Replacement picture tube out of warranty?

[Bob Brenchley.]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:32:18 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
<newspam@howhill.com> wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:04:28 +0000, Bob Brenchley. wrote:

Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.

splutter> but still at a pathetic resolution. Not seen high
definition have you? Now that is an "open window".

Yes, I have seen HDTV. Resolution though, has little to do with
aspect ratio.

But has a lot to do with "a more natural view". B-)

Not really, 625 line PAL in 16:9 may not be a good as IMAX but it is
good enough up to the size of realistic size home TVs. Certainly a
person with average eyesight in an average room will have a more
natural view that the old 4:3 TV sets that half-brain thinks are
better.

--
Bob.

The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The
distinction is yours to draw...

 

[Bob Brenchley.]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:20:56 -0000, "half_pint"
<esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Bob Brenchley." <Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:ttnquvcldnp5tarh6h4cs3th3berejitbv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?

fucktard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound and
audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the question,
the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
as they were intended

They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.

Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
seating.


Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".
You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.

You do talk some rubbish - but the above really is setting new
standards.

In addition, as most films now make far more from the video/DVD
release then from the box office, and given the extra content the film
makers have to plan for the DVD, their thoughts are always with the
home viewer.

(seeing as there is scare little tv programmes
of any merit anymore)

There is plenty of merit, if you find no merit in real life, ie news
sport, music, politics and comedy then maybe not.

and those desparately clinging to to past, i'm
surprised you don't argue that the colour guns make tvs less reliable.

Thalidomide was a new drug for pregnant women once.

And is now a highly successful drug in combatting a number of medical
problems.


What do you use you tv for, putting plants on ?

You can get more plants on a widescreen so no.


Niche - 4:3 tvs, VCR, good tv.......

Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.

--
Bob.

If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.

Still can't use a newsreader I see.

--
Bob.

You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full
of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the
clue mating dance.

 

[Fraser]

"half_pint" <esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bsk84p$d1jnb$2@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Bob Brenchley." <Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:ttnquvcldnp5tarh6h4cs3th3berejitbv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?

I watch films in the aspect ratio they were made in, period. You wouldn't
take the Mona Lisa and cut some of it out to fit a nice frame you happen to
have available. And as TV generally sucks, most of my TV watching is movies.
So I have a widescreen TV. Must I apologise for that to you?

Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".

Nonsense, learn some film history. Widescreen came about as the movie
industries counter to television, which was affecting it's income. They were
still showing news reels etc at the time, which TV negated the need for, and
in many ways surpassed. Some directors didn't take to it for a long time,
Stanley Kubrik for example. Mind you, most of his films were also made in
mono sound!!

You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.

No, this time learn some DVD history and consumer electronics marketing. The
first lot of people to buy DVD were the enthusiasts. We wanted digital
surround, multiple audio tracks, all that sort of thing. To be a success,
you have to get their buy in, then capture the public. Laser disk never got
popular with the enthusiasts, so it died. My player cost Ł750 at the time,
but that was with being chipped etc. Most of us want widescreen, so that's
the way it was. Releases got slated in all the review mags if they were
masked down to 4:3. DVDs were intended to be the "perfect" delivery
mechanism for movies, and cutting parts of the movie out didn't fit into
that picture.

Who exactly is doing this brainwashing anyway? Does your tinfoil hat
protect you?

Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.

Which is very true. Look at a blank wall and see how much of it you can see
without moving your eyes. Not much in the up & down department, but you've
got around 120 degrees (a lot) of horizontal view. The widest common format,
2.35:1, is a lot closer to this than TVs traditional 4:3. For framing
"normal" images, such as landscapes, groups of people, text/signs,
widescreen is more natural. Just look at the unusual ways people stand in
4:3 media, they usually much closer than normal people are in day-to-day
life. It's unnatural.

Fraser.

 

[Fraser]

"Jerry G." <jerryg50@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bsdp7k$m65$1@news.eusc.inter.net...

Where we are located, we are under similar law to that of the UK. The
warranty has to comply to the purchase agreement contract. TV's without
an
extended warranty are sold with a one year contract. You can optionally
purchase more time.

If the tube goes one day after the warranty, the manufacture is legally
not
obliged to change it, or service the set.

Things are very different in the UK for this then, we get 6 years provided
the fault isn't "normal wear and tear" apparently.

