Faulty 2013 LG LCD TV - Worth Fixing? ACL?

Hi all, I have a 2013 model 42" LG LED TV that was purchased January 2014. It recently began playing up, (no picture, LG logo flashing when turned on and then TV going black). I called LG support and they basically fobbed me off saying that it's out of warranty and to try taking it to their authorised local repair centre for a quote/assessment if I want to get it fixed. I called the repair place and described the issue and the bloke basically just said don't bother, buy a new TV. I thought that was a bit weird because the TV is not THAT old. ( I have an older almost identical LG model that is still going strong). I then decided to take the TV to a third party repair centre for a free quote. They quoted $230 to have the power supply board and back light assembly replaced ($170 parts and $60 labour), with a three month warranty.

Would it be worth getting the TV fixed for the quoted price from the third party repair centre, or should I just be buying a new one? Does anyone have any idea of how much longer the TV might last with these two parts replaced? Are there any other parts that are likely to fail on a TV of this age? Additionally, would I have any options under ACL? I purchased the TV in January 2014 so it's right on the 5 year mark. It wasn't a top of the line model, nor a super cheap model when purchased, more mid range. I would expect a TV like this to last longer than 5 years, especially when I have an older one almost identical to this that is still working well.

Any thoughts or suggestions would be great.

Cheers.

EDIT: LG support have agreed to review my case and see what options they can offer under ACL.

Comments

  • +11

    TV like this to last longer than 5 years,

    This is about 2 or 3 years out of manufacturer's warranty.

      • +16

        then why ask the question if you already know the answer?

        • +5

          Because I'm looking for what the general consensus is on what would be considered a reasonable length of time for a $1000 TV.

          • -2

            @jmys01: but you paid about $800 on sale for it.

            • +2

              @altomic: I did on sale. Doesn't change the fact that it was worth $1000+ at the time. It's a $1000+ TV that I got for $800.

              • +8

                @jmys01: "I'm looking for what the general consensus is on what would be considered a reasonable length of time for a $1000 TV."

                About 12 months.

                • @EightImmortals: I don't think so mate. Choice doesn't agree either. https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advic…

                  • +4

                    @jmys01: I reckon 20 year at least- if you never turn it on.

                    nice Choice article.

                    again, if you have the answer then why ask?

                    • -2

                      @altomic: One would hope so.

                      Only just found the article.

                      That article is only a guide. I am after some real word experience/suggestions from users who may have had a similar experience.

                      • @jmys01:

                        That article is only a guide

                        and so would any opinion here. It also will be a guide.

                        Best bit of advice - ring LG

                  • +8

                    @jmys01: Who cares?

                    The manufacturer says 2 years: https://www.lg.com/ph/support/warranty

                    Now if were within a few months of that then I'd say you might as well try it on and see how you go. As you are THREE YEARS past the warranty period then I'd say you are being unrealistic (at best). But for $230 you can get it fixed….so is the TV that good that would like to keep it going? If not then just replace it and be done with it. $800 isn't much these days so if you want better quality stuff then maybe spend a bit extra to get it. We spend 3K on a panasonic plasma back in 2010 that is still going strong. Buy it cheap, buy it twice my friend.

                  • +1

                    @jmys01: doesnt matter what choice thinks, you need to see if its been tested in a court of law. then you would have a ruling otherwise its just everyones opinion

                • @EightImmortals: 3-5 years ( my LG that came with Blue Ray player, bought in 2013 for $1300 is still working, the Samsung TV, bough for $1600 back in 2009, still working )

              • +10

                @jmys01: If you paid $800 then it was worth $800.

                • +2

                  @HighAndDry: Does that mean there are no bargains on this site if people pay the amount that things are worth?

                  • +2

                    @Savas: Or it means others are paying more than stuff is worth - you know, profit.

                • +4

                  @HighAndDry: That is so wrong….if I was lucky enough to buy one of those limited super discounted phones (eg iphone xsmax 512gb for 1 dollar as a new year promotion by a store that supplied a quantity of 1 in the entire web), in no way it is only worth 1 dollar. Value is judged objectively.

                • -2

                  @HighAndDry: Nah, if the RRP was $1000+, that's how much it's worth. It should be expected to last as long as a $1000+ TV should. Doesn't matter how much I actually got it for.

              • +3

                @jmys01: It doesn't matter what the value of it is, as that is subjective, the amount you paid is used for any relevant calculations under the ACL.

                Further, I would be surprised if LG offer you very much under the ACL, since their obligations are fairly limited by it. Rather the retailer you purchased it from has to deal with it.

                • +3

                  @DogGunn: the price you paid and whats on your receipt!

                  $800 TV that lasted 6 years seems fair. if it was a higher spec model for $2000+, then it might be worth fighting.

                  • @berger: No idea where you're getting 6 years from. It's been clearly stated throughout this thread that the TV only just lasted 5 years. (4 years 11 months to be precise.)

                • +2

                  @DogGunn: I doubt it matters that much what OP paid since the seller pays the same price regardless of whether they sell it for $500 or $2000. If it's the same product you'd expect it to have the same lifetime even if it's discounted. Likewise if the person over pays that wouldn't give them more consumer rights. If taken to court LG would just say they expect that TV to last for 8 years or whatever even if the person paid the seller a million dollars.

                  • +1

                    @Savas: The price paid is essentially the whole consideration, not the value, as the value could otherwise be set at whatever they want. You're also mistaking who most of the ACL liability lies upon. It's not LG, it's the retailer.

                    Unless there is a major safety issue with the TV, LG has very limited liability to fix the issue. The retailer on the other hand has to ensure that the goods meet the consumer guarantees for reasonable amount of time (which is why the amount paid not the value of the goods matter).

                    • +1

                      @DogGunn: I don't think i made a mistake, the obligation is for manufacturers and sellers. The outcome shouldn't matter whether you take it to the retailer who sends it to LG or you take it directly to LG. I don't think LG care that much about what the customer paid for the items when dealing with statutory warranty. Paying more or less wouldn't affect how long LG designed the product should last.

                      • +1

                        @Savas: Yes both have an obligation to provide certain consumer guarantees however the manufacturers liability for the OPs consumer purchase is not to repair it.

                        https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees…

                        You are only entitled to recover costs from a manufacturer or importer, which include an amount for reduction in the product’s value and in some cases compensation for damages or loss.

                        Note that the liability is for costs, not repairing the goods. Whereas:

                        The remedies you can seek from the retailer who sold you the product include a repair, replacement, or refund and in some cases compensation for damages and loss.

                        So yes, the place you take the goods to matter. LG could say, we aren't required to do anything, and that's correct. The retailer on the other hand may or may not be required depending on your interpretation of reasonable time.

                        • @DogGunn: That first quote is just saying you can't get a refund from the manufacturer. LG are the ones that have to do something regardless of whether the TV is taken to them directly or from the manufacturer.

                          • +2

                            @Savas: You might need to read the rest of the page. A consumer is only entitled to damages as a remedy under the Australian Consumer Law if they go directly to the manufacturer.

                            This can be found in Part 5-4, Division 2 of the ACL. The only remedy it outlines for consumers against manufacturers for failures to meet the consumer guarantees is damages.

                            https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018C00437/Html/Volu…

                            Here is another explanation from another law centre explaining the remedies against a manufacturer:
                            https://legalvision.com.au/when-can-a-consumer-claim-against…

                            LG are the ones that have to do something regardless of whether the TV is taken to them directly or from the manufacturer.

                            Yes, but the difference is what they have to do. LG has no requirement to repair a TV if it fails within a reasonable time (but outside the express warranty they provide). If the OP goes to the retailer they purchased it from, they are required to ensure the consumer guarantees are met for a reasonable amount of time, and are required to remedy it for that time period. This might mean that the retailer goes to LG and they repair it, or the retailer has it repaired to a satisfactory standard elsewhere.

                            Put simply, unless the manufacturer also sells you the goods themselves (and is therefore the supplier too), the manufacturer is not required to remedy an issue with their goods in any way except for paying damages under the ACL.

