How to get repairs outside Warranty Period - Australian Consumer Guarantee

jhmtaylor on 05/07/2018 - 19:40
Last edited 12/01/2020 - 05:22 by 1 other user

I recently had an experience with a 4 year old TV made by one of the big Korean Manufacturers that was purchased from a major Australian retailer.

4 1/2 years ago I purchased a 55" TV and paid $3500. 2 Months ago the TV screen stopped working and I rang the manufacturer to organise repairs. The manufacturer looked up the details and advised that it was out of warranty and I would be billed for the repairs. I advised that I was not interested in manufacturers warranty but wanted to claim under "Australian Consumer Guarantee". I was then transferred to another "customer care department". After 2 days the 2nd customer care department advised that they would pay for parts and labour to repair the TV. Yee Haa!

Unfortunately, the repairer advised that it was not repairable because parts were not available and they referred me back to the manufacturer. After 2 days the manufacturer advised that they were going to cash settle the matter by refunding the purchase price less a deduction for existing use. The payment proposed was 3/7ths of the purchase price on the basis that the TV was 4 years old and the economic life was expected to be 7 years. Ie the payment proposed was $1500.

I challenged this and lodged a claim in the small claims court against both the manufacturer and the retailer seeking compensation based on an economic life of 10 years not 7 years and including the TV bracket that was now obsolete. Today I received a call from the retailer saying they would refund the full purchase price of $3500. Some points that others may find useful in how I achieved this result (which I am very happy about).

  • In all my dealings I was polite, respectful, unemotional but insistent that I would enforce my rights.
  • I quietly pointed out to the contacts that was an old guy with too much free time on my hands and that I would pursue the matter no matter how long it took. "Even if they won they would lose."
  • When it goes to a court the company will almost certainly pay for lawyers to deal with the matter. The Small Claims is an informal court and legal representation is actually frowned upon. Most importantly legal fees cannot be recovered in the small claims court. The advice from the lawyers to their clients would be along the lines of you are arguing over $700 and our fees that you cannot recover will be at least $6000 each.
  • The fact that the retailer offered a full refund indicates deduction for existing use may not be lawful and they did not want a ruling on this by a court.

The take away points;

  • Respectfully argue your point.
  • Never make threats, actions speak louder than words.
  • Leave emotion and personalities out of it because it makes the problem more difficult to resolve
Electrical & Electronics Warranty

Comments

        • jhmtaylor on 08/07/2018 - 19:37

          The manufacturer said if I wasn't happy with their first offer to contact Consumer Affairs. They too obviously thought CA were useless and weren't going to be a worry to them.

  • Gauntlet on 06/07/2018 - 22:34

    I fear the day my plasma tv dies. I won't be able to afford a new tv. So expensive! I've had it for 9 years so I doubt I'll be able to get it repaired/they won't make the parts anymore. :(

    • JimB on 06/07/2018 - 23:25
      +3

      Same here.

      My 65inch Plasma is 8yo now. Picture is still very good, in particular FTA and Sports.

      Although the new OLED is very impressive.

  • ribze1 on 06/07/2018 - 23:04
    +2

    Wow, a 4.5 year old TV and you actually got something out of them, i'm shocked.

    Kogan was so painful to deal with when my 6 month old TV shat itself.

    • ravonda on 06/07/2018 - 23:47

      I bought a KitchenAid blender from Kogan and it came with a defect. They asked me to contact KitchenAid myself, and KitchenAid hasn't been that pleasant to deal with too. :(

      • Micko179 on 07/07/2018 - 04:24
        +2

        Kogan is the retailer, go to them!

      • solidussnake on 07/07/2018 - 09:27
        +2

        They cant do that, its in breech of ACL

      • ravonda on 07/07/2018 - 17:14

        Thanks for the advice. I thought that might be the case too, but KitchenAid has finally agreed to look into it after a few persistent calls/emails. If it doesn't work out, I'll definitely get Kogan to take responsiblity.

  • JimB on 06/07/2018 - 23:31
    +2

    Glad to know you stuck to your guns however I would have been happy with 50% due to depreciation.

