OLED Screen - Independent Report?

Chrissy Shenko

Novice Member
I’m trying to pursue a Sect 75 claim that my less than 4 year old OLED is unfit for purpose as it now has image burn, etc, you know what I mean! They have asked for an independent report to prove that it is a manufacturing fault. I have pointed out that I don’t have access to that kind of specialist. I’ve reiterated that it’s a simple case of not fit for purpose, viewing enjoyment has been affected and have sent photographs to support this.

However, is there such a specialist? Has anyone succeeded with Sect 75 or small claims?
 

JustTheFacts

Active Member
The answer to your question is no. It is talked about over and over on AVForums, but nobody would ever succeed talking LG to court. What would you say. They provide a one year warranty, but I want a four year warranty. If you complain enough they may fix your TV, but not because they are legally bound.
 

GAmbrose

Well-known Member
They probably cover themselves in the manual somewhere that you shouldn't leave static images on screen for too long.
 

5to1

Well-known Member
The answer to your question is no. It is talked about over and over on AVForums, but nobody would ever succeed talking LG to court. What would you say. They provide a one year warranty, but I want a four year warranty. If you complain enough they may fix your TV, but not because they are legally bound.
He wouldn’t take LG to court it would be the retailer, that’s who is contract of purchase is with. And in fact people have succeeded doing that, one of them posted a detailed thread here.

In the first instance pursuing S75 is sensible. Unfortunately CC company’s can be difficult and use a war of attrition.

OP search for the other users thread here and try to use that as reference. Otherwise take it to the financial ombudsmen service. And then ultimately small claims court if you can be bothered.

Good luck
 

raymondo77

Member
Not the same as the section 75, but @Taximania took Currys to court and won.

 

Chrissy Shenko

Novice Member
Not the same as the section 75, but @Taximania took Currys to court and won.

Thanks for the link to the successful claim, gives me some hope!
 

JustTheFacts

Active Member
He wouldn’t take LG to court it would be the retailer, that’s who is contract of purchase is with. And in fact people have succeeded doing that, one of them posted a detailed thread here.

In the first instance pursuing S75 is sensible. Unfortunately CC company’s can be difficult and use a war of attrition.

OP search for the other users thread here and try to use that as reference. Otherwise take it to the financial ombudsmen service. And then ultimately small claims court if you can be bothered.

Good luck
"Claim found proved with a reduced refund to take account of 18 months use."

I wonder what amount the refund was? Would be nice to know the claim number? What were the attorney fees? How much time did it take going to court and submitting documents? Is this the only case on AVForums?

This was 18 months not 4 years. When you take into account the reduced refund to take account for the 4 years of use you would probably be left with 20 percent of the original cost. When you take into account that almost every TV with burn in issues is going to be a 4 year or older television it may not be practical to file a claim when you consider attorney fees to write up a claim and your 20 percent refund you would come out on the negative end.

Was this taximan's claim or was this somebody else's claim? Is Taximan a she as the claimant is? Do we know of any other claims with actual claim numbers. Remember this is social media and it may or may not be true. Looking at the writing style of the defense attorney, the claimant, and the judge it looks like they have an identical writing style. A bit suspicious.

Afternoon All,

Late to the party here, but wanted to express my complete confusion in the handling of these issues by Currys. I have an lg oled c7 55 inch bought in Jan 2018 that developed screen burn over the summer just gone. It was the logo of Good Morning Britain ( again which is for maybe 45 mins in the week )Around May time I had fiddled with the settings and cranked up brightness to 100. Obviously the telly hasn't responded well to that. I emailed Currys KnowHow around 2 weeks ago and stated I'd be claiming a section 75 through Barclaycard etc etc. Had an email back asking me to call the Knowhow helpline which I did. Explained the issue, was told "yes that's definitely screen burn", we'll arrange a pick up. My telly was delivered today after one week at the repair centre with a brand new screen and is like new ( screen even had the sticky protector on the front).

My point? Why are some (one case that we know of) having to unfairly jump through ridiculous hoops and go through courts when others just have to make a single phone call!
 
Last edited:

5to1

Well-known Member
"Claim found proved with a reduced refund to take account of 18 months use."

