Support

Open search

KS Owners Refund usefull info

Black Belt 
Haven't heard if someone has bought from them but having a look at thier website on web archieve for the KS7000 model (https://web.archive.org/web/20170315131008/http://www.cramptonandmoore.co.uk:80/televisions/4k/samsu...) they do clearly state about the SmartThings feature:

"Our Smartest TVs ever have a further enhanced Smart platform delivering UHD HDR streaming, App and Cloud based gaming, Smart View mobile and tab connectivity, Voice control and the capability to control your home through your TV with SmartThings*."

This is very similar to what Richer Sounds stated on their website, so I think you have a strong case. Raise a complaint with them but you might get some resistance if your the first one to complain about this to them.
Apprentice

hello , bit late to the party , but have been following vairous threads about the lack of updates for my tv . i have a 55" ks7000 which i purchased from richer sounds belfast but i live in the republic of ireland . do i have a case? many thanks for any replies

Apprentice

How did you get a refund from JL? They've point blank refused me a refund or exchange.

Black Belt 

@peteeed wrote:

hello , bit late to the party , but have been following vairous threads about the lack of updates for my tv . i have a 55" ks7000 which i purchased from richer sounds belfast but i live in the republic of ireland . do i have a case? many thanks for any replies


Hi we are trying to keep this thread to just info because the ks refund is getting rather large. The best place for advice is the ks refund thread,  and use this for useful info and letters. Saying that all the info you need to start a claims here and you can freely use it.  The ks refund results shows the people who received refunds. 

Thanks

Paul

Black Belt 

@peteeed wrote:

hello , bit late to the party , but have been following vairous threads about the lack of updates for my tv . i have a 55" ks7000 which i purchased from richer sounds belfast but i live in the republic of ireland . do i have a case? many thanks for any replies


You come under the same Oct 2015 European consumer regs so yes the same rights and protection. 

Paul

Apprentice
Thanks for that and all the many posts
Black Belt 
Black Belt 
Here is the explanation why you should get a full refund,
mrtickle
mrtickle Helping Hand
yesterday

@ wrote:

Hi. I have started pursuing this with Currys,

And Section 24, Paragraph 8 of the Consumer Rights Act states that "If the consumer exercises the final right to reject, any refund to the consumer may be reduced by a deduction for use, to take account of the use the consumer has had of the goods in the period since they were delivered, but this is subject to subsections (9) and (10)."
I've looked through large chunks of this thread and am unable to find an answer. It's great for Richer Sounds buyers that the ADR ruled in favour of a full refund, but for the rest of us, what is the legislation backing up the requirement for a full refund?

Thanks,

Alex
Hiya and welcome. I'll have a go at it. I am not a lawyer or qualified in any way.

Curry's, yuk. Good luck. :( I'll start with this - please learn from this, and the rest of this thread about the way they treat people, and never shop there again.

The Which website is entirely focssed on faults. It has nothing at all about misrepresentation, and is misleading for people in our situation who need to focus on misrepresentation. Curry's and JL have and are taking full advantage of this to mislead.

I'll use the Explanatory Notes. @Ramos049's letter references these, and I did to in my letter. "I’m sure you are aware of several key differences with the new Consumer Rights Act, namely that it has a different criteria for misrepresentation (applicable for a period of up to 6 years following the purchase) than it does with the more usual cases of faulty goods, as identified in Item 105 within the Commentary for Section 1."

that's all about the 6 years thing, always useful. But instead of reading the Act, read all the Explanatory Notes instead as they are clearer.

Start with: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/1/3/3/3

Section 11: Goods to be as described
68....... If the information regarding the main characteristics is not complied with, the consumer can pursue the protections for breach of section 11, as set out in section 19.

It's a breach of section 11 because the information was not correct.

The remedies are in section 19. NOTE! Not section 24!

Back to Explanatory notes: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/1/3/4/1

---Section 19: Consumer’s rights to enforce terms about goods

98.For goods, sections 19 and 20 provide that in certain situations the consumer has the right to terminate the contract and receive a refund. Where the contract is a mixed contract with a goods element, this means (unless the contract is severable, see paragraph 100 below) that the consumer has the right to terminate the whole contract (both the goods and non-goods elements) and receive a refund of the price of the contract (or for money already paid towards the full price of the contract). If the consumer wishes to continue part of the contract, it is open to the parties to agree to do so.

actually it is very complicated. I'm getting lost so I will press "post" before I lose what I've typed so far!
Black Belt 
Here is a very useful template for a section 75, posted very kindly,
Here's a slightly edited copy of the supporting documentation I sent with my Section 75 claim

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n0wfjgf6w2qehbp/Section75Pub.pdf?dl=0

Barclaycard sent a Section 75 claims form through the post which just had fields to fill in about the purchase, when it was made, amount etc. then an area for details about the claim, where I just wrote a brief summary of the issue, then made a comment to read the attached documentation. I stapled the different areas of the document into groups to hopefully make it easier to follow. And then a signature at the end of the Section 75 form to say you certify it is all true.

It's a slightly messier version of something I was going to refine and clean up if I ever needed to go to Small Claims but I think I am going to accept the 50% purchase price back and keep the TV offer Barclaycard made me.

The document has all the evidence I gathered and the communicaiton between myself and John Lewis (and the lies they said to me). Obviously people would need to fill in their own details and can't really refer to my communication, but the evidence in the other areas might at least be useful or for people to cross reference their own experiences

Honestly the only thing making me still annoyed at this point is that I dont feel like we've managed to hold John Lewis or Samsung to account for this yet. If Barclaycard refund me John Lewis/Samsung have got away with washing their hands of it :-( All I can do is tell as many people as possible about the experience, put the TV in a bedroom, and look forward to getting my LG from Richer Sounds! :-)

Black Belt 

A particularly important piece of information came to me from Citizen Advice and I do not recall seing it here, but then I couldn't read all pages so apologies if it came up and was answered. They told me that even though they will refer my case to Trading Standards, a weakness in the argument for mis-representation, is the difference between a "Statement of Intent" and a "Statement of Fact". Statement of intent means that the trader had full intention to release the feature but have failed to do so, meaning no misrepresentation was made. Again, any legal expert here that could perhaps shed light if that is the case? Is this something that can win or lose an argument even in a Small Claims Court?

In terms of shedding more light, this page contains useful information: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Misrepresentation.php

My thoughts based on that page is that the argument against Currys is one of innocent misrepresentation.

The available remedies to innocent misrepresentation are "rescission or damages in lieu of rescission". Rescission "is putting the parties back in their pre-contractual position." (So they take back the tv, you get back all your money.)
Top Liked Authors