Support

Open search

KS Owners refund

Explorer

Just been offered £1650 refund due to my 2 years useage. I've said i would take an LG c7 as a replacement but they have no stock any where.  The lady is sending me over some info before they send the final settlement. At this point do i decide to keep the TV and take £300 refund... or i can suggest some other tv's or i can go to court.  Their legal team say they dont have to refund in full.

 

Black Belt 

@darrant1234 wrote:

I've esculated my claim at currys and i've just had a conversation with someone there who claims no TV supports smart things.  I've said i thought the 2018 models do? i'm sure i read that on here, is that correct?

 

either way I've said regardless if they dont the TV was still mis sold and advertised wrong.  She is currently speaking to samsung to which I've reminded her my contract is with Currys and i'm not bothered what samsung say as currys mis sold the TV.

 

They do try it on! If that is their idea of expert help then no wonder their are so many complaints against them. Just show them there tech page,

http://techtalk.currys.co.uk/tv-gaming/tv/how-to-control-your-home-from-your-smart-tv/

https://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/samsung-tv-technology-1888-commercial.html

and Samsung CEO at the 2016 tech show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqkZw6NY3K8&feature=youtu.be&t=3m55s

and another

https://support.smartthings.com/hc/en-gb/articles/210765826-Is-my-Samsung-TV-compatible-with-SmartTh...

also you could mention that samsung has withdrawn the smart things dongle which they clain never exsisted,

 

**With free Samsung SmartThings Extend USB adapter available within 2016.”

Samsung have only recently announced that these SmartThings Extend USB devices will not be made available for owners of the KS range of TVs, which means that the TV does not and will never have the functionality as identified above, as detailed in your adverts. As such, the TV you have supplied is not as described as per your advertising. It is noted that the Consumer Rights Act is applicable for a period of up to 6 years following the purchase for cases of mis-representation, as identified in Item 105 within the commentary for Section 1, which states:

”Under the law of England and Wales and of Northern Ireland, claims for breach of contract are subject to a limitation period of six years from the date of the breach of contract…….. Because the protections provided under this Part of the Act operate on the basis of contract law, the consumer has 6 years within which they may pursue remedies for breach of one of the statutory rights.”

Whilst you may have used information provided by the manufacturer (Samsung), it is your duty to ensure that the information you provide to the consumer is accurate, as this information was used as a basis by me (the consumer) for entering the contract of sale with you (the trader).

As you are in breach of contract, and repair and / or replacement will not resolve the issue, i.e. item not as described as opposed to faulty, then I am within my statutory rights to ask for a full refund of the original cost paid.

As further evidence for the case of misrepresentation for the sale of Samsung KS TVs which advertised the SmartThings Extend device and SmartThings control capability of the TV, it is noted that Retail ADR have recently been involved in a case between a Samsung KS TV owner and Richer Sounds and have agreed that there was a clear case of misrepresentation by the retailer based upon the retailers adverts on their website. Their website, like yours, stated that the TV would be provided with the SmartThings Extend device and that the TV could be used to control SmartThings devices.
Paul
Send all that back and see what they say.

 

Explorer

Hi I've already mentioned the ADR case and sent a link to the pdf thats been shared.  I've said the item is not faulty so does not fall within the repair part of the consumer act 2015 so a partial refund doesnt apply.

 

is the c7v better than the b7v?

 

 

Explorer

@darrant1234 wrote:

Hi I've already mentioned the ADR case and sent a link to the pdf thats been shared.  I've said the item is not faulty so does not fall within the repair part of the consumer act 2015 so a partial refund doesnt apply.

 

is the c7v better than the b7v?

 

 


When you said in your earlier message you had been offered a £1650 refund was this offer made in writing or a phone conversation?  (If in writing please DO NOT post the letter/email here at this time).

 

If it was a phone call did you make a contemporaneous note (see my earlier postings) and e-mail it to yourself?

Black Belt 

@darrant1234 wrote:

does anyone have the full consumer act 2015 bit where it states a full refund withing 6 years.  They are saying I've had it 2 years so its partial refund..


If it is faulty after 6 months they can reduce the refund to allow for use.

If it is misrepresentation then the law says you never had full use from day 1 so are entitled to a full refund.

Paul

 

Explorer

thats my understanding too, so i was looking for the legislation that states full refund if mis sold.

 

the offer was over the phone but Ive aske for an email with the offer on so i can weigh up my options.

Black Belt 

@darrant1234 wrote:

Just been offered £1650 refund due to my 2 years useage. I've said i would take an LG c7 as a replacement but they have no stock any where.  The lady is sending me over some info before they send the final settlement. At this point do i decide to keep the TV and take £300 refund... or i can suggest some other tv's or i can go to court.  Their legal team say they dont have to refund in full.

 


Who are your retailers? They do have to give a full refund as per the ADR posted by a member here,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wchOMdwsbyzfMV4dbYBvh0wxDkkn9Z_z/view?usp=sharing. Point out it is only on faulty goods, not misrepresentations they can deduct an amount.

Paul

Highlighted
Helping Hand

@darrant1234 wrote:

currys have just offered a Mu65 something or other in replacement of my KS9000 I've said mine is worth more and i'm seeking the full credit note / refund.


Good for you.


MU is a massive insult. It's last year's and a vastly inferior model.

 

The KS range in 2016 have Quantum Dot technology.

It goes 2016 KS. 2017 QLED, 2018 QLED.

The range BELOW, without Quantum Dot, was 2016 KU, 2017 MU, 2018 NU.

 

Remember: for misrepresentation, you get the 100% refund. That's what @Ramos049's ADR case was about: they offered him a 98% refund when it should have been 100%.

 

If it's Curry's, you want the cash, and then run away from that place as fast as you can, buy a new TV from Richer Sounds and get their 6 year warantee and great service.

 

The last thing in the world you want is another new purchase from Curry's.

Black Belt 

@paul1277 wrote:

@darrant1234 wrote:

Just been offered £1650 refund due to my 2 years useage. I've said i would take an LG c7 as a replacement but they have no stock any where.  The lady is sending me over some info before they send the final settlement. At this point do i decide to keep the TV and take £300 refund... or i can suggest some other tv's or i can go to court.  Their legal team say they dont have to refund in full.

 


Who are your retailers? They do have to give a full refund as per the ADR posted by a member here,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wchOMdwsbyzfMV4dbYBvh0wxDkkn9Z_z/view?usp=sharing. Point out it is only on faulty goods, not misrepresentations they can deduct an amount.

Paul


 

Black Belt 

@Tell wrote:

@darrant1234 wrote:

Hi I've already mentioned the ADR case and sent a link to the pdf thats been shared.  I've said the item is not faulty so does not fall within the repair part of the consumer act 2015 so a partial refund doesnt apply.

 

is the c7v better than the b7v?

 

 


When you said in your earlier message you had been offered a £1650 refund was this offer made in writing or a phone conversation?  (If in writing please DO NOT post the letter/email here at this time).

 

If it was a phone call did you make a contemporaneous note (see my earlier postings) and e-mail it to yourself?

 

I find that odd advice unless you agree to a non disclosure, which would be unfair to everyone who has helped here. The whole point of these threads is to publish the good and bad replys, which some have been laughable. I can understand that if it was a in legal proceedings but not ordinary correspondence which we all here rely on. It was thanks to a member posting the adr result that gave everyone more hope. So I would be upset if people stopped posting replys and I think the retailers would really like that.

Paul


 

Top Liked Authors