I wonder what amount the refund was? Would be nice to know the claim number? What were the attorney fees? How much time did it take going to court and submitting documents? Is this the only case on AVForums?

This was 18 months not 4 years. When you take into account the reduced refund to take account for the 4 years of use you would probably be left with 20 percent of the original cost. When you take into account that almost every TV with burn in issues is going to be a 4 year or older television it may not be practical to file a claim when you consider attorney fees to write up a claim and your 20 percent refund you would come out on the negative end.

Was this taximan's claim or was this somebody else's claim? Is Taximan a she as the claimant is? Do we know of any other claims with actual claim numbers. Remember this is social media and it may or may not be true. Looking at the writing style of the defense attorney, the claimant, and the judge it looks like they have an identical writing style. A bit suspicious.

The fact remains you were factually incorrect, both in practice and in law. That's fair enough, people often are online and offline.

Warranty terms DO NOT override ones statutory rights. I'd suggest instead of responding with three paragraphs of twaddle trying to wriggle out of the fact you are wrong, perhaps spend some time educating yourself, so you don't mislead others in future.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being wrong, we all are regularly. What I don't like (online in particular) is when people get something wrong and then respond in the manner you have to try and muddy the water.

Most of the answers are in that thread, go and read it. You will find others reported the retailers attitude shifted after that aswell.

NB: It's not LA Law, we're talking about small claims court here.

NB: We're talking about UK Law and consumer rights here, may be very different to other parts of there world.
 
Last edited:

5to1

Well-known Member
Not the same as the section 75, but @Taximania took Currys to court and won.


Nope, although I'd go for S75 first (as the OP is) if the retailer didn't play ball. Then try the ombudsmen. And last resort would be small claims. Against both or just the retailer, since the CC company would also be jointly/severally liable.

Not a painless process, but unlike the other poster thinks, you won't lose your shirt to Lawyers over it. Thats the point of small claims courts, to allow lay people to seek redress.
 

JustTheFacts

Active Member
The fact remains you were factually incorrect, both in practice and in law. That's fair enough, people often are online and offline.

Warranty terms DO NOT override ones statutory rights. I'd suggest instead of responding with three paragraphs of twaddle trying to wriggle out of the fact you are wrong, perhaps spend some time educating yourself, so you don't mislead others in future.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being wrong, we all are regularly. What I don't like (online in particular) is when people get something wrong and then respond in the manner you have to try and muddy the water.

Most of the answers are in that thread, go and read it. You will find others reported the retailers attitude shifted after that aswell.

NB: It's not LA Law, we're talking about small claims court here.

NB: We're talking about UK Law and consumer rights here, may be very different to other parts of there world.
Fair enough. I may have been wrong legally. I respect your opinion and realize you are logical, unbiased, and knowledgeable. Your view/advice may be different than mine.

This is my view/advice
When you take into account the reduced refund to take account for the 4 years of use you would probably be left with 20 percent of the original cost. When you take into account that almost every TV with burn in issues is going to be a 4 year or older television it may not be practical to file a claim. The outcome, in favor of the claimant, may be different for a 4 year old TV than a 18 month old TV.

It would probably be better to go directly to LG and request a 20 percent refund. The chances of you getting compensated this way is far more likely than taking LG or the retailer to court in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

dbwinter

Well-known Member
Fair enough. I may have been wrong legally. I respect your opinion and realize you are logical, unbiased, and knowledgeable. Your view/advice may be different than mine.

This is my view/advice
When you take into account the reduced refund to take account for the 4 years of use you would probably be left with 20 percent of the original cost. When you take into account that almost every TV with burn in issues is going to be a 4 year or older television it may not be practical to file a claim. The outcome, in favor of the claimant, may be different for a 4 year old TV than a 18 month old TV.

It would probably be better to go directly to LG and request a 20 percent refund. The chances of you getting compensated this way is far more likely than taking LG or the retailer to court in my opinion.
Why would there be an 80% loss of value after 4 years of use? My Pioneer KRP-500a is now 12 years old and will only be replaced due to wanting a larger screen.

The loss of value would be the lifespan of the screen (say 15 years) and I would go with a loss of 25% of value.

There would be only one outcome if you took a company to court over screen burn.