                            • @DogGunn: even in the first link you sent it said

                              You can claim a remedy directly from the manufacturer or importer if the goods do not meet one or more of the following consumer guarantees:
                              acceptable quality
                              matching description
                              any extra promises made about such things like performance, condition and quality
                              repairs and spare parts - the manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that spare parts and repair facilities (a place that can fix the consumer’s goods) are available for a reasonable time after purchase unless you were told otherwise. How long is ‘reasonable’ will depend on the type of product.

                              https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees…

                              • @Savas: Yes. What is so hard to understand?

                                The only remedy available when you claim from the manufacturer is damages. i.e. money.
                                They are under no obligation to repair your device under the ACL, even if it is within a reasonable amount of time.

                                I have told you the law time and time again.

                                Damages only.

                                • @DogGunn: Again, that is not correct.

                                  Generally, a consumer is entitled to the same kind of remedy from a manufacturer as they could have received from a retailer (as discussed on p. 11), such as having goods replaced or repaired. However, there is one important difference. A consumer only has the right to obtain a refund from the seller – that is, the business they have a contract of sale with. This means that manufacturers and importers are not required to provide a consumer with a refund for defective goods, if the consumer purchased the goods from a retailer.

                                  https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Warranties%20and%20refu…

                                  • @Savas: Ahh, that is from the Trade Practices Act 1974 (which no longer exists). The Australian Consumer Law replaced the consumer provisions of the TPA when they renamed it to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and added the Australian Consumer Law to Schedule 2. In the ACL there is no requirement that a manufacturer repair or replace goods.

                                    That information you've quoted is old and incorrect according to the current law.

                                    You'll note that Australian Consumer Law is not mentioned once it in it.

                                    Out of interest, where did you find a link to that?


                                    Just so we're clear, I've saved a PDF of the relevant provisions of the ACL relating to remedies for goods not meeting the consumer guarantees.
                                    You'll note the only time manufacturers are mentioned are in regards to damages being payable, no repairs or replacements as suppliers may be required to do.

                                    https://www.docdroid.net/noNlew0/acl-remedy-provisions.pdf

      • In my opinion 2 years is a reasonable time. Some may say 3 years or more.

        • Samasung warranty VOC team have told me they work on 5 years for most TV ACL related claims.

          Would probably also depend on value when purchased. If you spent 3K… then i personally think about 5 years is reasonable. 1K… about 3 years.

      • +1

        https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-26/how-long-should-a-fri…

        Ask ACCC if LG should last a reasonable time.

    • +29

      Dont talk to LG. You have a purchase contract with the RETAILER.

      Step 1.
      Go back to the retailer that sold it to you. Take the receipt (ie.contract).
      Ask for a replacement TV or full refund.
      They will say "no way". They always do. But this is actually a breach of Australian Consumer Law.

      Step 2.
      Ask to see the manager.
      The Australian Consumer Law basically states clearly that you have a right to expect your purchase to do what it says it will do and to last for a reasonable time. 5 years for a $1000 tv is not reasonable!
      Reference: https://www.accc.gov.au/business/treating-customers-fairly/c…

      Step 3.
      Explain to the manager that you do not believe you received value from your purchase as it is no longer working.
      A good retail manager should offer you compensation via an offer to have the tv repaired or replaced. In some cases may give you a refund. However..do not accept a No…nothing we can do.

      Step 4.
      If no luck or satisfaction from the manager, you will need to write a "Letter of Demand" (ACCC and Fair Trading websites have samples)to the Manager and Retailer. Give them 21 days to rectify your issue in a way satisfactory to YOU.

      The process will take time.
      I have done it and I stood my ground against one of Australia's largest retailers and won. (It was in fact also in respect to a fault 5 year old LG TV as well.)

      The law is on your side.

      I hope this helps you and others in similar situations.
      Best of luck.

      • +2

        Thanks Ian for this detailed information. LG is currently reviewing my case to determine what options they can offer me under ACL. If something falls through with that, I will try going back to the retailer. Got nothing to lose.

        Cheers.

      • +1

        My experience with fair trading in 2 states etc was very poor. They also do not have any legal power. A supplier who even sent me an RA to return a new item flatly refused to take any calls from Victoria Fair Trading which unlike WA was friendly and helpful told me they have no enforcement power, but I will win because of ACL if I turn up in small claims court in Melbourne for about $130. I am in Perth. It seems the trick is to delay compensation past the 3 months for Paypal to act.

