My faulty TV was replaced, but with one of much lower value

In December 2008 I bought a 32in TV from Sony. It came with a five-year warranty and the total cost was £1,399.98. At the end of July this year, the TV developed a vertical green line on the screen.

I contacted the store and the set was taken away for repair. I was told that it was uneconomical to repair and was offered a better TV than the original. However, I was asked to pay £50. I was unhappy about this but was then offered a five-year warranty as compensation.
John Hook

Mr Hook did pay a lot for the TV and, at the time, it would have been a top-of-the-range model. Inevitably the price for these goods goes down as newer models are manufactured.

Mr Hook used his warranty to get redress. Warranties can be useful but they often have real limitations. In this instance we would have advised Mr Hook to use the Sale of Goods act (SoG).

Under this law, he would have been within his rights to reject the replacement TV, which came at a cost – £50. A replacement does not have to be new, but it must be fit for purpose and, if the same model can’t be offered, of a comparable quality to the device that is faulty.

The TV offered to Mr Hook was only £400, of which he had to pay £50. While items depreciate in value, we find a £1,000 drop after 30 months surprising. He could have refused the TV he was offered and, under the SoG, asked for a pro-rata refund.

He would have had to prove the fault was inherent but, before refusing the replacement, he could have asked Sony for details of the fault in writing. If Sony then only offered £350 for a TV that cost so much, he could have considered taking the matter to the small claims court.

The judge may rule in Sony’s favour but, when this much money is involved, it may be worth getting a legal ruling.

We have asked Sony to look into the issue.