Support

Open search

KS Owners refund

Explorer

I’m currently getting together the relevant documentation and evidence to post to my credit card company to dispute the transaction. 

 

Ill be be posting it all off on Monday and will keep you all updated. Currys will be defeated (hopefully).

Black Belt 

@Stormed wrote:

I’m currently getting together the relevant documentation and evidence to post to my credit card company to dispute the transaction. 

 

Ill be be posting it all off on Monday and will keep you all updated. Currys will be defeated (hopefully).


It might also be useful to include the ADR result poster here to show an independent body has already ruled it as misrepresentation. 

Paul

Explorer

@paul1277 wrote:

@Stormed wrote:

I’m currently getting together the relevant documentation and evidence to post to my credit card company to dispute the transaction. 

 

Ill be be posting it all off on Monday and will keep you all updated. Currys will be defeated (hopefully).


It might also be useful to include the ADR result poster here to show an independent body has already ruled it as misrepresentation. 

Paul


Thanks, I will do. I’m including the communication I’ve had with Currys, the emails I have sent have been created using the templates here which I have found very useful and I’d like to thank those for sharing!

Black Belt 

@Stormed wrote:

@paul1277 wrote:

@Stormed wrote:

I’m currently getting together the relevant documentation and evidence to post to my credit card company to dispute the transaction. 

 

Ill be be posting it all off on Monday and will keep you all updated. Currys will be defeated (hopefully).


It might also be useful to include the ADR result poster here to show an independent body has already ruled it as misrepresentation. 

Paul


Thanks, I will do. I’m including the communication I’ve had with Currys, the emails I have sent have been created using the templates here which I have found very useful and I’d like to thank those for sharing!

 

Also highlight their admittance of misrepresentation by offering compensation and also their insistence of trying to confuse the issue between the smart tv platform which is about the apps,  and the smart things Donnie which is a specification of the tv promised would be made avialable by supplying the dongle. It says its free but it is part of the tv spec just like the remote control therefore is covered by the Consumer regs. 

Paul


Navigator

I'm in the same boat doing the same thing, section 75 of credit card against currys, let's hope we are successful.

Voyager

So, I’ve received the deadlock letter from John Lewis today, and the good news is the final sentence, saying “John Lewis will accept Scottish legal jurisdiction if this is how you decide to proceed”. This means I can use the new simplified procedure and take the case to the Inverness Sherrifs Court.  Will cost me £102, and if I lose JL’s costs are limited to 10% of the claim, so £179.

 

JL accept that:

  • I purchased the TV from them.
  • The product description did say that the USB dongle would be provided to enable SmartThings functionality.
  • The suggested solution, a SmartThings hub, does not provide exactly the same functionality as the USB dongle. They argue that it is a “reasonable alternative”.

What’s the catch? They seem to admit everything, but still want to force me to go to court. I’m guessing that their argument will be that they’ve offered a “reasonable alternative”. To which my counter argument will be that it doesn’t enable control of SmartThings from the TV, doesn’t enable viewing the status of SmartThings on the TV, and requires the additional purchase of a mobile phone to operate it.

Black Belt 

@tarbat wrote:

So, I’ve received the deadlock letter from John Lewis today, and the good news is the final sentence, saying “John Lewis will accept Scottish legal jurisdiction if this is how you decide to proceed”. This means I can use the new simplified procedure and take the case to the Inverness Sherrifs Court.  Will cost me £102, and if I lose JL’s costs are limited to 10% of the claim, so £179.

 

JL accept that:

  • I purchased the TV from them.
  • The product description did say that the USB dongle would be provided to enable SmartThings functionality.
  • The suggested solution, a SmartThings hub, does not provide exactly the same functionality as the USB dongle. They argue that it is a “reasonable alternative”.

What’s the catch? They seem to admit everything, but still want to force me to go to court. I’m guessing that their argument will be that they’ve offered a “reasonable alternative”. To which my counter argument will be that it doesn’t enable control of SmartThings from the TV, doesn’t enable viewing the status of SmartThings on the TV, and requires the additional purchase of a mobile phone 


The catch is they want you to think they are not worried.  Its classic kiddology and tactics to put doubts in your head. It costs nothing to start with a letter of i intent to take legal action. The templates are on cab site. Send a copy with your evidence to your store manager and head office. Also start a section 75 if you paid by credit card. 

Paul

Voyager

@paul1277 wrote:
It costs nothing to start with a letter of i intent to take legal action. The templates are on cab site. Send a copy with your evidence to your store manager and head office. Also start a section 75 if you paid by credit card.

My plan now is to wait the remaining 27 days on my EU ODR complaint, so I can demonstrate that I've attempted ADR, and then pursue this through the Sheriffs Court.  I can't use the section 75 process as it wasn't purchased on credit card.

Highlighted
Helping Hand

@tarbat wrote:

JL accept that:

  • I purchased the TV from them.
  • The product description did say that the USB dongle would be provided to enable SmartThings functionality.
  • The suggested solution, a SmartThings hub, does not provide exactly the same functionality as the USB dongle. They argue that it is a “reasonable alternative”.

What’s the catch? They seem to admit everything, but still want to force me to go to court. I’m guessing that their argument will be that they’ve offered a “reasonable alternative”. To which my counter argument will be that it doesn’t enable control of SmartThings from the TV, doesn’t enable viewing the status of SmartThings on the TV, and requires the additional purchase of a mobile phone to operate it.


 

Great news about being able to have the case held in Scotland. JL have thrown you a bone there.

 

Glad about the clear facts that they accept. Wow, they are really taking a risk with the first one!!

 

I would say that you are still in a strong position.

 

The 2015 Consumer Rights Act doesn't say that offering you a "reasonable alternative" is allowed? It doesn't say that the retailer gets to choose what remedy to offer you? Surely they don't get to force ANY alternative on you. Even if the alternative would give you 100% functionality (moot point since it doesn't), I'd still say that it should be YOUR choice, not theirs.

 

I think the Act says that they must offer you a refund. That is what I would check up on. Based on @Ramos049's ADR and my brief reading, but my memory may be faulty. If so then it's that simple - JL doesn't get to decide what remedy they offer you - that was decided in Parliament, refund + costs, please.

 

 

Navigator

Totally agree with what @mrtickle has said, you are in a strong position. This is similar to my case against Richer Sounds. John Lewis has basically accepted that they have misrepresented when they sold the television and are arguing that the hub is a reasonable alternative. Richer Sounds offered me over £1500 or a LG OLED if I paid £200, this worked out to a 98% refund, yet ADR still ruled against them and said I was entitled to a full refund. If there was anything in the act about reasonable alternatives surely they would have stated that I accept one of their offers, but they didn't. Stay the course and I'm sure you'll win. If not I'll be more than willing to help pay some of the costs.

Top Liked Authors