      • +1

        I’ve had a simpler time arguing for a repair direct with manufacturers. Getting an uncooperative retailer involved seems to add several steps and days.

      • +1

        Step 5 - They say no , your last option is to take them to court

  • +4

    Borderline imo regarding ACL… I think if you kick up enough fuss you'll get it repaired but you have to weigh up if it's worth it

    How much did you pay for it when you bought it?

    • +1

      About $800 on sale, brand new it retailed for $1000+

  • +1

    6 years is pretty good now a days, I don't imagine you will have any luck with ACL.

    • +1

      It's actually only been 5 years exactly. Bought new January 2014, broke down January 2019.

      • +12

        5 years is 2.5x the manufacturer’s warranty. I know it sucks, but I reckon that’s pretty reasonable.

        • Ask yourself!
          If you were to go into Harvey Norman to buy a $1000 tv and the salesman said it will only last 5 years, would you buy it?
          If Yes…go ahead.
          If No….Ask what is a reasonable amount of time to expect an expensive tv will last. Despite what some think, MOST people do not buy a new tv every few years. MOST can't afford to.So a manufacturer warranty may be a bit of piece of mind but it's basically useless. Manufacturers want you to buy new every few years….
          In Australia, consumers ARE protected by "Statutory Warranties". These are law…and enforceable.
          So never think that because it's out of "Manufacturers warranty" you have no chance of REPAIR,REPLACEMENT or FULL REFUND….you do under the law…and you can choose which option you get.
          And never ever pay for an Extended Warranty. You don't need to when the law is on your side.

          • @Ian2578: Your analogy is wrong IMO. A warranty is not the lifetime of the product, it's the MINIMUM lifetime of the product.

            If you went in and the salesman told you that it would last more than 5 years would you buy it?

            • +3

              @macrocephalic: Wouldn't the minimum lifetime be 0 days? Statutory warranty is a reasonable lifetime, not the longest possible time it would last. You're covered by ACL if it has a fault that would have stopped you from buying it, for example you would not buy a TV if it would stop turning on after 5 years.

  • +5

    You got quoted $230 to get it repaired.

    You can get 55" Kogan LED tv for $399 + delivery

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/435606

    Just saying.

    • +20

      I've had a bad experience with Kogan branded products in the past. Would not touch their TV's with a bargepole.

      • +20

        Yeah the bargepole would crack the screen

        • +3

          But matt_will_fix_it

      • +3

        You sound like one of those who would whinge about any brand, this LG TV has done it’s job, 5 years for a $800 product is fine.
        Get that Kogan TV and if lasts 2.5 years (based on $400 tag) and you’d do well also. But who knows, after 2.5 years you will probably post something similar.

        • +3

          Nah mate. I wouldn't expect non name brand TV's to last a decent amount of time. Therefore I wouldn't buy one. Name brand products should last longer than cheap brand ones.

          • @jmys01: And who says names last longer than “non” names.

            And who decides what is a name and what is not a name? Your theories seem flawed. Just like your expectation that a $800 tv should last longer than 5 years

            • +1

              @cloudy: just from clicking on the LG website they have banners that they are the "best TV brand" for three years in a row. using common sense you'd expect a company that makes these claims to have their TVs last longer.

              • @Savas:

                they are the "best TV brand" for three years in a row.

                Does this mean that their TV should last for 3 years?

                They've to win 2 more times to claim a 5 year title.

                • +2

                  @whooah1979: It doesn't really matter what LG or any other brands say about how long their products should last. What really matters is what the ACL says.

            • +3

              @cloudy: I think it's pretty clear which brands are name brands and which ones aren't. Surely you can figure that out for yourself. The fact that LG is willing to review my case under ACL shows that it's reasonable to expect a $1000+ TV to last longer than 5 years. Seems like you're the one with the flawed theories/expectations.

              • @jmys01: Any name brand starts off as a non name brand. To say it’s obvious, without being able to define is exactly my point. It’s conpletrly subjective.

      • Never had a kogan TV, but I've had the same 55" Okano TV since 2011. Never had a problem with it.