    I'm sure after 4.5 years you could find a better TV for $1,750.

    As for sticking it to Harvey Norman, most stores are owned by franchisees, not Gerry. MY Local HN have decent staff and have always offered good service and prices on big ticket items.

  • Capo93 on 06/07/2018 - 23:36
    +1

    I am in a technical service role for a leading white goods manufacture, and in one way it is customers like this that are ruining the industry and prices. While consumers have rights, as things age things break down in life, they tried to repair it, they couldn’t so they basically offered you a pro-rata fee which seemed to be fair. ACL is actually directed to the retailer, not the manufacture and where things go wrong is the retailer will agree to refund or changeover the product, they have not sought authorisation from the manufacture and therefore can’t get a RA for a credit.

    ACL is a treasure map for miss information and is very vague and open for interpretation throughout, an example of that is ACL states “parts must be reasonablely available”, everyone’s definition of a reasonable time frame is different.

    “When a manufacturer doesn't stock parts as required by law, and saves millions of dollars in the process. Is that fair” - A manufacturer is not required to stock parts for a certain time frame as far as i know.

    • Micko179 on 07/07/2018 - 04:30
      +4

      Maybe so, but when you buy a million TV's for $1k each & sell them for $3.5k each & only have 1 of those customers enforce their rights that's still a pretty sweet deal IMHO. Am I right?

      • Capo93 on 07/07/2018 - 08:55
        +7

        They would have paid more then $1k per unit to make it design it, were talking about R&D etc. and trust me, there would have been more then 1 customers to go on about ACL. I’m all for value and rights, but a full refund/store credit on a four year old unit, not a chance.

  • tomadeira on 07/07/2018 - 01:35
    +6

    i think the fact that the author bought his replacement from the same retailer is a critical aspect.

    everyone has a right to what is deemed fair and in this case the comp between 7 and 10 years whilst decided by different agencies were based broadly on the same issue of estimating "useful" life.

    while a lot of you (the op included) may feel he got a rather sweet outcome - that was never the intent of his post i believe.

    Many of you do seem to add your own brand of "green" but i bet the process drawnout affair bit of tact was required throughout the episode.

    Putting in a claim via the small claims court does not guarantee you a victory btw.

    Was all the time and effort required to pursue that extra difference in monetary value which at the time was anybody's guess worth it?

    based on the overwhelming feedback so far - the extra work/risk you took wouldn't be worth the risk (unless you are in the industry thus less of a learning curve?)

    if the question was asked today on the basis that the op has yet to decide on accepting the offer or pursuing something more - the feedback from this forum would be to settle.

    well this wasn't the case so well played i guess. there isn't much substance that we can all take from this though.the man took a bet and won. the fact that he handled this with grace didn't hurt his chances too so maybe learn from that.

    thanks for sharing

  • jason101 on 07/07/2018 - 08:32
    +2

    Anyone ever complain about the "Australia Tax" ? - read this post and understand why.

    • Gnosh on 07/07/2018 - 17:20
      +1

      It has nothing to do with it.

      • jason101 on 09/07/2018 - 09:07
        +1

        You seriously think that placing tough consumer rights protectionism through legislation on product vendors has nothing to do with the higher prices we pay in Australia?

        We pay more here because returns, warranty claims and ACL are factored into the prices we pay for all goods and services.

  • solidussnake on 07/07/2018 - 09:29
    +1

    EX JB HIFI Tv sales man here, If you had bought from these guys Iv'e seen a 7 year old Samsung fully refunded after customers have pushed ACL and the purchase price was around $1500 - 2K lol

  • jhmtaylor on 07/07/2018 - 09:58
    +5

    My only reason for sharing my experience here was draw attention to others that they have rights beyond manufacturer's warranty. For those who are aware of ACL that the guarantee is longer than many people would assume.
    When you have a dispute leaving emotion, threats and any form of bad behaviour out of it, you make it easier for the other party to be able to compromise.

    • tonester on 08/07/2018 - 14:00

      My only reason for sharing my experience here was draw attention to others that they have rights beyond manufacturer's warranty.

