item for out of warranty.
I used words in my letter from the Australian Comsumer Law legislation - especially mentioning Statutory
Warranry amd the reasonable expectation that an item in thd price range would last longer than 13 months.
A replacement was offered. Written complaint directly then Fair Trading.
Quote the right words.
I am not convinced COD is going to care though. I only stick with reputable retailers these days.
If you bought it with a reasonable credit card then you get an extra year's warranty over and above the warranty provided. Therefore you have 2 years coverage. Refer to your credit card fine print. Most likely it will be an insurance claim that will pay out to the value of the item you purchased less a $75 excess.
The 12 month warranty is just a MINIMUM warranty provided by the manufacturer/seller.
Its often used in an attempt to avoid the Consumers right to a rectification outside the 12 month warranty period.
From the ACCC web site:
"Since 1 January 2011, the following consumer guarantees on products and services apply.
Products must be of acceptable quality, that is:
safe, lasting, with no faults
look acceptable
do all the things someone would normally expect them to do.
Acceptable quality takes into account what would normally be expected for the type of product and cost."
Certainly one would expect a TV to last much longer than 16 months and this is the basis of OP's claim fore a repair, replacement or refund.
A remedy such as a repair, replacement with an item of equal value or a partial refund would be reasonable.
A full refund would unreasonable.
pyramid on 15/03/2018 - 17:22 Comment score below threshold.