I tell people that for the little
more than the cost of the TV set, it is best to buy the extended warranty.
Servicing a TV set can be expensive. The few extra dollars for the
extended
warranty can be well worth the investment.

I always tell people not to bother with these, except on items that will
have wear and tear. Usually things with moving parts like washing machines,
dishwashers etc. I'm usually capable of fixing most things, so I never
bother getting them myself.

For consumer electronics, if it's going to fail, the chances are that it'll
be within the first year. Solid state electronics are pretty reliable if
treated well and with the extended warranty often being up to 50% of the
purchase price, it's not worth it. Consider the value of the item at the end
of the term. Hi-tech gizmos often devalue quicker than cars. As an example,
when the Sony playstation was around Ł300, I took out an 5 year extended
warranty for around Ł120 IIRC. At the end of the term, the item cost Ł89
brand new. It's a gamble, but one usually worth taking.

I have heard some people saying that the dealers make a lot of money on
these warranties. Actually this is not very true. The mark-up on all these
products is not very great. If the set turns out to be a lemon, the
manufacture will end up paying the cost of service, and maybe even the
exchange the set for a new one.

In most large electronic stores in the UK, the staff get commission on these
but not purchases, so they push them hard. I've seen many articles and TV
shows on how bad they are, and given our consumer law they seem unnecessary
for a lot of things.

Things may be totally different where you are of course!!

Fraser.

 

[Fraser]

"Dave Plowman" <dave.sound@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4c65f8f6fcdave.sound@argonet.co.uk...

In article <XflGb.10061$FN.3262@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>,
Fraser <no46764@spam.com> wrote:
My 3.5 year old Toshiba 32" widescreen has died, due to a faulty picture
tube. The problem is that now and again the green gun overloads, filling
the screen with a green zig-zag pattern, then the TV shuts down. The
repair shop say this is due to a bad design in the picture tube, causing
overheating. This is a well known problem in this tube (Philips)
apparently, and this tube is no longer used in new products.

They're pulling your plonker. I can't think of any tube fault that would
cause a zig-zag pattern - or to cause the SMPS to shut down the set.

See post in response to Chris Steets post, I've put more details of the
fault on there.

Cheers,

Fraser.

 

[Fraser]

Hope the weird posting doesn't confuse anyone, pulling all the techy stuff
into one place:


"Chris Street" <despam.c.street@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3fed07b7.70534546@news.cis.dfn.de...

The problem is that now and again the green gun overloads, filling the
screen with a green zig-zag pattern, then the TV shuts down.

That's not a tube fault. The line driver or frame flyback is up the
spout. Failures of the tube itself are very rare - it's always the high
voltage control circuits that tend to have problems.

"Andy Cuffe" <baltimora@psu.edu> wrote in message
news:3FEA4073.2AE9@psu.edu...

It sounds like a heater to cathode short in the green gun. This can
usually be worked around by isolating the heaters from ground. I've
done it many times in other TVs with good results. If you can't get a
new CRT for a reasonable price someone may be able to try this.

What Andy said. That's exactly what the guy at the repair shop said, and
they are waiting for me to get back to them on what the
retailer/manufacturer say.

The TV has always had a green tint as well, as if the bias was way off.
Tried using the service menu once to bring it down, but there was no change,
so I set it back to it's original setting. Don't know if that's related, but
worth a mention.

email me with the TV model and I'll ask a friend who does this sort of
thing what the cost to the retailer would be - may be handy to know.

Cool, that would be handy! It's a Toshiba 32W8DB.


Cheers,

Fraser.

 

[Fraser]

"Kevin Thornton" <kevin@bizarre98.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bsctrf$4q3$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

it is up ro you to show that the fault was inherent at time of purchase,
you
can persue a claim against the retailer up to 6 years after purchase - 6
years is an absolute limit and does not apply to all goods as a matter of
course

The sites you list (which are pretty good btw, thanks) kinda differ from
that description though. There doesn't seem to be any mention of the fault
being inherent when the item is bought. What does seem to be the case is the
concept of a "resonable period" which would differ depending on the item.
Some examples of this are mentioned in the sites, e.g. a car oil filter
would be around a year, a new battery could discharge on-the-shelf in six
months. The upper limit, 6 years from purchase in England, 5 years from
fault discovery in Scotland (me) only applies to what you can actually bring
a civil court case up for. Obviously, if you can't do that, then the shop
really doesn't have to do anything.