    • +1

      I would prefer a 5 year repaired LG than the Kogan branded crap. But after 5 years I would simply bite the bullet and buy new (Not Kogan and not Aldi).

  • +3

    it could also be the LED back lights that have failed.

    there are rows of LEDs behind the LCD panel.

    if a few fail then they it screws up the backlight board power output -and it stops/can't power the backlights - and the TV is dark/black

    LEDs can't last forever as they get hot when powered on and will eventually fail.

    it could also be a single component on the backlight board that has failed as well.

    if it was my tv then I'd take off the back and remove the backlight board. check it for any "burn" marks where a component may havefailed.

    also measure the voltage across the outputs.

    if there is no obvious damage then likely to be backlight LEDs needing replacement.

    you can buy the LED strips from aliexpress for 42" LG for $35 (depends on the model) or if you minor skills with a soldering iron then buy the individual LEDs for $5 for a pack of 10. check the existing LEDs and find the dead ones and replace.

    Here is a youtube Clip on replacing the backlights on a 42" LG TV

  • Its an LG, what did you expect.

    • +1

      Sad, but true. My old LG lasted 7 years, but it probably should have been replaced long before that. When I bought a new TV this year, the sales guy was actually surprised the old LG had lasted so long.

  • +8

    We just parked an equivalent 42" LG in the garage replaced by a new Sammy 55", nothing wrong with it, but hey, its 5 years old so out it goes, the replacement was $650 or so.

    My reaction would be to junk it. 5 years for old tech seems a decent lifespan.

    • $650 for a 55" Samsung? Wow, that's cheap! Which model?

      • +1

        Series 7 deal which was around this site last week. Mine was shipped from some shop in NSW.

        Magnificent TV.

  • +1

    According to ABC the reasonable life time of a mid range TV is 8 years. The fact they break after 5 years is completely bullshit, i have a 30 year old TV that still works. The best lesson to teach them is to never buy LG again.

    • +3

      According to ABC

      The ABC is a media corporation. They're expressing an opinion just like everyone else here.

      • +2

        Just one issue there. Real journalists used to be taught not to express an opinion - just to report the facts. The media is as broken as OP's TV. lol

      • +1

        They have a consumer affairs program called "THE CHECKOUT".
        I would recommend you watch it.

    • +1

      Just because the reasonable life time is 8 years doesnt mean it is to be warranted for that long

      even the article you link to says

      Ms Breen said she hoped the guidelines Choice had released would lead to regulators like the ACCC adopting them, so that consumers could have a better idea of their rights.

      "Would lead to.. etc", would indicate they arent yet adopted by the ACCC

      An ACCC spokeswoman told ABC News it and other state-based regulators "are currently looking at a range of issues following the recent review of the Australian Consumer Law, including the provision of clearer information for consumers and businesses about durability of consumer goods".

      So its not really clear on how long the warranty should be.

      • +2

        I don't know how you'd expect a TV to last any shorter? Otherwise that is wasteful and rips off customers.

    • +3

      I bet your '30 year old TV' was worth the equivalent of $5000-$10k today. Electronics were very expensive generations ago.

      Would you pay $5k-10k today to say maybe it will last $30 years?

      Dumb comparison.

      • +2

        I thought that products would become more reliable with technology improving?

        • +3

          No. Stuff becomes more complex, more points of failure.

          • +6

            @HighAndDry: I'm pretty sure it's the companies are deliberately using cheap workmanship and poor materials.

            • +6

              @Savas: Demand drives the economy. People want features for cheap - you can't build that with reliability and also keeps costs down.

              You ask anyone if they want a dumb CRT that lasts a decade or a Smart LED that lasts a few years, for the same price, 100% chooses the LED.

              • +3

                @HighAndDry: If you're replacing your Smart LED every few years that's not really cheap. Most people would rather spend more for a product that lasts.

                • +1

                  @Savas: It's not smart or cheap. But neither are people.

                • +2

                  @Savas:

                  Most people would rather spend more for a product that lasts.

                  Companies like Kogan and AGR Machinery are getting richer everyday because many consumers are choosing cheap or quality.

                  • @whooah1979: I know, it should be illegal. That's why products need to last a reasonable lifetime to stop consumers from being ripped off.