      Yes, any explicitly expressed warranty period is the minimum duration that a product should last - its useful working life - to be of acceptable quality as per consumer guarantees.

    • HighAndDry on 09/07/2018 - 10:03

      For the last time, this wasn't a result of you getting your rights under the ACL, it was basically showing that abuse of the court process works. I work in basically this field - I could've told you that if you take big companies to court for trivial amounts of money (to them), they'll likely pay you to go away.

      I appreciate the thought, but to me this is in the same category as unethical lifehacks. Yes, it helps, but at the cost of doing something which is (subjectively, to me at least), just wrong.

    • Ughhh on 09/07/2018 - 18:54

      Probably could've achieved the same outcome similarly, by rolling on the instore screaming until you got your full refund. If you add in some tears, they'll throw in bonuses like accessories and even a free upgrade.

  • DiscoJango on 07/07/2018 - 10:04

    thanks op for posting your story, it gives some good tips and hope to the little guy vs the man!

  • Entropy Sky on 07/07/2018 - 10:56

    Thank you, that is something new l have learned.

    By the way, I could not find the expected economic life spam of laptops, would you know where I could find it?

    My last laptop Graphics Card died on me, and it out of 2 years warranty period, it too late now, but just need to know for future proof.

  • superValue on 07/07/2018 - 11:42

    The post title is misleading but that aside I would appreciate if someone could tell me is there a list on how long a consumer good should last to meet the Australian Consumer Guarantee?

    OP did you win your argument because there was no repair option and if so for how many years must the parts be available?

    • ahly92 on 07/07/2018 - 13:53

      Depends on couple of factors (mainly Price of product), if its a major issue, you have the option of repair, replace, or refund. In most cases replacenmt works out better as the most compareible product would be latest model (worth more than $ paid for older TV)

      Example high end tv would say 7-8 years

    • happydude on 07/07/2018 - 13:58

      There is not and that is the problem, however, putting fixed lifespans on products is also not the answer.

      Everything needs to last as long as a reasonable consumer thinks they should. This leaves everything open to debate based on the individual product, not just a type of product.

      One cheap TV might be expected to last a much shorter period than a more expensive TV. But the same expensive TV might be left on longer and used more which could then be taken into account… many many variables to consider.

      This is why manufacturers usually roll over and give you what you want. The risk of loosing in court with the associated costs outweighs the cost of paying out the refund.

    • trapper on 09/07/2018 - 16:45

      The starting point is basically what a reasonable person would expect.

      ie, Would a reasonable person pay $3500 for a TV if they knew it would die in 4 years.

  • sillyguy on 07/07/2018 - 12:06

    This makes buying TVs at Costco even more appealing…

  • ahly92 on 07/07/2018 - 13:52

    Good Work OP… I had the same Issue and got it resolved too after going back and forth. Ended up with a New TV upgrade, Bigger size.

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/262320

    • superValue on 07/07/2018 - 14:15

      Looks like its best to call the ACCC for every consumer item that stops working to get their unwritten life span on products.

      I bought a car 5 years ago, now out of manufacturer warranty. One of the windscreen spray jets isn't working do you think I'm protected by the law to get it replaced for free?

      • [Deactivated] on 08/07/2018 - 23:51

        Depends on why it stopped working. I had a problem with water leaking into the cabin on a 6 year old car, the dealer fixed the problem free and was paid by Mazda as it was apparently a manufacturers defect. I didn't even have to push them for it, they just did it, even gave me a free loan car while it was fixed.

        Companies that would very much like to sell you a new expensive version, tend to not want their products to be seen as poor by design (Apple excluded). Of course if it's reasonable wear and tear it'll be at your own cost I imagine.

      • trapper on 09/07/2018 - 16:42

        Do you mean the whole car replaced for free? haha

        A faulty windscreen spray jet would be unlikely to qualify as a 'major failure', it should be repaired for free though.

  • ode1online on 07/07/2018 - 15:52
    +1

    I found with Samsung, when my TV played up after 3 years that as they were unable to repair it, it was classed as a MAJOR repair and they were unable to repair it. That they new they had no leg to stand on, so straight away they offered a refund or replacement.
    As the replacement was currently valued MORE than the refund I took the replacement option. So if the manufacturers cant be bothered to stock the spares, then I don't see why they don't just offer up a new TV.

    • [Deactivated] on 08/07/2018 - 23:48

      Yeah, the cost to them of the replacement would have been a fraction of the sticker price though. Companies these days like to make repairable products because they make them so cheaply their labour cost repairing is more than a replacement, and if no one else can repair it, people not pursuing their rights (most people) end up buying a new one, meaning more profit.

  • [Deactivated] on 07/07/2018 - 18:04
    +1

    I'll share my experience. I know the consumer law but really don't have the time to do as the OP did.
    Anyway, I bought an LG curved 55" OLED not long after they came out.
    2 3/4 years later it crapped itself suddenly, just wouldn't display anything.
    Thinking this is still a damn good TV I decided to get it repaired.
    The authorized repair shop wanted a $100 deposit which is deductible from the final cost of repair.
    I paid it hoping it would be something minor and left it with him.
    Two weeks later they called and said it was the mainboard and would cost $400. I said yep go ahead.
    Another two weeks pass and they call and state they have replaced the mainboard and it is not the fault it is the screen.
    At this point I mentioned the consumer law to the manager and he said it will be all right LG will replace the screen gratis.
    It took a couple of months but I got my TV back including the new mainboard with a brand new screen with the protector film still on it.
    And I got my $100 back as well cause LG paid for everything.
    In the meantime I bought a new OLED so now I have this spare OLED TV which is basically new apart from the stand. Still has the protector film on it as I don't really know where I'll use it yet.
    The takeaway I guess is repair shops will go into bat for you if you ask them to.

  • popcornready on 07/07/2018 - 19:33
    +2

    What are the small claims/VCAT feesthese days? $400 odd?

  • HeWhoKnows on 07/07/2018 - 22:11

    The fact is that the dept of fair trading only acts as a liaison person.
    They explain your possible rights.
    They may even agree with you.
    They encourage you to negotiate.
    But they wont go into bat for you.
    A consumer warranty has a broad description but not a definition which you can quantify.
    Hence very difficult to justify any claim in or out of court.
    If you want to take the matter to court you may lose and be liable for your costs

  • jhmtaylor on 08/07/2018 - 06:37
    +3

    In the small claims court (fee $106 in Qld) they are less formal and you do not need to argue points of law. Legal representation is discouraged and legal costs are not reimbursible except in extraordinary circumstances.
    You just explain who, when, when and why in plain English. Provide documentary proof, photos and that's it.

  • Hasbulla on 08/07/2018 - 08:30

    Meanwhile ABC cut funds to "The Checkout": the most OzBargain show ever.

  • Ekliptix on 08/07/2018 - 08:39
    +6

    It’s rare that I’d side with a manufacturer or retailer, but TBH you come across as unreasonable. The original offer was more than fair imo and you pushed it further just because you could.

    • OpayuOnam on 09/07/2018 - 08:33

      As mentioned to another commenter, we have a right to repair/replace/refund and the choice is with us. Manufacturer cannot enforce that.

  • bocca on 08/07/2018 - 09:48
    +1

    Woah epic win.

    When I used to work for Samsung, if they couldn't repair an old TV then they would replace it with a new equivalent model.

    However you did very well considering that 4.5 years is 2.5 years out of warranty, (even for consumer warrenty)

    • [Deactivated] on 08/07/2018 - 23:45
      +2

      A TV should easily last 7-10 years, thus that's what the consumer warranty provides for. You're definitely indoctrinated if you think the consumer warranty for all but the cheapest of TVs is only 2 years.

      Manufacturers have determined that people pursue this option so rarely it's more cost effective to have products that can't be repaired and thus generate more sales from people replacing failed units, rather than to save money by repairing these rather than refunding or providing a newer model (which probably has a lower cost price than the repair).