For an expensive TV, the consensus seems to be that 3.5 years is
"unreasonable". Hopefully the store will see it that way!

Fraser.

 

[Fraser]

"Sparks" <this.is@real.com> wrote in message
news:3fe9e882$0$52879$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...

Fraser.
I have seen it suggested in this NG -uk.diy,that 6 years is a reasonable
time to expect such items to "live" but haven't seen anything to back
this
up.
Stuart

Have a look on www.tradingstandards.gov.uk they have a lot of information
in
their advice leaflet's.

That website has pretty much the same claim. From the FAQ at:
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/calitem.cgi?file=ADV0054-1111.txt

--- >8 ---
Q. I bought a fridge/freezer about 18 months ago, and the freezer section
has completely failed. I went back to the shop, but they refused to do
anything as it was outside the original 12 month guarantee. What are my
rights?
A. Firstly, when you buy goods from a shop, you enter into a contract under
the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended). This holds the shop liable for up
to six years after purchase (Limitation Act 1980), providing that you can
show that the problem is down to an unreasonable fault and not normal wear
and tear. Secondly, remember that the guarantee is in addition to these
statutory legal rights. Don't be taken in by the shop's argument here - they
are using the issue of the guarantee as a red herring to try to avoid their
legal obligations toward you. See our leaflet 'Buying Goods' for more
information on your rights.
--- >8 ---


Oh yeah, probably should have mentioned I'm in Scotland, so things may be a
little different (5 years from discovery of fault, as opposed to 6 from
purchase). I put part (but not all) of the purchase on my Visa, which also
may have relevance. The Trading Standards website says "This means that the
credit card company and the supplier have the same obligations and
responsibilities to you for the goods being satisfactory.", however that may
not apply because 100% of the purchase wasn't put on the credit card. I'll
probably keep that as a last resort.

I'll be getting in touch with the store on Monday. Gives me a chance to find
the receipt (which Trading Standards says isn't actually necessary!) and let
the store quieten down a bit after the Christmas sales. It will be easier if
the manager is in a good mood!! ;-) Fingers crossed!!


Fraser.

 

[Andy Hall]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:02:56 -0000, "Fraser" <no46764@spam.com> wrote:

"Jerry G." <jerryg50@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bsdp7k$m65$1@news.eusc.inter.net...
Where we are located, we are under similar law to that of the UK. The
warranty has to comply to the purchase agreement contract. TV's without
an
extended warranty are sold with a one year contract. You can optionally
purchase more time.

If the tube goes one day after the warranty, the manufacture is legally
not
obliged to change it, or service the set.

Things are very different in the UK for this then, we get 6 years provided
the fault isn't "normal wear and tear" apparently.


Be careful here. The 6 year period is a statute of limitations which

in effect lets the retailer off the hook at the end of that time.
It doesn't mean that they *have* to fix problems with *any* product
for that whole period.

In effect, the manufacturer's warranty period means that problems that
occur during the warranty period should be fixed without your having
to negotiate the issue. Between the end of that and 6 years you
*may* have a case, depending on the product, its position in the
market and what it cost. The issue then comes to whether the
retailer wants to play ball - this may well not be a store manager
decision - and how far you then want to pursue the issue.

Ultimately, you can take it to the court where you may win something.
Before embarking on that course, I would certainly talk to Trading
Standards for an opinion on what you are likely to get. One factor in
this is whether you are prepared to invest the effort required and
wait the amount of time that it will take to get a hearing.

You mentioned that the there had always been a green caste over the
picture. This could well have been a manufacturing defect which was
a precursor to the catastrophic failure that has happened now.
Arguably, you should have reported that at the outset, but it's too
late for that now.

There is new legislation as a result of an EU Directive which puts the
onus on the retailer to prove that there was not a manufacturing
defect. However, IIRC, you only have 6 months after purchase to
report a problem due to that. Also, I believe that the UK has not
yet fully implemented all of the Directive provisions into statute,
and possibly Scotland will be different anyway. It may be that this
won't apply anyway since your purchase probably predates the new
legislation. Again TS will be able to help you.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

 

[half_pint]

Fraser wrote:

"half_pint" <esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bsk84p$d1jnb$2@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Bob Brenchley." <Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:ttnquvcldnp5tarh6h4cs3th3berejitbv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?

