Support

Open search

KS Owners refund

Explorer

Best to wait for the guy who is getting a call from the mediator. Hope Currys come to their senses.

Explorer

Just recieved this latest stalling tactic from Currys. Have passed case over to Resolver and will probably go down section 75 or court action route as this seems to be the only thing they will recognise, Pity,

Case Reference CC3833006

 

Thank you for your email dated 14th November 2018.  I would have liked to discuss this over the telephone, however, it was not possible to locate a contact number for you.  

 

I was sorry to learn that Samsung have withdrawn the software for the Smart Hub on their televisions.  The software and apps provided by Samsung can be subject to change and this is part of the terms and conditions that you accepted when you sent the service up.  As this is not a fault but part of a software change from the manufacturer and is outside the control of the retailer and does not affect the operation of the item as a television we would be unable to accept any return of the item.

 

Your are welcome to seek third party advise regarding this matter from Trading Standards and Citizens Advice Bureau.

 

 

Although this response may not be the outcome you were looking for, I trust that this response clearly explains our position on this matter.
 

 

Kind regards,

 

Garry Roe

 

Team Knowhow

My reply

Dear Gary,
It is quite obvious from your response that you have either not read my previous correspondence or that you are DELIBERATELY being obstructive. As I said previously this is NOT a software update but an integral function of the TV which has not worked from day 1. If I were to sell you a car and described it as having Cruise Control ,and when you find out later that there was no Cruise Control I would be guilty under the Concumer Rights Act 2015 of misleading you then you would be entitled to a full refund or repair. You have described this TV as being Internet of Things (IoT) ready which it clearly is not. http://techtalk.currys.co.uk/tv-gaming/tv/how-to-control-your-home-from-your-smart-tv/ 
Therefore it is clear that under the Act you have mislead me by the advertising on your website and consequently you are liable under thr Act.
Other owners of Samsung KS TVs who have taken this to Independent Arbitration have already received decisions in their favour.I have given you ample time to comply with the Act but I am willing to give you a small amount of time to reconsider your obstructive approach before going down an Section 75 or indeed a court action route. Iattach my previous reply below plus an extract from the ADR ruling against Richer Sounds
 
Explorer

Just recieved the latesrt stalling tactic from Currys. Have passed the case over to Resolver but looks like I may have to go down the Section 75 or court action route. Pity

Case Reference CC3833006

 

Thank you for your email dated 14th November 2018.  I would have liked to discuss this over the telephone, however, it was not possible to locate a contact number for you.  

 

I was sorry to learn that Samsung have withdrawn the software for the Smart Hub on their televisions.  The software and apps provided by Samsung can be subject to change and this is part of the terms and conditions that you accepted when you sent the service up.  As this is not a fault but part of a software change from the manufacturer and is outside the control of the retailer and does not affect the operation of the item as a television we would be unable to accept any return of the item.

 

Your are welcome to seek third party advise regarding this matter from Trading Standards and Citizens Advice Bureau.

 

 

Although this response may not be the outcome you were looking for, I trust that this response clearly explains our position on this matter.
 

 

Kind regards,

 

Garry *****

Team Knowhow

My reply

Dear Gary,
It is quite obvious from your response that you have either not read my previous correspondence or that you are DELIBERATELY being obstructive. As I said previously this is NOT a software update but an integral function of the TV which has not worked from day 1. If I were to sell you a car and described it as having Cruise Control ,and when you find out later that there was no Cruise Control I would be guilty under the Concumer Rights Act 2015 of misleading you then you would be entitled to a full refund or repair. You have described this TV as being Internet of Things (IoT) ready which it clearly is not. Therefore it is clear that under the Act you have mislead me by the advertising on your website and consequently you are liable under thr Act.http://techtalk.currys.co.uk/tv-gaming/tv/how-to-control-your-home-from-your-smart-tv/
Other owners of Samsung KS TVs who have taken this to Independent Arbitration have already received decisions in their favour.I have given you ample time to comply with the Act but I am willing to give you a small amount of time to reconsider your obstructive approach before going down an Section 57 or indeed a court action route. Iattach my previous reply below plus an extract from the ADR ruling against Richer Sounds
 Come on Currys do the right thing
 
 
Black Belt 

@cypher915 wrote:

Just recieved the latesrt stalling tactic from Currys. Have passed the case over to Resolver but looks like I may have to go down the Section 75 or court action route. Pity

Case Reference CC3833006

 

Thank you for your email dated 14th November 2018.  I would have liked to discuss this over the telephone, however, it was not possible to locate a contact number for you.  

 

I was sorry to learn that Samsung have withdrawn the software for the Smart Hub on their televisions.  The software and apps provided by Samsung can be subject to change and this is part of the terms and conditions that you accepted when you sent the service up.  As this is not a fault but part of a software change from the manufacturer and is outside the control of the retailer and does not affect the operation of the item as a television we would be unable to accept any return of the item.

 

Your are welcome to seek third party advise regarding this matter from Trading Standards and Citizens Advice Bureau.

 

 

Although this response may not be the outcome you were looking for, I trust that this response clearly explains our position on this matter.
 

 

Kind regards,

 

Garry *****

Team Knowhow

My reply

Dear Gary,
It is quite obvious from your response that you have either not read my previous correspondence or that you are DELIBERATELY being obstructive. As I said previously this is NOT a software update but an integral function of the TV which has not worked from day 1. If I were to sell you a car and described it as having Cruise Control ,and when you find out later that there was no Cruise Control I would be guilty under the Concumer Rights Act 2015 of misleading you then you would be entitled to a full refund or repair. You have described this TV as being Internet of Things (IoT) ready which it clearly is not. Therefore it is clear that under the Act you have mislead me by the advertising on your website and consequently you are liable under thr Act.http://techtalk.currys.co.uk/tv-gaming/tv/how-to-control-your-home-from-your-smart-tv/
Other owners of Samsung KS TVs who have taken this to Independent Arbitration have already received decisions in their favour.I have given you ample time to comply with the Act but I am willing to give you a small amount of time to reconsider your obstructive approach before going down an Section 57 or indeed a court action route. Iattach my previous reply below plus an extract from the ADR ruling against Richer Sounds
 Come on Currys do the right thing
 
 

Great reply.  They are starting to sound like automated answers,  or morons because they are not answering you points,  just have a stock answer. I would suggest the section 75 route if you can as Barclays and Tesco credit have found that this is misrepresentation and have given full refunds,  against J Lewis. It was posted here and ks owners refund results thread. 

Paul

Apprentice

Thanks to advice here quickly got to the email proof that Currys will not do anything, so raised a Section 75 with Barclaycard and used all info detailed here as ammo and to make my case.

 

Was quite hopeful they would refund promptly but spoke with the case handler at Barclaycard and she said that they can take no responsibility for it being misrepresented/missold and to take any dispute up with Samsung directly. She said they are bound by the Consumer Credit Act and not the Consumer Rights Act and that I should pursue further via Small Claims court. I tried to dig my heels in but she wasn’t having any of it.

 

Anyone hit the same issue? If so, how did you proceed?

Highlighted
Black Belt 

@Dan61 wrote:

Thanks to advice here quickly got to the email proof that Currys will not do anything, so raised a Section 75 with Barclaycard and used all info detailed here as ammo and to make my case.

 

Was quite hopeful they would refund promptly but spoke with the case handler at Barclaycard and she said that they can take no responsibility for it being misrepresented/missold and to take any dispute up with Samsung directly. She said they are bound by the Consumer Credit Act and not the Consumer Rights Act and that I should pursue further via Small Claims court. I tried to dig my heels in but she wasn’t having any of it.

 

Anyone hit the same issue? If so, how did you proceed?


I don't know who you were talking to but they don't know about the section 75 protection. Did you start the section 75 by in writing,  because they can fob you off if its by phone. You need this answer in writing,  an email is ok with the persons name. Then you need to appeal,  and then you have the financial Obersman.  If you look in the ks owners results thread you can see that Barclays have already excepted that this was misrepresentation which is a breach of contract which comes under the section 75 protection. Also Tesco credit have also paid out. Also the retailer has to comply with the consumer law and if not then they breach the credit card act if you but with a credit card. It's just like if the product is faulty,  both the retailer and the credit card issuer are liable. Do not except this because as we have seen the first contact is normally a no. They are hoping you will except what they say and just give. 

Paul

Black Belt 

@Dan61 wrote:

Thanks to advice here quickly got to the email proof that Currys will not do anything, so raised a Section 75 with Barclaycard and used all info detailed here as ammo and to make my case.

 

Was quite hopeful they would refund promptly but spoke with the case handler at Barclaycard and she said that they can take no responsibility for it being misrepresented/missold and to take any dispute up with Samsung directly. She said they are bound by the Consumer Credit Act and not the Consumer Rights Act and that I should pursue further via Small Claims court. I tried to dig my heels in but she wasn’t having any of it.

 

Anyone hit the same issue? If so, how did you proceed?

 

Also have a look on the condensed thread ks owners refund more info thread which has everything you need but on just 8 pages,  makes finding templates more easy. 

Paul


Explorer

Just had a phone call from "customer services?" repeating their mantra. "We will supply you with a Smart Things v2 Hub which will unlock the Smart Features of your TV (not true of course). We cannot offer a refund or replacement as it is the right of Samsung to withdraw a software update and that you agreed to these terms and conditions when you set up the  service on the TV" I tried to explain that this would not restore the functions that THEY advertised to which they replied that the advertising was correct at the time and they were not therefore responsible (again not true). Would not listen that this was NOT a software update. Will now be seeking a third party solution eg Section 75 or Small Claims Court as this seems to be the only thing that Currys will listen to.

PS Is it now about time that all KS owners take this dispickable company to court under a class action suit as they are quite happy to flount the law?

Explorer
Is there a Section 75 template letter on the forum that I can use?
Black Belt 

@cypher915 wrote:
Is there a Section 75 template letter on the forum that I can use?

They are now trying to interpret the consumer law totally wrong. They cannot advertise something and then in small print so oops we may not supply. That's what consumer law is therefore. You will now see TV's on sale saying they cannot be held responsible for third party apps,  but the smart things is not a third party app,  it is part of the TV,  and when you bought it were you made aware it was subject to terms and conditions. I cannot see any disclaimer on the know-how page. It is just another way to confuse the issue. 

With the section 75 just ring your credit card company and tell them you want to start a section 75 for breach of contract due to the misrepresentation of your product which section 75 covers. They will ask for more info. Every thing you need is on the ks owners more info thread which is a condensed version of this thread with everything you need. 

Paul

Top Liked Authors