The retailer or manufacturer would easily lose, as any TV that breaks after 4 years is not fit for purpose.

It is important to remember that in the UK, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 gives you up to 6 years of protection and there is absolutely no question what so ever that a premium TV should last over 6 years.
 

JustTheFacts

Active Member
Why would there be an 80% loss of value after 4 years of use? My Pioneer KRP-500a is now 12 years old and will only be replaced due to wanting a larger screen.

The loss of value would be the lifespan of the screen (say 15 years) and I would go with a loss of 25% of value.

There would be only one outcome if you took a company to court over screen burn.

The retailer or manufacturer would easily lose, as any TV that breaks after 4 years is not fit for purpose.

It is important to remember that in the UK, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 gives you up to 6 years of protection and there is absolutely no question what so ever that a premium TV should last over 6 years.
There is nothing scientific about 20 percent of the original value. My assumption was a 20 percent loss per year. In the court case provided me for reference by 5to1 the summary by the judge stated, "Claim found proved with a reduced refund to take account of 18 months use.". The amount of reduction is open to interpretation.
 

5to1

Well-known Member
Fair enough. I may have been wrong legally. I respect your opinion and realize you are logical, unbiased, and knowledgeable. Your view/advice may be different than mine.

This is my view/advice
When you take into account the reduced refund to take account for the 4 years of use you would probably be left with 20 percent of the original cost. When you take into account that almost every TV with burn in issues is going to be a 4 year or older television it may not be practical to file a claim. The outcome, in favor of the claimant, may be different for a 4 year old TV than a 18 month old TV.

It would probably be better to go directly to LG and request a 20 percent refund. The chances of you getting compensated this way is far more likely than taking LG or the retailer to court in my opinion.

Thank you for your reasonable response, too often people are obstinate online when they get something wrong. I include myself in that, it's just human nature.

Just to be clear the following is based on UK Law and consumer rights, other jurisdictions would be different.

I think you're basing your calculations of any reduction on depreciation. That is not the case here. As DBWinter highlighted, what matters here is how long one could reasonably expect the product to last.

The CRA doesn't specify these expectations explicitly, it's often left to the judges interpretation (fo previous cases, contemporary expectations) and judgement. But I very much doubt anyone would argue its reasonable for a TV to fail in 5 years, therefore it's very unlikely you'd only get 20% back.

The principle in UK law is that one should be returned to their original position, not gain or lose due to a breach. So for arguments sake lets say the judge deems a premium TV should last for 12 years and it has failed after 4 years, he may deduct 1/3rd for the usage you've already had.

Of course its not as clear cut as "it failed after 4 years so its not fit for purpose". The CRA isn't meant to be an iron clad guarantee, more protection against products that are not fit for purpose. In the first 6 months, the burden falls entirely on the retailer to establish any fault was not inherent. After that the burden shifts to the consumer. So the consumer may well be expected to get a professional report if the fault is obscure and its hard to prove the fault was inherent with the product.

In the case of burn in, I think LG's disclaimers actually help the consumer. They have essentially acknowledged openly there is a potential issue with these TV's. But said it should not present with normal usage. So if you suffer burn in through normal usage, then you have a good argument there. How do you prove normal usage, well the type of burn in your panel has would probably help.

If you have a windows desktop burnt into your panel, you're probably going to have a hard time arguing you used the TV normally. Also if you have a large part of a frame burnt in, you may have difficulty as that would suggest you may have left the image on pause/etc. If on the other hand its a DOG, well they are ubiquitous so how could LG argue your watching channels with DOG's was not normal usage. Same applies for other partial parts of frames burnt in. Football score, etc, etc.

NB: I'm not a lawyer, but this is my practical experience of having used this legislation against retailers over the years.

It's also important to remember in the UK your contract is with the retailer not the manufacturer. So it would be the retailer you take to court. And if you buy using a credit card, then the CCA makes the card company jointly and severally liable. Which means you can also take them to court. But before that you can try a Section 75 claim agains the card provider, which may be easier.

I've tried to keep this as succinct as possible, as this isn't a general legal advice forum or thread. Anyone in a similar position to the OP would do well to speak to Citizens Advice, check if they have legal advice covered in their Home insurance/etc, or read the act itself and some similar cases.