I watch films in the aspect ratio they were made in, period. You
wouldn't take the Mona Lisa and cut some of it out to fit a nice
frame you happen to have available. And as TV generally sucks, most
of my TV watching is movies. So I have a widescreen TV. Must I
apologise for that to you?


Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".

Nonsense, learn some film history. Widescreen came about as the movie
industries counter to television, which was affecting it's income.
They were still showing news reels etc at the time, which TV negated
the need for, and in many ways surpassed. Some directors didn't take
to it for a long time, Stanley Kubrik for example. Mind you, most of
his films were also made in mono sound!!

Can I just surprise you there?

If you look at a wall and focus on a point which is far enough away
to be in focus (about 10 inches, but a reasonable distance for discussion
is about say 4 feet?) the image you can see in detail is round effectively
perfectly round. This is because visual sensitivity on the eyes retina is
round. (Consult any text book or google on fovea and macula).
And you can forget any two eyes arguement, both eyes are focused on the
same point, this is how our eyes work.
Yes the field of vison when moving your eyes is wider, due to the bone
structure of the face, but if I look between my legs I have 360 degrees
vision in the horizontal range.

You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.

No, this time learn some DVD history and consumer electronics
marketing. The first lot of people to buy DVD were the enthusiasts.
We wanted digital surround, multiple audio tracks, all that sort of
thing. To be a success, you have to get their buy in, then capture
the public. Laser disk never got popular with the enthusiasts, so it
died. My player cost Ł750 at the time, but that was with being
chipped etc. Most of us want widescreen, so that's the way it was.
Releases got slated in all the review mags if they were masked down
to 4:3. DVDs were intended to be the "perfect" delivery mechanism for
movies, and cutting parts of the movie out didn't fit into that
picture.

Who exactly is doing this brainwashing anyway? Does your tinfoil
hat protect you?


Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.

Which is very true. Look at a blank wall and see how much of it you
can see without moving your eyes. Not much in the up & down
department, but you've got around 120 degrees (a lot) of horizontal
view. The widest common format,
2.35:1, is a lot closer to this than TVs traditional 4:3. For framing
"normal" images, such as landscapes, groups of people, text/signs,
widescreen is more natural. Just look at the unusual ways people
stand in 4:3 media, they usually much closer than normal people are
in day-to-day life. It's unnatural.

Lol you mean like the way a picture of two men carrrying a ladder
is used to advertise WS TV?

If you look at a randon selection of 'art' pictures you will find only
about 10% in a WS format.
Unsurprisingly you will find that on average the ratio is 1:1.
Pick up any newspaper and count the WS images (I just
did) there are hardly any, most are taller than wide.
How do you explaing that? Answer - You can't.

I actually have a copy of the Sun here with an article on
the Beckams (which was filmed in WS), 3 out of the four
pictures printed are in a portrait format (taller than wide).
(I only bought it for a cheap TV guide btw).

However if the visual sensitivity of the eye does evolve
into a WS format I will conceed it is a more natural format.

In the mean time I think you are living in the land of clouds and
cookoo's ( or should I say seagulls, which do actually have a
WS visual sensitivity)

Fraser.

--
---------------
regards half_pint

 

[Mike]

In article <nbfluv8p9b0b4la4evq0k8rorul33b25i5@4ax.com>,
Andy Hall <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote:

I have heard some people saying that the dealers make a lot of money on
these warranties.

Here they do. The retailers push them like hell to boost their
margins.

Even to the point of stupidity. Consider a salesman's job. It's to sell
you the product, right? So you build up how good the product is etc. right?

Then, me having decided on the product (in this case a video), out comes
the extended warranty spiel. "No thanks." says I. Salesman's response?
"Well, these devices are very unreliable and prone to breaking down.
The repair costs are astronomical, you really should get the warranty".

The temptation was to say "You're right, they are total crap. I'm not
buying one of those. See ya!" ... and put in a good word to the manager
for his honest salesman

In practice: the item was a Goldstar (LG) PW904i video. I had one, my
uncle had one. Both saw day to day domestic use.

Uncle: First one packed up within warranty (display lights up every
segment, and just keeps cycling, won't power up). Power supply replaced.
Broke again, same fault, about 12 months later.

Mine: Broke just out of warranty (14 months?) Replacement PSU would be 50
pounds. Broke again after about 18 months. Replacement electrolytics for
existing PSU, a couple of pounds. Still going OK.

