Plasma gas charging fault

[Elvis]

I have asked Trading Standards to endorse my interpretation of the Sale of Goods Act. I reckon if they do then JL will back down.

I've taken a couple of pics of what seems to be the de-facto test for this 'feature' which clearly shows what you can expect to see if you have the problem. Below are two shots from Finding Nemo where Marlin and Dory dive for the goggles. As you can see the effect is quite visible... and distracting. If you can't see these artifacts on your set then you haven't got this problem. BTW the room was actually quite dark, it just looks bright because I had to have a long exposure to get all the details in. Needless to say the screen should be uniform in brightness/tone, not cloudy/blobbly/splotchy like mine is.

 

[MAW]

This would not be acceptable to me or any of my clients, I'm sure T.S. will agree.

 

[Galaxy]

That is a good example of the fault you have there Elvis, and certainly if my screen was anything like that I would feel aggrieved to.
As you, I really can't understand how they can deny you have a problem!

MAW, yes I understand what you are saying and of course Elvis would be scuppered if a new screen exhibited the same problem, I just wanted to get JL or Hitachi back into the game, and I have enough belief in the fact that this is an isolated problem, I guess there allways is the chance that another new screen could be faulty, if so, then at least Elvis could keep the rep hostage until anew screen appears? LOL

Best regards David

 

[Elvis]

It actually looks worse than that in reality, more contrast between light and dark areas. Of course, if I view with the room lights on (as per JL's instructions) then you can't see the cloudy shape. But I do like to watch films in at least semi-darkness for that 'home theatre' feel.

 

[Gordon @ Convergent AV]

I would go to small claims court now. My wife has had to go to small claims to settle. It's stressfull but you'll get results. Also Judges don;t like to see "the man in the street" persecuted by bigger companies. In another matter, after a year of trying to seek compensation from B+Q we started court proceedings against them and they caved in and paid us within about 7 days.

You will probably find that JL have a lawyer or lawyers on staff to deal with litigation and the costs to go to court are likely MUCH greater to them than dealing with your issue.

Gordon

 

[D J Fryer]

It tends not to make commercial sense for a company to defend small claims UNLESS they are concerned about opening the 'floodgates' for future claims of this nature. This could be relevant in this instance.

Unlike Gordon's suggestion current protocols would be for you to give JL notice of your intention to commence proceedings stating the basis of your claim, (you can even give them a draft of your Claim Form to show you mean it - use plain english and avoid trying to sound too much like a lawyer although refer to relevant law when appropriate!) and giving them a reasonable period to resolve.

I have had cause to do this three times in the recent past with Dell (on two occasions) and Comet and in all instances I never had to actually issue proceedings and all were resolved to my satisfaction - 2 without compromise and 1 with a little. Good luck.

 

[Galaxy]

I think I wholeheartedly agree with Gordon on this, it may be a pain initially, but may be the only recourse if JL keep denying the problem.

Best regards David

 

[Elvis]

Thanks for the support,

I really want to avoid actually going to court as it is going to be very time consuming, but if that is my only recourse then I will. As has been suggested I'm sure that JL will not want to got to court anymore than I want to, they certainly stand to lose more than I. The cost of the TV is nothing compared to the negative publicity it could generate for them.

 

[GJC]

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/...02/20023045.htm

6months to claim not 28 days.

Courtesy of Starkiller.

This thread is insightful too.

--------------

http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90921&highlight=claims+court

and

Refund thread here:

http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=114855&highlight=claims+court

-------------

Good Luck

 

[Elvis]

GJC,
Sorry m8 the forum links don't work. Can you repost.

The law provides up to 6 years during which time goods should continue to function without fault. After the first 6 months of that period the onus is on the buyer to prove the fault was inherent in the goods, prior to that the onus is on the manufactureer to prove it was not (harder for them to do - this favours the buyer).

After 4-6 weeks the level of refund/compensation you can expect can be reduced as a result of continued use of the item, wear and tear is taken into account and any refund can be adjusted to reflect that. If returned during the first six weeks you should (depending on the item in question) be able to receive a full refund. Their are further rights associated with purchasing goods by distance selling, ie over the phone or internet.

Of course a retailer can exceed these requirements if they see fit. for example, offering a full refund beyond the initial 4-6 week period.

 

[GJC]

Try again Elvis.

 

[Elvis]

Thanks for posting those links, I've read that thread before, but forgot about it. I'll give it a good going over this evening.

Cheers.

 

[Elvis]

I'm still waiting for clarification from Trading Standards regarding whether I can return the set regardless of whether there is a fault with it, simply on the grounds that it is not fit for purpose or of satisfactory quality. (I would argue that when purchasing any television set, regardless of the manufacturers specification, the least you would expect to be able to do is to watch TV without the addition of other on-screen elements (or 'features') that obscure the picture).

I'm hoping I can sidestep the whole 'is there - isn't there' (THERE IS!) a fault issue and reject the set anyway, but I haven't got the cast iron clarification from Trading Standards I would like before I go back to JL and make them hurt. If I have to prove a fault then it becomes more difficult. I know that technically a manufacturer has to prove there isn't a fault for the first 6 months, but Hitachi just say it's 'a feature' - avoiding the whole issue - so this particular law seems somewhat toothless.

Michael6 have you got anywhere with JL yet?

 

[MAW]

A 'feature' like this on a TV takes you back to 'fit for purpose' doesn't it?

 

[Elvis]

Originally posted by MAW
A 'feature' like this on a TV takes you back to 'fit for purpose' doesn't it?

I would say so, I just want Trading Standards to agree with me then I will go back to JL with the ammunition that provides.

 

[michael6]

Hi Elvis

I sent a letter to JL yesterday quoting the various bits of cr*p I have been told, I threw in a few appropriate parts of the Sales of
Goods Act and said that it is not fit for the puropse I bought it.

I have given them 14 days to resolve the situation before I go to the small claims court.

Like yourself I don't really want the hassle of this, but at the end of the day £3000 is a lot of money and I believe we have been sold sub standard goods.

As soon as I receive a response I will let you know.

Michael

 

[shyboy]

good luck chaps im keeping my fingers crossed for you.

 

[mw3cdj]

Good luck to you all. Looks like your getting further than i am I cant seem to get anyone out to collect my 400e . I phone them nearly every day and the keep saying we will phone you back with a date for collection.
Regards,
Daran

 

[Elvis]

Michael6,

Could you PM me with the name and address of the person at John Lewis you have written to. It may lend more weight if we both write to the same person.

 

[miniman]

Good luck lads I hope you win.

 

[michael6]

Elvis

You have a PM

Michael

 

[mw3cdj]

Right then guy's, some amo for you.

Just had my service center(SOLID CIRCLE) on the phone and they are sending me a Replacement 42pma400e tomorrow. All i have to do is to place the faulty one in the box the new one will come in.
While i have been typing this out another call from my dealer apologizing for all the trouble and that my new 400e will be with me tomorrow.
By the way this service center has not even seen the fault

Hope this is of use to you.
Regards,
Daran.

P.S I'll let you know what the new one is like. Hope its OK.

 

[Steve Zodiac]

For those who haven't heard yet, it was announced a few hours ago that John Lewis' profits for the year to 31st January have risen by 19% to £174m.
The staff are going to receive a bonus equalling around six weeks pay.
Lets hope they will be elated and be more understanding to those who have bought "faulty" Hitachi plasma screens from their stores.

 

[Elvis]

£174M, thats 58,000 replacement 42pd3000s.

I pointed out to them that they could more easily afford to swallow the cost of my faulty set than I could, and those profits prove it, definately something to mention in my letter. TBH the chap I dealt with did sound quite sympathetic to my plight, that didn't materialise into any useful action however.

 

[ASH1]

Originally posted by mw3cdj
Right then guy's, some amo for you.

Just had my service center(SOLID CIRCLE) on the phone and they are sending me a Replacement 42pma400e tomorrow. All i have to do is to place the faulty one in the box the new one will come in.
While i have been typing this out another call from ARC(www.Av-sales.com )apologizing for a...e and not a refurbished one. ASH1:smashin: