Maybe all those who have hit a brick wall with the retailer should at least pursue their complaint with Samsung as well. That's what I'm doing whilst I wait for my 30 days to tick down with the EU ODR. Here's my latest response to their UK President: Sorry Xxxx, I’m confused. That statement refers to “content providers”. Surely you’re not suggesting that Samsung is just a content provider? I thought Samsung were the manufacturer of the TV, the SmartThings Extend USB adaptor, and the SmartThings functionality on the TV. Nowhere in any of the advertising can I find reference to the SmartThings Extend USB adaptor or the SmartThings functionality being described as just an App. Are you suggesting that Samsung could choose to stop supporting, for example, the TV’s remote control? Or the TV’s tuner? Because that functionality is provided by Samsung as a “content provider” rather than a manufacturer?As I’ve said, the SmartThings hub is of no use to a disabled person like my wife. I’m very disappointed that Samsung can’t understand that. And one other thing. I got my grandson to research this, and he has discovered that the Nvidia Shield with the Samsung SmartThings Link USB dongle will do exactly what was originally promised on my KS8000 TV. It will allow control of SmartThing devices directly from the TV using a remote control. Will you provide that solution instead of the hub?
If Curry's are like John Lewis, they'll refuse to participate in the ADR process. Unfortunately, it's not mandatory, so I guess certain retailers would prefer to force their customers down the small claims court route instead. You could try the EU ODR at http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/?event=main.home.show but again, the retailer doesn't have to participate. For example, my case is now 2 days into the 30 day timescale that John Lewis have to respond.
Reference: Insert name / John Lewis – Samsung insert model number e.g. ue55ks8000
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to you to with regards to the mis-selling of the Samsung UE49KS7000 TV. I bought the set, in insert month and year for £xxxx, under the belief that the TV would be suitable for controlling SmartThings devices with the inclusion of a SmartThings Extend USB adapter. This was due to advertising on your website, which was presented in two different locations; the first as a general Samsung information page for their 2016 SUHD TVs from the following link:
and the second on the device product page, which is still available online and can be accessed by the link below:
INSERT WEBLINK TO THE SPECIFIC WEBPAGE FOR YOUR TV MODEL – This is accessible from google, just type in John Lewis Samsung and your tv model and it should show you the page, check that it does have the Smartthings extend description.
Given the time of the purchase (Insert month and year), the purchase is covered by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which became law on 1st October 2015, which replaced three major pieces of consumer legislation - the ‘Sale of Goods Act’, ‘Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations’, and the ‘Supply of Goods and Services Act’. Under this new act, all products must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. ‘As described’ means that the goods supplied must match any description, or any models or samples shown at the time of purchase.
From the link above, you included the following text for advertising the TV:
“Control Your Connected Home With SmartThings Extend.
Developed alongside SmartThings, Samsung’s SUHD TV will have built-in software to let you do anything from switching on your lights to locking your doors**. It will connect to over 200 SmartThings compatible devices and put your home under complete wireless control – all from your TV.”
Where the footnote states:
“**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.
I await confirmation that you will provide the remedy set out above within 14 days of the date of this letter.
As requested - this is the email I sent to JL (email@example.com). I attached the ADR which is referred to in the thread. I also attached the JL web page with the offending items highlighted. I can send this email with the attached docs through to people if you send me a PM.
This email got on to the JL complaints system, and I got a call back. They told me that since I purchased in store I had to ring the store. When I spoke to the store I simply quoted my case ref. Good luck! ---------------------------------- Dear Sirs,
Re: Purchase of Samsung UE55KS9000 TV – Order Number [Order Number] I purchased the Samsung UE55KS9000 TV from John Lewis (JL) on [Date] At the point of purchase I paid [Amount] which included a 5 year warranty. This was part of a larger purchase which included a smaller Samsung TV and a Sonos Playbar. I would like to return the UE55KS9000 TV as I believe I have been mis-sold. For info, the serial number of the TV is [Serial Number]. The Samsung UE55KS9000 TV is not as described. This TV was advertised as "Control your connected home with SmartThings Extend". My purchase of the UE55KS9000 was influenced by the claims made about the capabilities of the TV on the JL website. The JL web page advertising this capability is attached. The relevant paragraphs are highlighted with a red box. Samsung has since confirmed the SmartThings Extend will never be made available, since the TV is not technically capable of supporting this and due to security concerns. Details of this can be seen at the following website: https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1512472675.
I know from other customers, that JL is already aware of this issue. JL has been in contact with Samsung since the beginning of 2018, and this should not be used as a reason for delaying resolution of this issue.
My Rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015
This purchase is governed by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which states that goods purchased must match the description supplied pre-contract, such as on the packaging, advert, or description for example. The description of the product can be clearly seen in the attached web page from the JL web site. Goods are covered for up to 6 years under the limitations act. To be clear, the retailer is responsible not the manufacturer.
Samsung has offered to supply an alternative product to some customers, called SmartThings Hub, but this doesn’t offer the same capability. It should be noted that the SmartThings Hub would not deliver the functionality that the John Lewis web site advertised. The originally promised functionality ‘embedded’ SmartThings Extend would have delivered control directly from the TV screen, whereas the SmartThings Hub would need to be controlled from a mobile or tablet. It is also important to know that control over the TV is limited, for instance it is not possible to switch the TV ON from standby. Please do not offer to supply this alternative product – it would not be acceptable. To be clear I am not returning the goods due to a fault. It is due to mis selling which is a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
As you are in breach of contract and I've owned the product for less than 6 years, I am within my statutory rights to ask for a refund, or a replacement (to the same value as I originally paid), at no further cost to me. I have all of the original packaging, so I can bring the TV back in to the Cheadle store. Rather than a full refund, I am happy to accept store credit instead. I believe this is a reasonable remedy. Retail Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
I am aware of other customers who have already raised this issue through the Retail ADR, and I attach the findings in one case against Richer Sounds. The evidence is identical, and it’s reasonable to expect the same outcome would arise if I needed to take this matter to Retail ADR.
I am a loyal customer of John Lewis, and have always received excellent customer service from the company. I look forward to receiving confirmation that you will provide the remedy set out above within 14 days of the date of this letter.
Tell Apprentice 2 weeks ago There seem a lot of people in this thread who are 'uncertain' how they should proceed, this is understandable as you're operating in an area outside your comfort zone.
The following is just some general advice that people should try to stick to and the reasons why.
1. Try not to do things by telephone, wherever possible do it by written format. While this will take longer it means you have a full record trail that is usable in court. Anything said on the phone isn't worth the paper it's not written on. If you MUST have a phone call record the call yourself and IMMEDIATELY afterwards write a contemporaneous note detailing everything that was said and email it together with the recording to yourself. You may well think that this is all work for no reason, but let me assure you the courts rely on provable evidence not what you think was said and something you've emailed to yourself have verifiable timestamps that the other side would find impossible to challenge.
2. You may well get frustrated and annoyed at the other sides behaviour, understand this is exactly what they want you to do. Spend a little time trying to understand Game Theory (and it's a very extensive subject area). In any game where the 'rules' of the game are clearly defined people have a tendency to set 'goal expectations' with the associated physical excitement that goes with expectation, they then get deflated when those goals aren't met....if this is repeated then the adrenaline one player generates starts to become a negative, as instead of becoming excited about a positive result you become 'trained' to expect a bad result and as a consequence 'give up' as the emotional toll wears you down.
3. You CANNOT control the other sides behaviour in any way, nor can you control the timescale to win. So if you're not willing to dig in to the end, then at the beginning clearly define to yourself how much time you're willing to invest pursuing this, now double it, now double it again and you're probably now looking at how much time it'll take....if you don't want to play that long game then honestly you'd be better cutting your losses now.
4. Do NOT make the mistake of thinking this is you against them, it's not. This is purely commercial and everyone of us on this board should have known going in that Samsung have a history of abandonware policies when it comes to a lot of their products, phones and tablets immediately spring to mind but there are others. You're not battling an individual, you're dealing with a bureaucracy and you have to deal with a second bureaucracy (the legal system) to get the resolution you desire. When dealing with any bureaucracy you have to be dispassionate, factual and patient, it's the only way to win, the 'passionate lawyer' plays great in the movies, but not in the courts.
I say the above based on some experience, companies are playing to a different objective and 'knock' some claimants off as people get pi**ed off with the drudgery of it all (late filings, nonsensical claims, all the usual bo**ocks companies try when they know they're in the wrong and can only win by wearing the opposition down).
One case I was involved with a few years back with a well known PC manufacturer they dragged out for 17 months and 8 different reply filings (which were all bogus), the claim was only for £2k, but they knew if they lost it could open the floodgates, so they fought tooth and nail and every offer they made included a NDA gag that I wouldn't agree to. They finally settled for the full amount of the claim and my time on the courtroom steps, they knew they couldn't afford to lose in the court and I knew it as well....so their tactic was to try to wear me down.
So understand going in:-
The law is a game, not of right and wrong, but perseverance and boredom.
Resolver is not an ADR body. It is there just to keep a record of your complaint and advise on what course of actions are open to you during the complaint process. They have zero powers and doubt Currys would be bothered about you using it. You best bet is to contact Currys again telling them what they said and ask for another ADR body that they are happy to use. If you purchased it online ask them if they are happy to use Online Dispute Resolution a try https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/index.cfm?event=main.home2.show&lng=EN. They don't have to be members but you will have to agree on an ADR body to use.
“As a retailer, we are selling you a product based on its primary function, being a television, we do advertise its capabilities however, are not ultimately responsible for these.”
Wow! That’s quite a statement!
Thats a load of rubbish. The statement below is taken from my ADR recommendation-
'It is apparent that the purchase was made on 19 August 2016. Therefore, the applicable law to consider is the “Consumer Rights Act 2015” and as it was an online purchase we must also take into consideration the “Consumer Contract Regulations”. As with the “Sale of Goods Act”, under the “Consumer Rights Act” all products must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. It may help at this point if I provide a definition of the three areas to offer clarity with respect to how these matters are considered. The description is as follows: • Satisfactory quality - Goods shouldn't be faulty or damaged when you receive them. • Fit for purpose - The goods should be fit for the purpose they are supplied for, as well as any specific purpose you made known to the retailer before you agreed to buy the goods. • As described - The goods supplied must match any description given to you, or any models or samples shown to you at the time of purchase.'
Note that as described means any description given.
Here is the reply I received this morning from John Lewis:
Thank you for allowing me the time to look into your concerns fully.
Having now spoken with the relevant team within the Partnership, I can confirm the information we advise on our website is given to us directly from our suppliers. In regards to the purchase of your television, Samsung advised that a USB upgrade would be available in the future but this was never released.
I appreciate how frustrating this will be and would like to again offer my further apologies for this.
Due to the inconvenience this would cause to customers, Samsung have agreed to give a SmartThings hub worth £99.00 in place of the original upgrade. In order to arrange this, please contact Samsung on the address below:
I hope you find this helpful and are able to resolve the issue.
Erm, they are trying to fob me off.
Yes they are and inform them that they advertised the dongle so they have misrepresented the tv and they are liable as they are the retailer not Samsung. Ask do they know the difference between the dongle and hub. Also ask do they accept the misrepresented the tv. That should be interesting and also point out that richer sounds have lost a ADR over this and are giving refunds to all their KS customers.
Looking on thier website it doesn't look like they recommend an ADR body. You need to contact them and say you are not happy with their final offer and want to take it to ADR. Ask them what ADR they are happy to use. If you purchased it online you can use the Online Dispute Resolution (https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/index.cfm?event=main.home2.show&lng=EN). They have a number of ADR bodies that you can use, with Retail ADR being one of them. They also have a break down of the whole process. Even if they do agree they are not obliged to go with their recommendation but they probably will as they will lose if it goes to the small claims court.
I had thought the law isn't quite as black and white and the legal process would look at whether both parties had made reasonable endeavours prior to resolve prior to court. The JL position was as below.
"Since you initially contacted us, we’ve been in regular contact with Samsung in order to seek a suitable resolution. In doing so, Samsung advised that unfortunately, for technical reasons they were unable to release the SmartThings Extend dongle, however for customers seeking SmartThings connectivity, they can provide their SmartThings Hub, with the confidence of consistent performance. This will be provided free for charge to customers who purchased selected 2016 televisions; which includes the television you purchased.
Being aware of your concerns surrounding the above proposed solution, we asked Samsung to confirm exactly what the hub would do and how this compares to what was initially offered. Samsung confirmed the following;
“SmartThings features & functionality are not dependant on which device is acting as the Hub. SmartThings control is not possible on the TV due to technical reasons. All features & functionality are available for the user through the interface on their mobile device noting the control is the same or better than if it was on the TV. SmartThings users are currently using all features & functionality utilising the SmartThings Hub, therefore the supply of such “Free of charge” will enable customers to experience and enjoy SmartThings with the confidence of consistent performance.”
To clarify what SmartThings control would be available directly from the television, Samsung have advised:
“No control is available on the TV. If you need to view the SmartThings app on the TV it is possible to Mirror your phone on the TV via either the Smart View app (on iOS and Android) or Samsung Connect (on Samsung devices). Note that the control is still done via the mobile device.”
The law is black and white that is why richer sounds lost the Alternative Dispute Resolution claim and now giving all their KS owners refunds. I have dealt with Samsung and know their tactics, which is to confuse and miss lead. The issue is not with Samsung but with your retailer and please everyone remember that. Samsung have been known to lie and miss lead, that is why we are here. They have been using that free hub since nearly day 1, and it did not wash with richer sounds. The hub does not allow you to control anything from your tv. No surveillance cameras or any thing like that. You we're promised with the dongle the the tv could be the heart of the Internet of things. I thing that is a pretty big function (not app) that Samsung have admitted to not now supplying as was promised by your retailer. The retailer under the law has to give you a refund
if the have miss represented they products. As you can see from the reply they are not denying the misrepresentation but trying to mitigate it, which it becomes your choice if you want to except their offer or ask for refund. Remember faulty goods can be less do to time had, but not with misrepresentation as you have not had the full use from day one. Infant you have been very patient waiting for the dongle and I would be very annoyed at the retailers very poor way they are treating (me). Be blunt and make it quite clear you are not happy. Also use social media and tell the world how bad they are, that is the sort of push they need.