When shopping for a TV set, apart from design and functionalities, durability and warranty are perhaps important factors to consider. Many newly launched TV set models are criticised for their substandard repair services as faults are unrepairable even within warranty period. Consumers are forced to buy a new one which creates wastage and triggers complaints.
Manufacturers have been launching many new models, such as “high definition”, “3D” and “4K” in recent years. However, the Consumer Council from time to time has received complaints about new TV sets going out of order shortly after purchase. The set cannot be recovered after rounds of repair services or shortage of spare parts for repair, etc. were found. In the first 10 months of this year, the Council has received 279 complaints, 80% of which are related to repair services and product quality.
In one case, the complainant found that the TV set she bought 4 years ago was out of order. She reported the case to Company A and provided a clear account of the model and date of purchase. She was told that warranty of the TV set was over and would be charged for an HK$470 on-site inspection fee. After inspection, she was then advised by the technician that some parts had to be replaced but was later informed that the TV had already ceased production so spare parts were no longer available. The complainant was disappointed that the staff did not explain clearly as they converse which has cost her extra time to arrange an on-site inspection. Feeling being mistreated, she asked for an explanation about the unavailability of spare parts, and requested a refund of the inspection fee. She was also dissatisfied that the TV screen was supposed to last as long as 60,000 hours as claimed. However, due to unavailability of spare parts, the TV set was unable to be repaired forcing her to discard a TV set worth more than $10,000.
Company A explained to the Council that it was not until the inspection was done, they could then confirm that the particular model had ceased production and the required spare parts were also no longer available. The manufacturer overseas did not provide reasons to the discontinuation of the required spare parts. Since an on-site inspection had been arranged, fees charged could not be refunded. However, as a friendly gesture token of, Company A offered the complainant supermarket coupons as compensation and the offer was accepted.
In another case, the complainant purchased a 4K HD TV set at HK$5,200 from Company B. For just 1 week, the recording function connected to a hard disk went out automatically while recording. He requested Company B to follow up. Repair technician was sent for an onsite inspection and found the TV set in good order, he updated the software and left. However, the problem reoccurred in the same evening. The technician insisted that the problem rested with the software and suggested another round of update. He reiterated that similar problems were solved by updating software and resetting the system.
The complainant asked for a new product, however, Company B replied that there was no such policy. The Company also stated that such issue in the compatibility between the software of TV set and pre-set recording programme had been communicated to the manufacturer, but it would take about 1 month to develop the new software. The complainant finally decided to file a complaint to the Council requesting for either a new product or a full refund. After the Council’s conciliation, Company B recalled the set and arranged a full refund.
The last case is about a complainant who purchased a 3D TV set early last year at HK$14,000 which offered a 3-year warranty. Since this April, faults had been developing on display screen. She called Company C for technical support and the screen was replaced. However, the same problem arose just one week afterwards and it was worse than the last time. When contacted, Company C simply asked her to take a photo and send it to their repair department. She was also told to wait for the new spare parts for repair service. After two weeks, the complainant inquired again and found that the parts were yet to arrive. Company C also stated that if the TV set could not be repaired, follow-up arrangement would be discussed. Since then, Company C had never responded neither could the complainant contact the corresponding staff again. She decided to seek help from the Council.
2 weeks after the Council had contacted Company C, the Company explained to the complainant that the TV set could not be repaired and a replacement would be arranged. The offer was accepted but the complainant expressed time loss of confident in the TV brand.
The Council has been promoting sustainable consumption which is a common global concern. When buying a TV set, consumers should take into consideration warranty period and scope of the warranty. Meanwhile, consumers should beware of the promotions rolled-out for older models and its manufacturing date as older models stand a higher chance to run out of maintenance spare parts.
For manufacturers, the Council urged their commitment to formulate policies in favour of sustainable consumption, such as extending the inventory period of spare parts for repair and maintenance purposes in order to reduce concerning disputes.
Nowadays, regulations concerning after-sales services specifically for electrical appliances are implemented in many places such as Mainland China, Taiwan and European Union which prescribed duration of after-sales services and handling methods for the protection of consumer rights. The Council believes that these regulations are all worthy references.
The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE (https://echoice.consumer.org.hk/).