Barrack room lawyers:

Well that was a long ten months and a long day in court and decided on durability of the product and ratio to price paid and noted down to record that a logo is not a still image being an intrinsic part of the overall picture. Calculation of contact to be subsisting and damages in lei of of rescission as it would be impossible to restore parties the original position owing to the TV being 18 months old.

Awarded £2,600

Well done. Sounds like a good result for your persistent effort.
 
Well done. Sounds like a good result for your persistent effort.

Thank you pal for your kind words and my last post on this subject matter except to advice anyone that has been wronged by scurrilous conglomerates or even the next door neighbour then never fear because the law is the law and only the righteousness will prevail if your cause is just. There is so much to upload so I wont except to give answers to defense from a previous post.. If any one wishes to delve further into the intricacies of this case for their own benefits then it's listed in far more detail on a TV forum not many galaxies from here.That is all and thanks for listening to my ever so narcissistical rants and it's good to talk, however I so am glad it's all over: But remember what I said before and that is If we work together we survive : /


Answers to defence from post 52:

Point 1


I named Dixon's Carphone as the defendant for the following reasons. I escalated my concern to the CEO of Curry's namely xxxx xxxx because of a lack of response poor treatment and apathy from the DSG Retail group. Dixon's Carphone PLC is Europe's leading specialist electrical retailer telecommunication and services company being the owner and parent company of DSG. Dixon's Carphone and DSG use the same postal address of 1 Portal Way London W3 6RS.

I emailed the CEO directly and he authorized xxxx to deal with the situation on his behalf. In this email xxxx introduced himself as "a member of the CEO's support team" and not a representative of DSG. If the CEO had mentioned that he had no jurisdiction in the affairs of DSG or the trading name Curry's then all that was necessary was to redirect me to the correct entity.

DSG fully answered the court papers served to Dixon's Carphone PLC by first saying we had the wrong defendant yet proceeded to answer the other 20 plus points as if they were Dixon's Carphone PLC. All they had to do was answer point one and refute the claim on that basis but instead they answered the court papers in there entirety as if they were acting in the capacity of Dixon's Carphone PLC. They then made a request for mediation which I accepted but sadly they thought fit not to respond to the courts deadline on the xxxx.

If I have issued to the wrong section of this company I will immediately re-serve again to DSG. Nowhere on their letter heads and stationary does it state that DSG should be the entity to serve proceedings against and their CEO took up the case by appointing his own team member to deal with the issue.

Point 2:

The defendant has incorrectly stated the purchase date by 19 months ?

point 3:

Incorrect as our TV was purchased with a full 5 year guarantee made up of 1 years manufactures and 4 year Curry's warranty. We have the extended guarantee number for the court to validate which is warranty number BHLXXXXXXXX. As a matter of interest the original warranty was never supplied to us despite many requests saying it was held on their system and that we were not to worry. If I was never supplied with a hard copy of their extended
warranty then how would I be expected to know what it's terms and conditions were ? Constant requests for items of importance from Curry's remain an ongoing issue and they never seem to listen. A prime example being the engineers report that they compiled on the TV that we made 5 or 6 requests for. In the end we had to settle for an excerpt verbally transcribed by their agent xxxx

Point 6:

This will be the engineers report that we never received. The report mentions burn in which is an oversimplification of the problem using misleading terminology. Burn in happens because a set of pixels in a logo or a banner are lit for a constant period and they age or fade out faster than the pixels around them Burn out is a more appropriate term as the pixels wear unevenly by means of a cumulative effect so if you only have logos or banners on for 10 minutes 6 times a day that is the same as one time for an hour.

Recently brightness has been identified as a contributory factor because 10 hours viewing at 200 nits is not going to be as catastrophic as 10 hours at 700 nit brightness. Lg is more than aware the effect is cumulative as they even informed the respected Rtings web site (evidence supplied) that they fully expect burn to be cumulative. None of this information was ever tendered in my safety manual which I have in my possession for the courts perusal. The only thing the owners safety manual mentions is laid out in page seven stating not to view static images for long periods of time which never happened. I did not watch static images or paused images for long periods of time only watching GOOD Morning Britain every day.

Point 8:
The defence team have their timelines wrong as this never happened on the xxxx. After the set was returned to me on the xxxx we made many phone calls to attempt to gain access to our engineers report without success. On the xxx we made our first written contact that they received. Computer generated acknowledgement Cxxxxxxxxxx . None of my emails over a period of time were where ever answered save from the one reply from the CEO's representative on xxxx before litigation.

For accuracy the phone call with their support lady xxxx who authorized via management a full panel repair was actually made on the xxx and not the xxx. She returned to our call with excellent news as her team had now authorized the full repair of our TV and would collect it the very next day be the xxxx, So the repair was in effect authorized by your management team and not your support lady.

Point 9
The TV was sent not back to you for evaluation but for a fully authorized repair by flat panels.

Point 10
There was never an exchange of emails save for your one and only reply from your CEO's assistant xxxx who stated bright vibrant colours being displayed with a banner or logo can cause damage . Nowhere in my user manual does it mention bright vibrant colours banners or logos can damage my set. Where did the CEO's support officer gain his information from as it cannot have been from LG who burn their own sets as they did at Inchon Airport (evidence supplied) Those OLED TV's all had to be replaced by more robust and durable LED/LCD models. And the trade show in Los Angeles in May 2018 where LG displayed sets at this prestigious event and burn in occurred. Their OLED suffered burn in with the Family Time logo in the top right hand corner after only limited hours usage. So if the manufacturer LG cannot work their OLED's properly how can they along with Curry's accuse me of abuse by reason of not watching normally ?

At no time throughout the purchase process was the risk of these sets explained or communicated verbally. You sold me the set and sung it's praises and I could not get my debit card out more quickly. My TV was scheduled to arrive back on the xxxx but failed to arrive. We checked their online hub to see when it would be returned and incredibly it said it was now being repaired (evidence of pie chart upload) It then went on to say it would be returned on my birthday the xx of xx .. Sadly it was returned, not mended dirty and covered in condensation. This is why we escalated the case to the CEO by Email dated XXXX.

The CEO appointed his assistant who answered my email on the xxx the contents of which I strongly refute. Good Morning Britain was viewed responsibly for around 45 minutes daily over 18 months at approximately 225 hours. So to clarify no C-Beebies for the grandchildren no football for the other half, no cartoon network or news channels for me because of logos and banners ? I am a responsible end user and my last set from you is still going strong after 10 years. I do not abuse or misuse TV's.

Point 11:
Incorrect as there was no further email exchange between defendant and claimant. I acknowledged the CEO's email on the xxxx and this was to dispute his findings and observations and to notify him of impending court action.

Point 12:
I am pursuing court action for miss selling as you failed to mention this technology had to be cared for in a specific way. Avoidance of bright images logos and banners are not featured in the user manual. LG did not consider it relevant otherwise it would be in the manual. What you did however was to give your blessing to watch programs featuring logos by inclusion of your glossy brochure called "The Ultimate Entertainment Package" outlying channels I can watch on my new TV such as Movies Family Fun and You-Tube. Lg even went on to say I can watch the ITV HUB that has Good Morning Britain on (brochure as evidence for the court). The brochure says get the best from your TV. Welcome to the ITV Hub the Tellytasic home of ITV channels. By including this brochure in the box they are sanctioning these programs as safe to view. The Ultimate Entertainment Brochure and the safety manual supplied with my TV are in contradiction of each other and page seven of the safety manual is in contradiction with their blessing to watch the telly-tastic home of the ITV Hub namely Good Morning Britain.

The TV is not fit for the purpose it was designed and that is watching general viewing of all TV stations. Over 90% of all Sky feeds have logos and banners rendering my set useless by design.

And finally not of merchantable quality considering this is a high end product that has failed after only 18 months of usage. The defence states the TV as being nearly 2 years old but this is over stretching the truth as it was bought in xxx and failed on xxx making it 18 months old.

Point 13:
We never watched still images for long periods of time. According to defence they say that this TV possessed special features and powers to overcome this anomaly. I guess in my case and lots of others and LG's who burn in their own sets these special powers are not having the desired effect. LG did not make reference that burn out or image retention is a cumulative process in their user manual. It's not watching still images for long periods of time but rather watching static images over a protracted period. Good Morning Britain 45 mins a day X 4 days over 75 weeks = 225 hours cumulative. My set did not suffer because I watched Piers Morgan for 225 hours non stop. I like him I really do but not that much !

Point 14:
If the OLED technology has special healing powers why is there a requirement for page 7 in the user manual. Why the special features commonly referred to in OLED circles as special healing properties is this problem so rife. Why can LG not avoid damage to it's own sets. Surely like Curry's know-how team they are experts in their chosen field ?

Also why in 2018 many years later are LG spending millions of pounds on development to eradicate this problem. Each of an OLEDS pixels have four sub-pixels and I refer to LG increasing the red subpixel size and utilizing a new development called Logo Luminescence Technology reducing the brightness of it's logos/banners by 20%. Is all this really necessary if the older sets safety features are doing there job so well ?

The screen saver does not activate if a logo or banner is present. On your reckoning a game of football would trigger the screen saver after 2 minutes which could cause mild irritation to the end user.

The clear panel noise is there to refresh the pixels. This is what is referred to as a compensation cycle and after 4 hours viewing will be activated when the screen is placed in standby mode. The comp cycle takes around 7 minutes to complete. The set also incorporates a manual cycle taking around an hour to complete. Our report stated some of our cycles did not complete their task. Nothing to do with me as this is software related. Before bed the TV was always placed in standby.

Screen shift always kept in the on position.

How could I prevent burn when all the features mention were purportedly built into the machine ?

Point 16-19:
I understand your cut and paste of the consumer rights act 2015 and that the balance of proof on a probability scale will be on me to prove the defect was there at point of sale after a full 6 months have elapsed .. So even though I never mentioned faulty at sale I will pass comment.

You stated in your report that some comp cycles or clear noise function never ran there full course. TV software is as an inherent part of a television set as it's components. So I have to assume the sets software at point of sale was maybe not working as it should. I turn the TV on and watch the programs. At the end of our viewing we place the machine into standby mode. That is my contribution and the OLEDS contribution was to refresh itself as we slept ..Or so they say.

Point 20:
As a condition of purchase I requested that this TV had to perform it's functions well with all feeds and our Sky network and his reply was that the OLED TV was synonymous with quality and would exceed all expectations. At no point of the sales process did he mention any negatives or reduced capabilities. I wanted it to perform admirably with all programs and he misrepresented by neglecting to inform me that I would not be able to watch a program with a banner or logo or anything with the OLED set brightly. If he would have mentioned the above then we would 100% not have purchased the TV. If part of the sales teams selling technique was to was to incorporate the negatives then I doubt they would sell very many. He miss sold and misrepresented the TV by failing to provide me with any or all relevant information to hand.

I believe after furnishing him with our requirements he should have advised us to select a non OLED product such as an LCD tv like Samsung that suffers very little from retention. These sets carry a 10 year burn warranty in addition to the manufacturer warranty and should have been far more suitable to my viewing habits.

We both knew nothing regarding the shortfalls of this technology when we purchased and now after 18 months have found ourselves in the unenviable position of having to study this technology in great depth to progress a claim through county court.

As mentioned we are not alone with this problem and the internet is awash with dissatisfied consumers. Even LG who build these panels for every other manufacturer cannot understand or use it's tech properly without getting image retention (see evidence) I have spoken about the steps that LG are taking to alleviate this issue and every year they come up with new and better fixes. So small baby steps and as the only supplier of these panels to the industry I hope they can get ahead of their game.

By failing to provide us with all information by promoting the positives yet declining to mention it's weaknesses they have misrepresented the product and miss sold it.

To conclude:
My husband and I buy a Television to watch pictures that move around on screen and it is not unreasonable to expect that this continues for a reasonable amount of time (5 or 10 years dependent on usage) at a reasonable uniformity and brightness. If it doesn't then the TV is either faulty or not fit for it's intended purpose and the manufacturer or retailer should cover this in the supplied warranty and extended warranty.

Most programs we watch have logos bars or banners and avoiding them is an impossibility. Historically with LCD this was a non issue yet suddenly with OLED it can be. At the end of the day the TV is only being used for the purpose it was purchased and watching a program like Good Morning Britain should not be a reason to say this was unusual or non consumer friendly. When I retired our 10 year old LED Sony to the bedroom to become a second set and replaced it with an OLED I did not expect to change what I use a television for in order to match the new technology. We just wanted to be able to continue using it normally and how can a manufacturer say my viewing habits are no longer classed as normal. Curry's and LG even cite me as an miss user of this tech however LG when pressed would never admit to what normal viewing entailed.

I do not transcribe to the train of thought that a manufacturer can say that because I watched Good Morning Britain Sky News C Beebies Football for X number of hours then I have ruined the TV with my viewing habits. What it suggests to me is that the manufacturer is hiding behind this nonsense to cover the fact that some displays can fail to provide the expected 100,000 hours usage that their vice president Lee Byung Chui quoted to the Korean Times. Well Mr Chui we both only watched for 7,000 hours for the princely sum of £3250 for what now in effect is little more than a glass paperweight.
 
Last edited:
I have to take leave as I have just been summoned to the moderation forum for a few days of fattened calf feasting and celebrations. The rest of you dogs keep your scurvy heads down and do your Moon work. That is all:

 
Excellent. Well argued and fought case. In other parts of this forum, I have been trying to persuade other forum users that certain laws are being applied incorrectly by the authorities. Unfortunately, I do not think I have any recourse in law.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.