|
||||||||
Samsung LCD TV needs new screen! |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 24
|
Samsung LCD TV needs new screen!
Has anyone else had a Samsung LCD TV that has needed a new screen? My TV is 19 months old and cost £737 (it is unfortunately out of its guarantee) and there is no picture or sound - completely balnk screen. The authorised Samsung repair company has quoted £814 to repair!!! totally laughable for a set of this age. We are working all day so its not as though its on from morning to night. The Samsung customer services are a joke - don't phone back within the promised four hours, had to drive to town to fax receipt etc over to them as they don't acccept scanned docs attached to emails. I'm hoping they will pay for the repair - anyone else been in a similar situation with Samsung?
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Sounds a fairly normal price to replace a screen, it's usually as much or more than the set was.
Have you contacted the retailer you bought the set from?, your legal rights are against them, not the manufacturer. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 47
|
I bought a Samsung a couple of months ago. I took out a warranty for all eventuallities and it cost me £120 for 5 years. I know they are often criticised but it's times like yours when you feel it's good value. Sorry it's not much help for you but i always take out warranties on this fairly new technology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 822
|
If you google "sale of goods act" and "out of guarantee" there is plenty of advice. As Nigel states above it is the retailer who is accountable when something doesn't last a reasonable amount of time. Unless you have abused the TV you are probably entitled to free repair or refund but you might have to argue quite hard and even threaten Small Claims Court to get it. However I would start off by assuming your retailer is reasonable and professional, and ask them politely what they can do about it.
Extended warranties are arguably the cause of the problem. Obviously retailers want to sell them, but if retailer and manufacturers acknowledge "Sale of Goods Act" obligations too readily it would become obvious that extended warranties are an expensive way of acquiring protection that (to a large extent) you already have anyway by law. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 24
|
nancyboy - thank you very much for this advice. I didn't realise this was the case and I guess I'm not alone in this.
I will do a bit more research on the obligations of the retailer, but i think I have a strong case with a 20 month old TV - I'm up for a fight on this!! |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 822
|
As I say, I would start off "firm but polite" with the retailer, basically saying that as you understand the Sales of Goods Act you are entitled to expect things to last for a reasonable amount of time and that in your view a TV should last significantly longer than 20 months. What in their view is a reasonable amount of time for a TV to last? If they say something ridiculous like "12 months" then write to them detailing this conversation and asking if you have understood them correctly. Failure to respond to your letter, or confirmation of their 12-month view would both count in your favour if there is a later dispute.
The trouble with the legislation is that "reasonable" is not defined, obviously it will vary between categories of product. You have to compare whatever the retailer offers with what you might "reasonably" expect from a court. There is actually no such thing as the "small claims court", it is a fast-track process in the county court. Courts look more favourably on claimants who can demonstrate they have made every effort to get an amicable solution, conversely they do not like people who rush prematurely or unduly aggressively into dispute, so keep it all nice and cool. A court may take into account the fact that you have had at least some use out of the TV in assessing how best to resolve the claim. But in the short term I would go for "repair or replacement" and make it clear if necessary that you will reluctantly consider using the Small Claims procedure as a last resort. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,586
|
I'd like to temper that by saying you must consider the reasonable life of the TV, and how much you've used up. I'd say you've had 20-30% of the reasonable life, and you should therefore get a replacement for 20-30% of the cost. That might be your best way to get agreement with the retailer. Repair is clearly silly, it's much cheaper to get a new one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 822
|
I agree with that, if you turned down an offer of a new TV for 25% of the full price the court might well say that you'd had a perfectly reasonable offer from the shop.
