LG Smart TV screen

[Lucid]

My cheap kettles have lasted a lot longer than 2 years. I don't think 6 is unreasonable.

What's "reasonable" varies from person to person, but in all cases it will be much much longer when the product is dead

 

[Lucid]

Thanks for that advice mate. I purchased the tv back in 2019. When I purchased it, was working fine all this time and then I realised these past 6 months that the tv screen isn't how it use to be.

It sounds like it will be so complex. Easiest option would be to purchase a new TV but I did spend a large amount of this TV.

If you have a substantial chunk of cash in the TV then the sensible option is to opt for replacing the backlights. It would be the lowest cost route to a solution rather than just binning an otherwise working TV and shelling out for new.

The CRA doesn't provide a full warranty, and it puts the onus of proving an inherent fault in the product on the consumer's shoulders. That's different from a warranty where, abuse or natural disaster aside, if the TV stops working then the warranty covers a repair or replacement.

There are other issues with CRA judgements too. A big one that's often overlooked at first is that if the retailer says 'fair cop' then they're still entitled to reduce the notional value of redress to the issue by the length of time you've had the product. For say a 3-year-old TV within the 6 years of CRA cover then you can expect a reduction in value by half.

None of this is meant as a way of excusing LG for fitting crappy backlights. However, your contract of sale is with the retailer rather than the manufacturer. The retailer has their own contract of sale with the distributor or manufacturer. Unfortunately for them though there's no equivalent to the CRA for a retailer's benefit. Any action you take hits the retailer rather than the manufacturer unless you join in or start a Class Action suit. LG has been hit with those in the past.

I think it's wrong that manufacturers effectively get away with making poorer quality gear. At the same time though very few retail customers complain when this years TV offers a bigger screen and more features for the same money as last year's. Some of that can be attributed to economies of scale and yadda yadda yadda. But in the end the logic must lead to a conclusion that this can't be the whole reason. Somewhere corners are being cut, and if history tells us anything it's that consumers forget about that until there's a fault. More importantly, those brands that did make exceptional TVs in the past such as Fujitsu and Pioneer went to the wall because of cheaper competition. It's also why now Panasonic no longer makes its own LED TV ranges and why Sony has scaled back on its lower-end TV product.

 

[denso13]

My cheap kettles have lasted a lot longer than 2 years. I don't think 6 is unreasonable.

That's not what the Act says.

 

[motorbiking]

So much confusion about consumer rights.

Rejection - must happen fairly quickly based on a significant failure. A year or more is almost certainly not going to cut it. We are talking a couple of week max.
Benefit of use - Retailer absolutely has the ability to deduct the benefit enjoyed of the product, so may just offer you a bit of money back.
First 6 months - product is deemed faulty, retailer must prove otherwise.
after 6 months - consumer must prove faulty at manufacture.
You have 6 years to bring a claim, not a 6 year warranty.

 

[Mottie]

an EC rule that gives you a 2 year warranty. I don’t think this has been repealed since Brexit.

So not a lot of help in 2022 for something purchased in 2019…..