OLED LG E6 65" Curry's refuse warranty repair:

Been thinking about it, can you imagine walking into a shop and about the buy an 3500 quid Oled for your main front room tv and the sales rep said..

Please do the following sir to protec your new tv..

Zoom out the piture on letter boxed movies and channels like sky news/breakfast tv with big info bars on.

Remove game HUD’s from the screen if playing for a long time.

Be mindful of logos on tv channels, especially kids programs.

Don’t pause anything on screen for to long like Blu-ray movie menus or sky Q.

Becarfel with your back light setting to bright this will effect the life span of your panel.

Power off the tv every 4 hours so the tv can clean itself..

Ingnore the tints, LG have stated there normal..

Read the user manual, its full of helpful advise like as long as you use common sense you’ll be fine..

Turn off subtitles, especially yellow ones.

Following these simple guide lines will protec your tv, you also get a full 12 months warranty but it still develops burn in, it’s your own fault and not covered.. We do offer an extended 5 year warranty tho, but again burn in isn’t coverd in our warranty..

Other than that sir you can use it like any other tv you have owned...Cough.

How do you want to pay cash or card sir.....sir...sirrr..


Lol, pretty much sums it up for me currently.

But joking aside, you can see why they don’t say all that cant you, theyed never sell one.
 
I actually had something similar happen on an old Sony RPTV which got a bad rep for developing a brown or green tinged blob/patch in the screen. It was never confirmed but widely suspected this was due to one of SXRD chips browning like a piece of toast over time due to proximity/heat from the projection lamp. Sony even got sued in a class action over it in the USA though they settled by offering repairs there they never admitted there was ever a fault with the sets. I even remember one laughable conversation with a Sony rep saying they had searched their database and had absolutely no record of any issues with the set anywhere in the world to which I responded here it is the link to how you were sued over it on your own company web site that you didn't find.

One thing I was advised, though this was based on the SOGA and am I am not sure if the CRA has updated or changed any wording was do NOT claim the item is faulty. As others have mentioned if you are claiming an item is faulty after six months it is on you to prove the item is faulty because of an issue that existed at the time of sale e.g. a defect or design issue, this can be impossible or not relevant if something has simply worn of faulted over time. You wouldn't say something wearing out to quickly was necessarily a defect present at the time of sale. Rather you should claim the item as not fit for purpose. The SOGA contained a statement to the effect that goods must be fit for purpose, which has been interpreted to mean must last a reasonable period. Though the 'reasonable' was never explicitly defined essentially leaving that to a judge on a case by case basis it was widely considered that electronic items costing more than a few hundred pounds should last at least a few years of normal use. Your claim would be that a £3500 TV should last more than 18 months of reasonable use without developing an issue like this line in the screen and that it has developed an issue in that time means it is not fit for purpose. That can leave you in the position of having to prove you have not subjected the item to unreasonable conditions or use but you would essentially be asking a judge to agree it is not reasonable the set has developed this issue, whatever it is in 18 months of use, an engineers report could back this up if you had to take it to court but you shouldn't need one at this point unless you actually have to go to court and maybe not even then but it would probably help your case. So long as a judge agrees it is not reasonable that the TV has developed this issue in the time then you would win. The only way you would lose is if the retailer could convince a judge you have run that set all day every day for 18 months and that is somehow unreasonable or some other form of unreasonable use.

Another thing is they can fob you off by email phone etc. indefinitely in the hope you will give up. I originally pursued mine using which legal advice on a set that was almost 30 months old when it developed the screen blob. I followed the which advice and sent off the recorded delivery written letters detailing the issue, one to the store manager where the set was bought and one to the CEO of the retail company, explaining the problem and that the set was not fit for purpose and needed repair or replacement or I would see them in the small claims court. Of course it helped I had researched the issue in my case and it had been such an issue in the USA Sony were sued over it so I can't say if you would have the same luck but I went from not our problem you are out of warranty etc. to here is your new Tv in less than a week after sending out the formal letters based on form letters for this from the which web site.
 
Last edited:
I actually had something similar happen on an old Sony RPTV which got a bad rep for developing a brown or green tinged blob/patch in the screen. It was never confirmed but widely suspected this was due to one of SXRD chips browning like a piece of toast over time due to proximity/heat from the projection lamp. Sony even got sued in a class action over it in the USA though they settled by offering repairs there they never admitted there was ever a fault with the sets. I even remember one laughable conversation with a Sony rep saying they had searched their database and had absolutely no record of any issues with the set anywhere in the world to which I responded here it is the link to how you were sued over it on your own company web site that you didn't find.

One thing I was advised, though this was based on the SOGA and am I am not sure if the CRA has updated or changed any wording was do NOT claim the item is faulty. As others have mentioned if you are claiming an item is faulty after six months it is on you to prove the item is faulty because of an issue that existed at the time of sale e.g. a defect or design issue, this can be impossible or not relevant if something has simply worn of faulted over time. You wouldn't say something wearing out to quickly was necessarily a defect present at the time of sale. Rather you should claim the item as not fit for purpose. The SOGA contained a statement to the effect that goods must be fit for purpose, which has been interpreted to mean must last a reasonable period. Though the 'reasonable' was never explicitly defined essentially leaving that to a judge on a case by case basis it was widely considered that electronic items costing more than a few hundred pounds should last at least a few years of normal use. Your claim would be that a £3500 TV should last more than 18 months of reasonable use without developing an issue like this line in the screen and that it has developed an issue in that time means it is not fit for purpose. That can leave you in the position of having to prove you have not subjected the item to unreasonable conditions or use but you would essentially be asking a judge to agree it is not reasonable the set has developed this issue, whatever it is in 18 months of use, an engineers report could back this up if you had to take it to court but you shouldn't need one at this point unless you actually have to go to court and maybe not even then but it would probably help your case. So long as a judge agrees it is not reasonable that the TV has developed this issue in the time then you would win. The only way you would lose is if the retailer could convince a judge you have run that set all day every day for 18 months and that is somehow unreasonable or some other form of unreasonable use.

Another thing is they can fob you off by email phone etc. indefinitely in the hope you will give up. I originally pursued mine using which legal advice on a set that was almost 30 months old when it developed the screen blob. I followed the which advice and sent off the recorded delivery written letters detailing the issue, one to the store manager where the set was bought and one to the CEO of the retail company, explaining the problem and that the set was not fit for purpose and needed repair or replacement or I would see them in the small claims court. Of course it helped I had researched the issue in my case and it had been such an issue in the USA Sony were sued over it so I can't say if you would have the same luck but I went from not our problem you are out of warranty etc. to here is your new Tv in less than a week after sending out the formal letters based on form letters for this from the which web site.


The term fit for purpose is a strange one for oled tv. What is the primary function of a tv ?

I personally think Oleds are perfect for movies as there are no logos /info bars or what ever to cause damage. And on this front Oleds are untouchable. Offering amazing pictures No one can argue against.

Where they fall down for me is for the average person off the street user.. They just buy a tv that looks good to them in the shop and then just use it like there old LCD TV it’s just replaced. Which I don’t think you can.
Example for me Iv been painting my house for the last few weeks and my Q9FN as been stuck on sky sports news all day without any fear. I would Never allow this on my Oled.

Again I’m not knocking Oled, I loved mine, but you can’t treat them like a normal TV, becasue if your viewing habits are not so mixed you will have problems as shown with the OP..

Oleds are a premium product and one which deserves all the credit it gets, but let’s be real here, they need to be treated with respect.
 
The whole fit for purpose thing is unfortunately a bit vague, it would seem to mean fit for purpose in the opinion of the judge hearing the case, assuming it ever got that far. That is of course where it can get a bit difficult if for example you always leave a static image/logo or similar up on the screen on an oled or as was all to common in the early days of plasma and burn in an image that can of course be argued as operator error, unreasonable treatment and thus would not be covered.

I remember someone giving a legal example for it based on shoes, so if you bought a pair of shoes, wore them occasionally and after a year they fell apart they are not fit for purpose. On the other hand if you buy them and go out an run a marathon in them and wear them out right away that would be unreasonable use.

It is hard to think what would burn a line in like the OP has, maybe a news channel or something with a ticker if left on a lot. My first thought looking at the pics was something in the screen has faulted.

I may well have been lucky in that my problem was a somewhat common issue on that particular tv model, indeed so common in the USA it resulted in a class action suit against Sony, though that had no bearing on the UK and Sony in fact always denied there ever was any issue with the TV in any country despite settling the suit in the USA with an offer of free repairs for sets that were out of warranty.
 
The whole fit for purpose thing is unfortunately a bit vague, it would seem to mean fit for purpose in the opinion of the judge hearing the case, assuming it ever got that far. That is of course where it can get a bit difficult if for example you always leave a static image/logo or similar up on the screen on an oled or as was all to common in the early days of plasma and burn in an image that can of course be argued as operator error, unreasonable treatment and thus would not be covered.

I remember someone giving a legal example for it based on shoes, so if you bought a pair of shoes, wore them occasionally and after a year they fell apart they are not fit for purpose. On the other hand if you buy them and go out an run a marathon in them and wear them out right away that would be unreasonable use.

It is hard to think what would burn a line in like the OP has, maybe a news channel or something with a ticker if left on a lot. My first thought looking at the pics was something in the screen has faulted.

I may well have been lucky in that my problem was a somewhat common issue on that particular tv model, indeed so common in the USA it resulted in a class action suit against Sony, though that had no bearing on the UK and Sony in fact always denied there ever was any issue with the TV in any country despite settling the suit in the USA with an offer of free repairs for sets that were out of warranty.


Yeah I agree and understand why your saying.. Problem you have LG and other company’s don’t offer any real guide lines as to what is classed as safe viewing. They just hide behind common sense and normal viewing.. Again what is normal viewing ?

I watch a lot of sports and you tube, my dad watches a lot of cow boy movies.. Both different but both normal to the end user.. It’s very open and vague from those company’s, and to top it of when there is issues like the OP is having they stat he’s abused is TV.

It’s just wrong on so many fronts.
 
Indeed though fortunately, hopefully anyway, it would be what a judge thinks is reasonable not the manufacturer. A lot of similar type cases have seen judges really blast manufacturers saying such cop outs as regards usability in warranties and T&Cs are just not reasonable, if you are going to sell someone a TV for thousands it needs to stand up to being used and or protect itself, its not good enough just to say you weren't careful enough using it to just watch ordinary TV.

Assuming you have a good case with a decent chance of a win they are likely to offer a replacement before it ever gets to court if only because it would cost significantly less than paying a barrister to turn up to court to try and defend it.
 
SOGA goods like high price TVs have an expected minimum legal life of 6 years (England and Wales) and 5 years (Scotland).

Incorrect. Any claim for a defect must be issued within 6 years of purchase, but there is no rule that the goods themselves must last for 6 years. The goods must last a reasonable time.

You've used a value far higher than the amount likely to be claimed.

How do you know the amount claimed will be less than full replacement cost? That is unconfirmed. And a TV technician is going to cost around £50/hour I would guess so the report should be less than £100.
 
I personally think Oleds are perfect for movies as there are no logos /info bars or what ever to cause damage. And on this front Oleds are untouchable. Offering amazing pictures No one can argue against.
There is one issue with this though - if you watch a lot of widescreen movies then due to differential aging/fading when watching full screen content the area of the black bars can then be brighter.
 
There is one issue with this though - if you watch a lot of widescreen movies then due to differential aging/fading when watching full screen content the area of the black bars can then be brighter.

True, tho I assume there as been no chase of letter box burn in today ? Doesn’t state in the manual to zoom out letter box movies, I think it does in the Sony oled manual..
 
Its an average and non conducive to my current situation unless your suggesting the set is not up to the mammoth task of watching telly on a telly. I have an older very heavy Sony 50 inch LCD that has been a faithful servant for over 13 years and never so much as a peep.That was from Currys which shows just how faithful we both are to suppliers.As an addendum I work till late but the wife cant because of chronic arthritis so the TV is her only companionship.Lots of folk have their TV on all day.
How much TV you watch really should not come into it. There is nothing at the point of sale that says you can only use an OLED X hours a day or that you should not watch TV programs with logos or static bars or tickers. Putting this information in the instruction manual should not negate a manufacturers oblibation to provide a product that is fit for purpose.

It concerns me that the manufacturer or retailer can simply say that you have "abused" a product and then feel that is the end of it. Either:
(1) There should be warnings prominently displayed at the point of sale about the risk with OLED of long hours of use or watching programs with logos or bars. Then if you do get screen burn from watching content that they have warned you about, then the manufacturer could reasonably say that it was the users fault.
(2) Have no warnings at the point of sale but have to repair or replace sets that get burn in within a reasonable time - whatever the courts decide that to be for a premium priced TV, e.g. 5 years.

P.S. @Taximania If you get a chance, could you please change your vote on the OLED burn in poll, as you have voted for burn in on a 2017 model and your E6 is a 2016 model. (Votes can be changed.) Thanks.
 
True, tho I assume there as been no chase of letter box burn in today ? Doesn’t state in the manual to zoom out letter box movies, I think it does in the Sony oled manual..
One of the people reporting issues with burn in on the burn in poll, had specifically this issue, which is why I mentioned it. (I believe that they also had a 2016 OLED.) In summary the results so far point to burn in being significantly more of an issue for 2016 sets such as the E6 than with 2017 or 2018 sets.

Does the poll indicating that 17% of 2016 model OLED owners have burn-in help the OPs case in any way? It certainly shows that it is not an isolated case.
 
Where in the Curry’s extended warranty does it state that screen burn is not included? I specifically asked about it when I took out extended warrant and was told it was covered. I’ve looked online and it doesn’t mention screen burn in the T’s & C’s. If it definitely doesn’t I may as well cancel my policy now.

I guess this is just lies then?

Protection against mishap
We don’t expect you to wrap your TV in cotton wool. If your TV suffers a mishap, we’ll fix it.”
 
One of the people reporting issues with burn in on the burn in poll, had specifically this issue, which is why I mentioned it. (I believe that they also had a 2016 OLED.) In summary the results so far point to burn in being significantly more of an issue for 2016 sets such as the E6 than with 2017 or 2018 sets.

Does the poll indicating that 17% of 2016 model OLED owners have burn-in help the OPs case in any way? It certainly shows that it is not an isolated case.

From my personl experience burn in showed it’s face after 22 months. So using my apparently abusive habits (according to LG) as a reference,, I’m not surprised at all 2016 models are showing an higher ratio.. Be interesting to redo this poll again next year once 2 years have past on the 2017 models.. And a further year on for the 2018 models.

What I find worrying is the life span of these TVs, I mean I don’t think I could manage my viewing habits for 5 plus years lol. In fact I’ll be amazed if a Oled tv being used daily for 10 hours last 5 years ..
 
Where in the Curry’s extended warranty does it state that screen burn is not included? I specifically asked about it when I took out extended warrant and was told it was covered. I’ve looked online and it doesn’t mention screen burn in the T’s & C’s. If it definitely doesn’t I may as well cancel my policy now.

I guess this is just lies then?

Protection against mishap
We don’t expect you to wrap your TV in cotton wool. If your TV suffers a mishap, we’ll fix it.”


I really don’t think it’s covered, they wouldn’t repair mine and I had the extended warranty.. But they may of changed there stance if they have I’ll but a new Oled tomorrow.
 
Where in the Curry’s extended warranty does it state that screen burn is not included? I specifically asked about it when I took out extended warrant and was told it was covered. I’ve looked online and it doesn’t mention screen burn in the T’s & C’s. If it definitely doesn’t I may as well cancel my policy now.

I guess this is just lies then?

Protection against mishap
We don’t expect you to wrap your TV in cotton wool. If your TV suffers a mishap, we’ll fix it.”


Better read your plan,

This is how they will get out of screen burn, it clearly states this in what isn’t covered, it’s what they used on me saying I abused my tv..
  • Repair or replacement of the Product which has been neglected, abused, misused, or damaged intentionally. You must take reasonable care of the Product.
 
From my personl experience burn in showed it’s face after 22 months. So using my apparently abusive habits (according to LG) as a reference,, I’m not surprised at all 2016 models are showing an higher ratio.. Be interesting to redo this poll again next year once 2 years have past on the 2017 models.. And a further year on for the 2018 models.

What I find worrying is the life span of these TVs, I mean I don’t think I could manage my viewing habits for 5 plus years lol. In fact I’ll be amazed if a Oled tv being used daily for 10 hours last 5 years ..
In 2017 LG increased the size of the blue sub-pixels. This should have improved the lifespan/resilience of blue.

In 2018 LG increased the size of the red sub-pixels. This should have improved the lifespan/resilience of red.

So 2018 panels may be the most resilient so far. But as you say we wont know that for certain for another two years.

Out of interest if you view your burn in with red, green and blue slides is it most obvious with blue?

One other thing I would like to see would be a meausre of how an OLEDs peak brightness of each of the three primary colours changes over time as the emitters age and fade.

I wonder how much brighter a 2016 panel is on day one than after 5 years of 10 hours a day usage. (Roughly 18,000 hours.)
 
Better read your plan,

This is how they will get out of screen burn, it clearly states this in what isn’t covered, it’s what they used on me saying I abused my tv..
  • Repair or replacement of the Product which has been neglected, abused, misused, or damaged intentionally. You must take reasonable care of the Product.

I’ll be cancelling my plan. Contacted them on Twitter and they confirmed it isn’t covered.
 
In 2017 LG increased the size of the blue sub-pixels. This should have improved the lifespan/resilience of blue.

In 2018 LG increased the size of the red sub-pixels. This should have improved the lifespan/resilience of red.

So 2018 panels may be the most resilient so far. But as you say we wont know that for certain for another two years.

Out of interest if you view your burn in with red, green and blue slides is it most obvious with blue?

One other thing I would like to see would be a meausre of how an OLEDs peak brightness of each of the three primary colours changes over time as the emitters age and fade.

I wonder how much brighter a 2016 panel is on day one than after 5 years of 10 hours a day usage. (Roughly 18,000 hours.)

The uneven wear is the problem, they need to find away of balancing out that..Sure your overall brightness would drop but I think most would prefer that than have dark patches on the screen..Don't know how easy that would be tho.

Also rtings Burn in test on the 2017 panels, showed signs of burn in after only 6 weeks. Yes this is on a news channel but they do do the 4 hour cycle clean. So to me if the 2017 models are more robust than the 2016 panels it's not massively so.
 
The uneven wear is the problem, they need to find away of balancing out that..Sure your overall brightness would drop but I think most would prefer that than have dark patches on the screen..Don't know how easy that would be tho.

Also rtings Burn in test on the 2017 panels, showed signs of burn in after only 6 weeks. Yes this is on a news channel but they do do the 4 hour cycle clean. So to me if the 2017 models are more robust than the 2016 panels it's not massively so.
Note that the 2017 panels with the larger blue sub pixel have burn in only on red. Even after 38 weeks there is almost no burn in on blue or green.