The principle of the award of damages is to restore you to the position you were in prior to the problem arising, neither better nor worse. In practice that may be tricky as logically you would need a fully functioning TV of the same age in order to be in exactly the same position. If the shop (or indeed yourself) has been unreasonable that may tip the court towards the interests of the other side. Finally, bearing in mind that the cost of an equivalent replacement will tend to be a bit lower than the old TV prices of a year or two ago, it would probably be unreasonable to pursue stubbornly the original purchase price rather than replacement cost (or % thereof). |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 24
|
Well with a bit of luck I won't need to go down this route as Samsung Customer services have informed me that they are escalating my problem, and the likely outcome is a new set or a financial contribution towards a new one, bearing in mind the use I have already had from the set. I remained calm yet enthusiastic about Samsung products on the basis that flattery might help my cause!! Thanks for all your very sound advice - I would think that this applies not only to TV's and electrical items but to other goods such as furniture etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
for samsung to have any interest at all is a surprise,i also had a samsung lcd needing a new screen,samsung weren't interested because the set was faulty around 60 weeks from new,the cost of the tv for me was £1350-,they said if i contacted them within 52 weeks to 55 weeks they would have helped out.
Samsung refused to do anything and i paid £500 for a new screen,another 52 weeks later i needed yet another lcd screen so i gave up, and now own a small tv that is cheap to replace in the longer term. |
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 822
|
beintot, your case is against the retailer, not Samsung.
If you are still within 3-4 years of the original purchase and you paid £500 for a new screen after 60 weeks which then failed a year later, you would still have a strong case for the retailer to provide you with a new TV even now. If you need advice putting the case together the Citizens Advice Bureau might be helpful. Assuming you had not abused the TV the advice you say Samsung gave you at 60 weeks is outrageous. They are IMHO a dismally mediocre company. I work in TV and all our engineers agree they are (bluntly) crap. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 24
|
nancyboy - are there any companies that you and your fellow engineers dont class as crap, as hopefully I will soon be buying a new TV! Whatever I buy I will look at getting it from John Lewis as they offer a 5 year guarantee on their TVs
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 822
|
Hi mswale, the broadcast engineers who transmit the programmes and choose all our (hundreds of) office TVs pretty consistently choose/recommend either Sony or Panasonic.
The Panasonic you originally asked about is a top quality TV. John Lewis is a good retailer in the current climate as there is a pretty high chance they will still be in business if you need help in a few years' time. Whatever you get set it up carefully, it is gobsmacking how many people are watching terrible pictures with too much contrast, or fancy "dynamic" picture settings switched on (they are usually better off), and even completely out-of-ratio - one of our reporters was worrying she was getting too fat onscreen when in fact she had her Sky box set to 4:3 and TV set to 16:9 and hence a sideways-stretched picture in which everyone was fat. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 24
|
Ha Ha good story - thanks for your good advice - Ill just wait for Samsung to tell me what they are going to do ..... wonder how long I'll have to wait! I forsee several more calls to Samsung on this subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
beintot, your case is against the retailer, not Samsung.
If you are still within 3-4 years of the original purchase and you paid £500 for a new screen after 60 weeks which then failed a year later, you would still have a strong case for the retailer to provide you with a new TV even now. If you need advice putting the case together the Citizens Advice Bureau might be helpful. Assuming you had not abused the TV the advice you say Samsung gave you at 60 weeks is outrageous. They are IMHO a dismally mediocre company. I work in TV and all our engineers agree they are (bluntly) crap. This was a few years ago now so i've learnt my lesson,which was look at long term warranties instead of hoping for the best with a 1 year shop warranty. The reason i complained to samsung was because i was beyond my 52 week warranty with the shop. I know it does sound absurd for samsung to reckon that anything beyond 60 weeks is outside their control. But i'm glad to see the original poster is getting assistance from samsung as opposed to my situation with them. |
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
other than having it switched on a lot,as i used it as a computer monitor, as well as a tv, it was not abused.
This was a few years ago now so i've learnt my lesson,which was look at long term warranties instead of hoping for the best with a 1 year shop warranty. The reason i complained to samsung was because i was beyond my 52 week warranty with the shop. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 24
|
Many thanks to all the posters who gave me advice on the Sale of Goods act. Fortunately I have not had to proceed down that route as Samsung are sending me a brand new TV - a LE32A558P, which has had good reviews on Amazon. It took about two weeks and quite a few phone calls but worth it in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 17,338
|
Was going to say you would be better off buying a new panel, I have just seen 46/50 inch panels in Tesco Direct for around £900.
Prices have dropped tremendously. ![]() Glad you got it sorted, mine has just developed a fault. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 24
|
If it's a Samsung and less than 2 years old its probably worth going the same route as I did - its a bit time consuming and takes quite a few phone calls but good result in the end - although the sting in the tail is that it will take 14 - 28 days for new TV to arrive - I ask myself how long does it take to arrange a carrier to send out a TV!! Also make sure you get an estimate from an approved Samsung repair company - you can phone Samsung on 0845 726 7864 or go on the website to find your nearest one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 24
|
Well in the end I finally got my new TV off Samsung last Thursday. It should have arrived on the Monday but someone at NYK Logistics can't type in a postcode and it went to Bristol instead of Bradford - not amusing at the time. It took so many phone calls to Samsung to get this new TV that in the end I gave up logging them - I was on my second sheet of A4, but in the end I did actually find someone in Customer Services with a bit of sense and it all worked out ok in the end. I'm pleased with the new Series 5 TV - lets hope it lasts longer than its predecessor! I'm now going to look for a reasonably priced warranty scheme - anyone have any ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Sussex (Crystal Palace)
Posts: 3,377
|
Quote:
I'm now going to look for a reasonably priced warranty scheme - anyone have any ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 24
|
Looking at the cost of warranty schemes you are right - I'm not going to bother. I'll take my chance after the one year warranty runs out and next time I have to buy a new TV I'll go to John Lewis who offer a 5 year warranty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: County Durham
Posts: 311
|
Quote:
Hi mswale, the broadcast engineers who transmit the programmes and choose all our (hundreds of) office TVs pretty consistently choose/recommend either Sony or Panasonic.
The Panasonic you originally asked about is a top quality TV. John Lewis is a good retailer in the current climate as there is a pretty high chance they will still be in business if you need help in a few years' time. Whatever you get set it up carefully, it is gobsmacking how many people are watching terrible pictures with too much contrast, or fancy "dynamic" picture settings switched on (they are usually better off), and even completely out-of-ratio - one of our reporters was worrying she was getting too fat onscreen when in fact she had her Sky box set to 4:3 and TV set to 16:9 and hence a sideways-stretched picture in which everyone was fat. If I do that on our LCD Panasonic the picture looks horizontaly out of whack, so, on the Panny it works best with both on 16:9!! , I had the loan of a Sony Bravia HD set and , for some odd reason I got best results with the Sony on a zoom setting and the $kybox on 4:3 LETTERBOX?? or Sony on 16:9 and $ky box on 4:3?? The problem seems to be the way Sky broadcast. Some DVD players can give similar whack-out results, especially the cheaper models. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
Just to add a bit about aspect ratio's... On our 36" CRT Hitachi, with the TV set to 16:9, putting the $kybox on 16:9 produces a VERTICALLY overstreched picture?? I get a better aspect with the TV on 16:9 and the $ky box on 4:3.
If I do that on our LCD Panasonic the picture looks horizontaly out of whack, so, on the Panny it works best with both on 16:9!! , I had the loan of a Sony Bravia HD set and , for some odd reason I got best results with the Sony on a zoom setting and the $kybox on 4:3 LETTERBOX?? or Sony on 16:9 and $ky box on 4:3?? The problem seems to be the way Sky broadcast. Some DVD players can give similar whack-out results, especially the cheaper models. By far and away the most common cause of the aspect ration always being wrong is people setting their digibox to 4:3 and their TV to 16:9 otherwise they just watch fattyvision on 4:3 programmes. There is nothing wrong with the way Sky broadcast except for some 4:3 sports programmes which they distort into tubbyvision/zoomvision and I have to say I have never seen a correctly set up DVD player with a problem in this respect. Are you sure you just haven't got used to fattyvision? |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:40.