So the salesman was right, they are unreliable rubbish (for longevity).

Someone has cut the corners on the design of this PSU so that it will last
(guaranteed) 12 months, and anything beyond that is a bonus. A total of 4
manufacturer's original PSUs, all gone phut with duff electrolytics. I'd
call that unreasonable. I wish I'd known about the 6 year limit referenced
above ...

Mike.
--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[at]pootle.demon.co.uk | http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/

 

[Bob Brenchley.]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 17:28:40 -0000, "half_pint"
<esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

Fraser wrote:
"half_pint" <esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bsk84p$d1jnb$2@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Bob Brenchley." <Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:ttnquvcldnp5tarh6h4cs3th3berejitbv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?

I watch films in the aspect ratio they were made in, period. You
wouldn't take the Mona Lisa and cut some of it out to fit a nice
frame you happen to have available. And as TV generally sucks, most
of my TV watching is movies. So I have a widescreen TV. Must I
apologise for that to you?


Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".

Nonsense, learn some film history. Widescreen came about as the movie
industries counter to television, which was affecting it's income.
They were still showing news reels etc at the time, which TV negated
the need for, and in many ways surpassed. Some directors didn't take
to it for a long time, Stanley Kubrik for example. Mind you, most of
his films were also made in mono sound!!

Can I just surprise you there?
If you look at a wall and focus on a point which is far enough away
to be in focus (about 10 inches, but a reasonable distance for discussion
is about say 4 feet?) the image you can see in detail is round effectively
perfectly round.

No it isn't. If your eyes are working correctly you will be seeing a
widescreen view of the wall.

This is because visual sensitivity on the eyes retina is
round. (Consult any text book or google on fovea and macula).

But your view on the world, as you have two eyes, is NOT round - it is
widescreen.

And you can forget any two eyes arguement, both eyes are focused on the
same point, this is how our eyes work.

No i isn't. Learn about vision.

Yes the field of vison when moving your eyes is wider, due to the bone
structure of the face, but if I look between my legs I have 360 degrees
vision in the horizontal range.

You what???


Widescreen TV - giving you a more natural view on the world.

Which is very true. Look at a blank wall and see how much of it you
can see without moving your eyes. Not much in the up & down
department, but you've got around 120 degrees (a lot) of horizontal
view. The widest common format,
2.35:1, is a lot closer to this than TVs traditional 4:3. For framing
"normal" images, such as landscapes, groups of people, text/signs,
widescreen is more natural. Just look at the unusual ways people
stand in 4:3 media, they usually much closer than normal people are
in day-to-day life. It's unnatural.

Lol you mean like the way a picture of two men carrrying a ladder
is used to advertise WS TV?

If you look at a randon selection of 'art' pictures you will find only
about 10% in a WS format.
Unsurprisingly you will find that on average the ratio is 1:1.

Very rare that you will find a square picture.

Pick up any newspaper and count the WS images (I just
did) there are hardly any, most are taller than wide.
How do you explaing that? Answer - You can't.

Because newspapers and magazines are designed to be read in columns.

I actually have a copy of the Sun here with an article on
the Beckams (which was filmed in WS), 3 out of the four
pictures printed are in a portrait format (taller than wide).
(I only bought it for a cheap TV guide btw).

However if the visual sensitivity of the eye does evolve
into a WS format I will conceed it is a more natural format.

It already is.

In the mean time I think you are living in the land of clouds and
cookoo's ( or should I say seagulls, which do actually have a
WS visual sensitivity)

They have a wider view than us, but ours is still a widescreen view.

Fraser.

--
Bob.

The difference between ordinary stupid and extraordinary stupid can be
summed up in one word -- YOU.

 

[Bob Brenchley.]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:02:56 -0000, "Fraser" <no46764@spam.com> wrote:

Things are very different in the UK for this then, we get 6 years provided
the fault isn't "normal wear and tear" apparently.

Wrong. You get "up to 6 years". It depends very much on the product
and the fault - and it is up to you to prove that the fault was
inherent in the product from the time of purchase.

--
Bob.

The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The
distinction is yours to draw...

 

[Fraser]

"Andy Hall" <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:r1atuv0pd906ds7otb9crq54nks7lf4rh3@4ax.com...

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:02:56 -0000, "Fraser" <no46764@spam.com> wrote:

Things are very different in the UK for this then, we get 6 years
provided
the fault isn't "normal wear and tear" apparently.


Be careful here. The 6 year period is a statute of limitations which
in effect lets the retailer off the hook at the end of that time.
It doesn't mean that they *have* to fix problems with *any* product
for that whole period.

My bad; over simplification in the post, I understand what the 6 year thing
refers to i.e. raising civil cases. Doesn't mean you'll win!! ;-)

In effect, the manufacturer's warranty period means that problems that
occur during the warranty period should be fixed without your having
to negotiate the issue. Between the end of that and 6 years you
*may* have a case, depending on the product, its position in the
market and what it cost. The issue then comes to whether the
retailer wants to play ball - this may well not be a store manager
decision - and how far you then want to pursue the issue.

Having found the receipt, I now realise that it cost Ł1050, so that should
help the case. It was a top of the range set, highly rated in What HiFi (or
some other mag), and made by one of the largest TV manufacturers. Should be
a reasonable case that it should last four years (receipt confirms purchase
date as Sept 1999). Hopefully!

Ultimately, you can take it to the court where you may win something.
Before embarking on that course, I would certainly talk to Trading
Standards for an opinion on what you are likely to get. One factor in
this is whether you are prepared to invest the effort required and
wait the amount of time that it will take to get a hearing.

Definitely a good idea, I'll look them up tomorrow & pay them a visit. It
may well be that they provide the tube, and I the labor. It's actually been
in for repair since October, so I don't expect to be charged a lot for the
work given their slowness in even getting it up onto the test bed (about 3-4
weeks ago).

You mentioned that the there had always been a green caste over the
picture. This could well have been a manufacturing defect which was
a precursor to the catastrophic failure that has happened now.
Arguably, you should have reported that at the outset, but it's too
late for that now.

Would that be negative to my cause? If so, I could keep quiet about it as I
haven't spoken to Comet yet about it.

Also, it's not always been there; I'd say around 6-9 months before the
current failure. Before that, there were no issues, other than a little
picture foldback, but there were user-accessable screen position controls
I'd used to minimise that.

All in all, I've had several problems. Could these help my case, or should I
just focus on the current fault?

There is new legislation as a result of an EU Directive which puts the
onus on the retailer to prove that there was not a manufacturing
defect. However, IIRC, you only have 6 months after purchase to
report a problem due to that. Also, I believe that the UK has not
yet fully implemented all of the Directive provisions into statute,
and possibly Scotland will be different anyway. It may be that this
won't apply anyway since your purchase probably predates the new
legislation. Again TS will be able to help you.

When you say manufacturing defect, do you mean a defect unique to my item,
or would it also include a generic design defect? The guy in the repair shop
mentioned it as a known problem with this tube, and in my mind that would be
suitable justification for repair.

Fraser.

 

[Fraser]

"Mike" <mjb@posie.local.dom> wrote in message
news:bsoskl$4jt$1@posie.local.dom...

In article <nbfluv8p9b0b4la4evq0k8rorul33b25i5@4ax.com>,

Someone has cut the corners on the design of this PSU so that it will last
(guaranteed) 12 months, and anything beyond that is a bonus. A total of 4
manufacturer's original PSUs, all gone phut with duff electrolytics. I'd
call that unreasonable. I wish I'd known about the 6 year limit referenced
above ...

There was a bad batch of capacitors a while back, perhaps related to your
problem. Just about everything they were used on failed due to electrolyte
leakage. If that's the case, going on the advice seen here, it's an inherent
fault and you should be entitled to compensation. I think.

Fraser.

 

[Fraser]

"Bob Brenchley." <Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:0410vvcj26sv3dge3qe6802bvar15p5trr@4ax.com...

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:02:56 -0000, "Fraser" <no46764@spam.com> wrote:

Things are very different in the UK for this then, we get 6 years
provided
the fault isn't "normal wear and tear" apparently.

Wrong. You get "up to 6 years". It depends very much on the product
and the fault - and it is up to you to prove that the fault was
inherent in the product from the time of purchase.

Not according to the following at:
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/calitem.cgi?file=ADV0054-1111.txt

(in reference to the latter part of your statement that is, I agree on the
"up to 6 years" bit, my post was badly worded)


----------- >8 -----------
Q. I bought a fridge/freezer about 18 months ago, and the freezer section
has completely failed. I went back to the shop, but they refused to do
anything as it was outside the original 12 month guarantee. What are my
rights?
A. Firstly, when you buy goods from a shop, you enter into a contract under
the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended). This holds the shop liable for up
to six years after purchase (Limitation Act 1980), providing that you can
show that the problem is down to an unreasonable fault and not normal wear
and tear. Secondly, remember that the guarantee is in addition to these
statutory legal rights. Don't be taken in by the shop's argument here - they
are using the issue of the guarantee as a red herring to try to avoid their
legal obligations toward you. See our leaflet 'Buying Goods' for more
information on your rights.
----------- >8 -----------

No mention of having the fault present at the time of purchase at all, just
that's it's considered "unreasonable". I'll ask them tomorrow when I am in
Trading Standards and post back results.

Thanks for all the input everyone, appreciated!!

Fraser.

 

[Andy Hall]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:02:24 -0000, "Fraser" <no46764@spam.com> wrote:

"Andy Hall" <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:r1atuv0pd906ds7otb9crq54nks7lf4rh3@4ax.com...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:02:56 -0000, "Fraser" <no46764@spam.com> wrote:

Things are very different in the UK for this then, we get 6 years
provided
the fault isn't "normal wear and tear" apparently.


Be careful here. The 6 year period is a statute of limitations which
in effect lets the retailer off the hook at the end of that time.
It doesn't mean that they *have* to fix problems with *any* product
for that whole period.

My bad; over simplification in the post, I understand what the 6 year thing
refers to i.e. raising civil cases. Doesn't mean you'll win!! ;-)


In effect, the manufacturer's warranty period means that problems that
occur during the warranty period should be fixed without your having
to negotiate the issue. Between the end of that and 6 years you
*may* have a case, depending on the product, its position in the
market and what it cost. The issue then comes to whether the
retailer wants to play ball - this may well not be a store manager
decision - and how far you then want to pursue the issue.

Having found the receipt, I now realise that it cost Ł1050, so that should
help the case. It was a top of the range set, highly rated in What HiFi (or
some other mag), and made by one of the largest TV manufacturers. Should be
a reasonable case that it should last four years (receipt confirms purchase
date as Sept 1999). Hopefully!

Based on that, I would certainly pursue it.

Ultimately, you can take it to the court where you may win something.
Before embarking on that course, I would certainly talk to Trading
Standards for an opinion on what you are likely to get. One factor in
this is whether you are prepared to invest the effort required and
wait the amount of time that it will take to get a hearing.

Definitely a good idea, I'll look them up tomorrow & pay them a visit. It
may well be that they provide the tube, and I the labor. It's actually been
in for repair since October, so I don't expect to be charged a lot for the
work given their slowness in even getting it up onto the test bed (about 3-4
weeks ago).

That's not good service at all.

I think that offering a compromise position won't do any harm either.

You mentioned that the there had always been a green caste over the
picture. This could well have been a manufacturing defect which was
a precursor to the catastrophic failure that has happened now.
Arguably, you should have reported that at the outset, but it's too
late for that now.

Would that be negative to my cause? If so, I could keep quiet about it as I
haven't spoken to Comet yet about it.

I wouldn't mention it unless you get completely stonewalled. If that
happens then I might be tempted to push the point. The problem is
that they can say that you should have reported it earlier. However
since the purchase pre-dates the new legislation, it probably doesn't
matter too much.

I suppose the lesson here is, if you buy something top of the line
then go over it very carefully and if it is not perfect then return
it.

Also, it's not always been there; I'd say around 6-9 months before the
current failure. Before that, there were no issues, other than a little
picture foldback, but there were user-accessable screen position controls
I'd used to minimise that.

All in all, I've had several problems. Could these help my case, or should I
just focus on the current fault?

If you can catalogue them then yes, I suppose you could argue
manufacturing defect or design problems.

There is new legislation as a result of an EU Directive which puts the
onus on the retailer to prove that there was not a manufacturing
defect. However, IIRC, you only have 6 months after purchase to
report a problem due to that. Also, I believe that the UK has not
yet fully implemented all of the Directive provisions into statute,
and possibly Scotland will be different anyway. It may be that this
won't apply anyway since your purchase probably predates the new
legislation. Again TS will be able to help you.

When you say manufacturing defect, do you mean a defect unique to my item,
or would it also include a generic design defect?

AIUI, it can be either, because a design defect could make it unfit
for purpose - assuming it does.

The guy in the repair shop
mentioned it as a known problem with this tube, and in my mind that would be
suitable justification for repair.

Is the repair shop associated with the retailer or a separate
organisation? Either way he's your ally, but if he's a separate
organisation, would he be prepared to state that the tube has a known
design problem? Have you tried searching on the web using the part
number of the tube to see if there is any mention of it? Perhaps
some enquiries at Philips would reveal something.


Another thing to think about before you go too far with this is the
residual value in the product. How long would you expect it to last
before buying a replacement? Let's say 8 years for the sake of
argument. Therefore you have Ł500 of value left if you assume a
linear write down. So, before committing to a lot of time and
direct and indirect cost if you consider legal action or other
remedies, keep in mind that that is really the value that you are
protecting, not the original purchase price.

Fraser.

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

 

[Millie Meecher]

"Fraser" <no46764@spam.com> wrote in message
newsD0Ib.12797$FN.3725@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...

When you say manufacturing defect, do you mean a defect unique to my item,
or would it also include a generic design defect? The guy in the repair
shop
mentioned it as a known problem with this tube, and in my mind that would
be
suitable justification for repair.

Fraser.

Sorry Fraser, only just seen this post.
Had a Toshiba tube go at three year old (not the same model as yours). Wrote
to them, and they requested proof of purchase and an engineer's report
stating the tube had failed.

Never heard a word from them myself, but they contacted the engineer and
offered to pay for the tube. I paid the labour.

The address I wrote to was at Camberley, Surry. GU15 3DT

HTH

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

Andy Hall wrote:

I suppose the lesson here is, if you buy something top of the line
then go over it very carefully and if it is not perfect then return
it.

I think this is extremely good advice, and, if followed, would actually
improve product quality.

I have a Land Rover Defender that has been back for about half a dozen
warranty repairs, including repsraying bits of it that corroded. As I
understand it, every time a warranty repair is undertaken, teh car
manufacture gets the bits back, sends them back to its supplier, and
they bear the cost of replacement. If this happenes often enough, those
parts don't get replaced with et same parts, but with better parts,
because the manufacturers stop making any profit.

You have to be ruthless. Laziness is what allows teh manufactures to
believe that they cheapo crap they are bolting in is of acceptable
quality. In teh case of 99% of teh British Car industry, what happened
was that people didn't send the cars back, they simply stopped buying
them and the whole industry vanished.

I have some sympathy with manufactureres: Its not easy to control
component quality. As a designer for productiomn my designs were often
compromised by the buyer attempting to save pence by buying substandard
components. Or productin engineers removing them altogether ("but they
still work: Yes, but not when they get hot/a low spec bunch of
trnsasitors get used/ under exterem power conditions etc etc).


In the OP's case, the fact that the set is worth better than a grand,
and a picture tube fitted is probably far less than that, its worth
pursuing even on a split/parts labour cost. Go direct to the
manufacturers and complain about the quality of the product, and the
quality of service from the retailer. In the car world at least, car
dealers who have a slew of complaints against them lose franchises.

 

[geoff]

In message <bsk84p$d1jnb$2@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de>, half_pint
<esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> writes

"Bob Brenchley." <Bob@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:ttnquvcldnp5tarh6h4cs3th3berejitbv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:29:24 -0000, "half_pint"
esboella.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

I dont watch DVD period.
Why should I suffer for you to indulge your fetish?

fucktard, i hardly think watching a film in the current best sound and
audio format a fetish. A 22:9 crt is definitely out of the question,
the 16:9 is the best compromise between those wanting to watch films
as they were intended

They were *intended* to be watched in a high capacity *cinema*,
hence the wide format, so everyone could sit near the screen.

Rubbish - the shape of the cinema screen has nothing to do with the
seating.


Of course you are wrong, you can build two widescreen cinemas in the
space used by one equivilant 4:3 picture. Thats the *only* resason
we ended up with this WS garbage. Nothing to do with that oh so
pretensious phrase "as the director intended" so go stick you fingers
in your ears and chant "I love my widescreen".
You have been brainwashed into buying widescreen, although how this
was achieved is perplexing since it implies you had a brain to wash.

I thought that 16:9 formed a golden rectangle.

Anyway, rant on if you wish, but that's the standard which is on it's
way in, so what are you going to do when your trusty old 4:3 finally
croaks - stop watching TV?


--
geoff