      • -1

        Would you pay $5000 today for a tv that the salesman tells you may only last 5 years?

    • i have a 30 year old TV that still works

      As in the one thats the size of an oven? Electronics were basic tech and were designed to last forever in those days. Can't be compared to the current smart cookie thin TVs.

    • +1

      I had a 50cm cathode-ray TV that lasted 15 years before I finally got rid of it. It cost over $2000 when I bought it and taking inflation into account that's $3500 in today's money. It was still working perfectly when I got rid of it but let's be honest, it was 50cm TV with effectively 480p interlaced resolution, composite inputs, weighed as much as a medium-sized American, had a curve to the screen you wouldn't believe. I don't regret getting ridding of it in the slightest.

      I can't imagine holding onto a TV for 30 years. That's crazy. The energy consumption alone would justify a new TV. The feature set is abysmal. There's no pride in holding onto ancient inefficient tech. Get a new television ffs.

    • -1

      Your 30 year old TV actually has a negative value now though. Why do you still own it?

  • +2

    I think the reasonable life expectancy for the TV of the price you mentioned is the exact number of days your TV has lasted.

  • +1

    get new one.

    • Companies spend millions of dollars on built-in obsolescence and you expect OP just to go along with it??

      • +1

        When it's cheap mass produced items then yes. This isn't planned obsolescence though. Electronics fail over time, it's normal.

        You can't expect a company to continue to warrant a product for 5 years of unknown usage. That's not reasonable.

        • +5

          Does doesn't make sense, when taken to court Panasonic agreed that the reasonable lifetime for a TV is 8 years.

          http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT…

          • +3

            @Savas:

            The parties agree that the expected life of the television is 8 years.

            Not 'a' TV but 'the' TV in that particular case based on that model and whatever assessment they undertook. Doesn't mean applies to ALL TVs unilaterally.

            • +1

              @Hybroid: Do you work for LG or do you just genuinely believe companies should be able to sell products that break after a few years?

              • @Savas: I have never owned an LG product nor have/had any affiliation with them. I genuinely believe it is unreasonable to expect years and years of warranty coverage for cheap mass produced goods particularly when it's electronics that have relatively short MTBF by their nature and razor thin profit margins in the first place.

                A business isn't liable to cover any defect that occurs for any reason from any usage case e.g. A TV switched on 24/7 for 5 years in a hot and humid location then wonder why it fails earlier than barely used one in another house and then expect manufacturer should be responsible to repair or replace. Or people that don't understand the characteristics of lithium batteries, don't charge in cycles properly and use cheap/fake chargers & cables with poor circuitry then blame original manufacturer when the lithium battery degrades quicker over time.

                We live in a consumerist society and everyone wants cheapest bang for buck as evident on this site. So that's what we get. It's like the people here buying cheap Chinese grey market phones then whinging there's no warranty or good support from the dodgy resellers/dropshippers.

                If we all expect this level of quality and/or make laws to make it so, then expect prices to increase, stringent warranty clauses and a completely different market dynamic. I would rather we maintain the status quo with those that want more protection to take out extended warranties or home insurance etc. Others that don't want to or mind replacing every few years (which isn't unreasonable) then they don't have to overpay initially to compensate for others.

                • +1

                  @Hybroid: That seems wasteful, especially when there is nothing wrong with a 42" LED TV. I can't see how having to keep replacing the same TV is economically good for anyone except for LG.

                  • @Savas: That 2014 42" LED TV will not be 4K resolution, nor have HDR or likely a Smart TV with apps or any of the newer features that are coming out. 5 years is a long time for tech to advance and it's reasonable cycle to upgrade.

                    There's also nothing wrong with companies making money, it's what keeps them in business to compete and produce new products and invest in R&D for bigger better things contributing to job creation and life betterment.

                    • +2

                      @Hybroid: I can't see how using cheap materials and labour, making TV's that end up in landfill after 5 years and having $50+ billion profit yearly does anything for "life betterment". Even your job creation doesn't seem that great.

          • +3

            @Savas: Read the case.

            $1,350 vs $800

            3.5yrs vs 5yrs.

Login or Join to leave a comment