    • jowu15 on 16/07/2018 - 21:22

      very interesting

    • HighAndDry on 19/07/2018 - 18:04

      Can I point out that you're linking to yourself linking to yourself linking to a page that doesn't say anything remotely resembling what you seem to be quoting?

      • tonester on 09/09/2018 - 03:54

        sorry but you'll find that i'm linking to myself linking to myself (linking to myself) to a post that says exactly (or something similar to) what i'm quoting :)

  • imahapyboy on 09/07/2018 - 00:03
    +2

    so you watched a 55" tv for free for 4 years, poor business, thats why the economic is so shit now

    • trapper on 09/07/2018 - 15:56

      Well that's what happens when you sell dud electronics, maybe manufactures will start to up their game a bit.

  • Marko6164 on 09/07/2018 - 12:13

    Well done OP. Thanks for sharing, especially a positive outcome.

  • wannagrababargain on 09/07/2018 - 13:46

    A Manufacturer's Playbook on how to shirk your obligation to the Australia Consumer Gaurantee

    Step 1. Deny the claim
    Step 2. Stall
    Step 3. Accept the claim and fob off the repair to a third party.
    Step 4. Oh wait, we never designed these things to be repairable and even if they are we refuse to sell the spare parts to third parties.
    Step 5. Offer some cash
    Step 6. Include piece of paper with all goods containing the boilerplate "These goods can not be excluded from the Australia Consumer Gaurantee", hoping that will fix everything but don't have any actual ACG policy.

  • trapper on 09/07/2018 - 15:54
    +2

    Why was the manufacturer involved at all? You could have resolved through the retailer and let them worry about the logistics of it all.

    • Capo93 on 09/07/2018 - 20:07

      The manufacturer warrants the item and decides if they want to offer goodwill and repair it, not the retailer, so plenty of reasons for the manufacture to get involved. Some retailers won’t agree to a replacement/refund until they know they can get there money back from the manufacturer.

      • trapper on 11/07/2018 - 18:07
        -1

        Replacement for a $3500 TV failing after only four years does not require any good will - it is the law.

  • elgrande on 09/07/2018 - 17:59

    Thanks for sharing.

  • OWKnowitall1 on 09/07/2018 - 18:17

    lol

  • eegos on 09/07/2018 - 20:56

    Plus 1 for the advice!!

  • Ziggy28 on 27/01/2021 - 16:50

    Great information, I am also pursuing a similar claim against one of the big Korean Manufacturers and the item was purchased from a major Australian retailer.

  • subywagon on 29/03/2021 - 08:37

    I'm currently having a warranty issue where I bought an item from an online store via eBay and it failed within their own warranty period and they are ignoring all my correspondence. I got NSW Fair Trading involved and they gave up after a week because they too were ignored. I couldn't believe it! Talk about a toothless tiger. They referred me to NCAT which seems extremely complicated, I can't even see where to categorise my claim on their online form.

  • LayG on 19/07/2021 - 17:18

    Reviving this thread a bit.

    My story, 3yr 3 months old Sony 60 inch (costed $1000) has the 6 red lights issue (meaning it won't switch on after powered off, it might if I do a hard reset and this is hit and miss) .

    First call : Sony tried to help over the phone with troubleshooting (which I have done several times) : it failed and they wanted me to post the copy of receipt, issue

    They emailed back to say that repair is not possible and they would offer a trade in

    Second call (today) : A guy from Sydney (as per the number) calls up with no idea of the issue but called in to offer us 30% discount. He did not even know that we already sent the copy of receipts neither did he know the age of the TV. He also said that he would free shipping that would normally cost $300-$450. The Sony website currently says, its free shipping for order over $200 lol

    Now, if I look at the 65 inch range X90J it is at $2,295 so at 30% discount, I will still have to fork out around $1600.

    I said I was not happy with the offer and I am happy with a repair/replacement or take it up with ACCC. He said they do not have any parts available but will escalate the issue with customer relations and get back to us.

    So waiting to see if they come up with any other offer.

    Any advise in this matter would help me.

    .

    • [Deactivated] on 23/05/2023 - 17:09

      any update ?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join