Although that could simply be because there isn't enough blue in the CNN banners to cause issues. (The banners have a large white box with text and a smaller ed box above this.)

Maybe the 2016 panels with the smaller blue sub pixel would have had more problems with blue as well as red.

That was why I asked about how your burn looks on primary colour screens.
 
IMG_1610.JPG
IMG_1602.JPG
IMG_1581.JPG
Note that the 2017 panels with the larger blue sub pixel have burn in only on red. Even after 38 weeks there is almost no burn in on blue or green.

Although that could simply be because there isn't enough blue in the CNN banners to cause issues. (The banners have a large white box with text and a smaller ed box above this.)

Maybe the 2016 panels with the smaller blue sub pixel would have had more problems with blue as well as red.

That was why I asked about how your burn looks on primary colour screens.


Mine stood out on blue, infact it was the PS4 blue menu screen that highlighted to me and once spotted, Oh and on let's say a grey or white background it looked yellowish.

Are you saying it's only visible on certain bold colours, and if that's what your saying that's not the case from my experance it was clearly visbale in all content I watched after I clocked it.

Can you see it on my pics, also the grey picture isn't very clear, but it does highlight my dark bands either side which look terrible with football.
 
View attachment 1081947 View attachment 1081946 View attachment 1081945


Mine stood out on blue, infact it was the PS4 blue menu screen that highlighted to me and once spotted, Oh and on let's say a grey or white background it looked yellowish.

Are you saying it's only visible on certain bold colours, and if that's what your saying that's not the case from my experance it was clearly visbale in all content I watched after I clocked it.

Can you see it on my pics, also the last picture isn't very clear, but it does highlight my dark bands either side which look terrible with football.
It will be visible in content as they use rgb(red, green and blue) to display all colours, normally its only one colour that it affects more than others though when you put up a full colour slide
 
It will be visible in content as they use rgb(red, green and blue) to display all colours, normally its only one colour that it affects more than others though when you put up a full colour slide

I know that, I think I miss understood what he was saying.
 
Mine stood out on blue, infact it was the PS4 blue menu screen that highlighted to me and once spotted, Oh and on let's say a grey or white background it looked yellowish.

Are you saying it's only visible on certain bold colours, and if that's what your saying that's not the case from my experance it was clearly visbale in all content I watched after I clocked it.
Thanks for that it is clear on the pics.

It looks like 2016 problems with burn in is most severe with blue. If blue fades then it will be most obvious on a blue screen but you will see it in all colours that have a blue element - as they will be shifted away from blue because the other colours will be brighter/less faded.
 
All managers are not frontline staff. Really...

Sorry to be clear I am talking about managers in store, they are frontline staff and they will regularly interact with customers. They don't seem to have much more training than normal staff.

Managers in back-office functions may do but for a company of Curry's size then they will have a legal department responsible for their T&Cs and handling small claims. It's not left to the unqualified :)

In terms of safety, a manufacturer's liability practically never ends. But in this instance, the manufacturer will have liabilities with the retailer. It's hard for Curry's to ensure a boxed device they never built is of satisfactory quality. So engaging both Curry's and LG is advantageous. He has nothing to lose in trying to get the two to talk to each other.

Safety liability is different though, these TV's haven't blown up or injured people they have a defective screen. That is not comparable to the CRA.

Business to business is not regulated in the same way as business to consumer. If the OP had been a company then Currys could quite easily have told him to go away ... In the same way, there is limited liability between retailers and manufacturers.

It's hard for Curry's to ensure a boxed device they never built is of satisfactory quality. So engaging both Curry's and LG is advantageous. He has nothing to lose in trying to get the two to talk to each other.

No that's the nature of their business if a manufacturer starts making crap a retailer can go elsewhere.

He already talked to LG they initially said to go away, he hasn't got any further grounds to make them listen. Hopefully, the escalation may result in something positive but I wouldn't want anybody to hold their breath.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom