The Welcome Lounge: introduce yourself 👋

Hi Richard, welcome to Which? Conversation.

I think we do not have a specific topic for screen burn on Sony TV’s, but we do have a more general Conversation for product liability and consumer rights, see:-https://conversation.which.co.uk/shopping/consumer-rights-complaints-faulty-problems/

I’m very happy with my 10 year old 32″ Sony Bravia HD TV, so it is a shame to hear that you are having bother with a much newer model.

As a first step, I think the consumer rights act 2015 places the burden of product liability on retailers not manufacturers, but we do know that some retailers tend to misdirect customers with problems towards manufacturers.

The consumer rights act also requires good to be reasonably durably, i.e. an expensive quality TV should be defect free for around 10 years as a minimum.

Thankyou for your guidance. I had in fact researched your site for Consumer Rights info and will use it to tackle Curry’s/ PC World tomorrow. I’ll keep the Community posted.

Hi Richard and welcome to Which? Conversation.

Screen burn was very well known in the days of CRT screens, especially when static images are displayed for a prolonged period at high brightness. It can also occur on OLED screens. Here is a relevant article from Which? https://www.which.co.uk/news/2018/09/is-screen-burn-on-oled-tvs-worth-worrying-about/?source_code=911CQJ&gclid=Cj0KCQjwxNT8BRD9ARIsAJ8S5xaP52PkthwVAXnD6KssIeq1kgCa4LwHfb156UjUKwsV3kmUqdgb4n8aAgm9EALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

There are numerous Conversations that mention consumer rights and here is one of the most active ones: https://conversation.which.co.uk/shopping/consumer-rights-complaints-faulty-problems/ I hope you will join us as a regular contributor.

DetekP, just on a detail. While I agree that tvs should last at least 10 years (as should many products) the Consumer Rights Act only gives legal protection for 6 (apart from the unlucky Scots who get 5).

Many products do last well, and these should be used to demonstrate that it is not difficult to achieve if you design a product competently, specify decent components and build it well. We should be campaigning against manufacturers who do things badly. We could use the “durability” clause (or lack of) given to us in the CRA much more than we do to put financial pressure on retailers to sell decent products and avoid the tat. Which? should (and I think could) devote resources to help here; a more useful cause than some others they pursue.

Malcolm, thanks for that correction. I’ve known even “ordinary” TV’s like LG and Samsung to last for 6 years or more.

Under the Consumer Rights Act, the customer has six or five years during which they can make a claim against a retailer. For the first six months, a fault is presumed to be present at the time of manufacture, after which it is the responsibility of the consumer to prove otherwise if requested (e.g. by providing an expert’s report) or to provide evidence that goods have not lasted as long as might reasonably be expected. After six months, any refund can take account. of the amount of time between purchase and when the fault was reported.

A manufacturer’s guarantee can provide additional rights and is usually easier to to use than the CRA. It may contain exclusions but does not override the statutory rights provided by the CRA. Once again, a claim should be made against the retailer.

Neither the CRA or manufacturer’s guarantee will provide protection against abuse/misuse or normal wear & tear.

Hi Helen and welcome to Which? Conversation.

At present a manufacturer has no legal responsibility for faulty goods but they often handle recalls of products that are found to be dangerous. If the retailer, which is legally liable, is unhelpful, the manufacturer will sometimes help, presumably because they want people to carry on buying their brand. Presumably the retailers can reclaim costs from manufacturers for dealing with faulty goods.

I have generally been happy with Bosch products though the company did not even acknowledge a complaint about a reciprocating saw with no safety interlock, unlike other brands and even other models in their range.

It would be interesting to hear about your experiences with Which? Legal.

The reason the manufacturer is not legally liable to the customer is because, normally, by purchasing through a retailer your legal contract is with them. I would argue that in selling a product they also take responsibility for the choice they have made to promote it.

Given the worldwide distribution of manufacturers, some in countries beyond our jurisdiction, others in countries not subject to UK/English law, it would be very difficult to pursue a claim direct. Hence the responsibility is best with the UK supplier.

However, you will also have a warranty from the manufacturer which also gives you rtights that you can exercise separately from the retailer, although I suggest the retailer should be kept informed in case any further fault develops when the warranty has expired.

To say the manufacturer has no responsibility for faulty goods may not be the case. They may well be liable legally to the seller by virtue of their purchase contract.