NB: One more important point is any claim would go to small claims court. These courts are there to cater for smaller claims and more friendly to the lay. So I appreciate in general one should be very careful considering legal action as costs can spiral. This is not usually the case in small claims court. Nor do you have to be Perry Mason to avail of their services. In fact, quite often big companies don't show up. As many of them unfortunately operate their CS as a war of attrition. They don't care if you're right or wrong, they just make you jump through hoops in the hope most will give up.

If you're interested there's plenty online about the CRA, small claims courts and fit for purpose.
 

JustTheFacts

Active Member
Why would there be an 80% loss of value after 4 years of use? My Pioneer KRP-500a is now 12 years old and will only be replaced due to wanting a larger screen.

The loss of value would be the lifespan of the screen (say 15 years) and I would go with a loss of 25% of value.

There would be only one outcome if you took a company to court over screen burn.

The retailer or manufacturer would easily lose, as any TV that breaks after 4 years is not fit for purpose.

It is important to remember that in the UK, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 gives you up to 6 years of protection and there is absolutely no question what so ever that a premium TV should last over 6 years.
In the United States there is a non for profit organization called Consumer Reports. They have collected reliability data on over a 100,000 Televisions.

Below is a summary of their reliability data..

20 percent of Vizio, RCA, Westinghouse, and Element have problems in the first 5 years. Even Sony, Samsung, Hisense, and LG would have a hard time with a five year warranty as their failure rate is around 10 percent in the first 5 years. If the TV manufacturers were to give a 5 year warranty they would have to up the price of their TVs to pay for the repairs.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't even bother trying a Sec 75 claim for a 4 year old TV - credit card companies are very hot on these claims, and for one four years after purchase they are not going to even entertain it.

Best course of action is to make a formal complaint to the CEO of the retailer involved, quoting Fit for Purpose consumer law etc. They will kick back hard, so you will have to prepared to go through the small claims court process. No guarantee of success with that either, but probably worth a go.
 

5to1

Well-known Member
I wouldn't even bother trying a Sec 75 claim for a 4 year old TV - credit card companies are very hot on these claims, and for one four years after purchase they are not going to even entertain it.

Best course of action is to make a formal complaint to the CEO of the retailer involved, quoting Fit for Purpose consumer law etc. They will kick back hard, so you will have to prepared to go through the small claims court process. No guarantee of success with that either, but probably worth a go.
Emailing the CEO is a good idea and usually best to try that first anyway. I use Ceoemails.com to get their details.

Whilst I agree many card company’s will kick back a S75 regardless of merit, I disagree it’s not worth trying. Because they don’t have the last word, you can take it to the ombudsmen.

I guess the only caveat is right now it will take a long time going through the process. Card company’s are taking the full period allowed to consider claims. Particularly galling if they are one of those that just knock back as they operate a war of attrition. But worse still the ombudsmen is sometimes taking longer then they should.
 
Emailing the CEO is a good idea and usually best to try that first anyway. I use Ceoemails.com to get their details.

Whilst I agree many card company’s will kick back a S75 regardless of merit, I disagree it’s not worth trying. Because they don’t have the last word, you can take it to the ombudsmen.

I guess the only caveat is right now it will take a long time going through the process. Card company’s are taking the full period allowed to consider claims. Particularly galling if they are one of those that just knock back as they operate a war of attrition. But worse still the ombudsmen is sometimes taking longer then they should.
FOS is a complete basket case - you will lose the will to live before you get a response.
 

JustTheFacts

Active Member
I’m trying to pursue a Sect 75 claim that my less than 4 year old OLED is unfit for purpose as it now has image burn, etc, you know what I mean! They have asked for an independent report to prove that it is a manufacturing fault. I have pointed out that I don’t have access to that kind of specialist. I’ve reiterated that it’s a simple case of not fit for purpose, viewing enjoyment has been affected and have sent photographs to support this.

However, is there such a specialist? Has anyone succeeded with Sect 75 or small claims?
Can you keep us up to date on the steps you take and the response?
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Sky Glass, Epson Laser Projectors plus Home Cinema Subwoofers and More…
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom