Support

Open search

KS Owners refund

Highlighted
Navigator

@paulyoung666 wrote:

@mrtickle wrote:

@paulyoung666 wrote:

How old is the TV ?


Not relevant in any way to this thread.  Don't fall for any retailer asking this question, or engage in any line of questioning about the age of the TV!

 

The 2015 consumer law gives you up to 6 years from the data of purchase, and the 2016 KS models were launched in March 2016.

 

Only when we get to the year 2022, do retailers gets to question how old the TV is.

 

 


It's entirely relevant , as your first year is with Samsung and after that it is with whoever provides your extended warranty 👍


That’s the case for a warranty claim, if tv needs a repair. Not the case here though as it’s a miss selling issue. 

Helping Hand

 


@paulyoung666 wrote:

@mrtickle wrote:

@paulyoung666 wrote:

How old is the TV ?


Not relevant in any way to this thread.  Don't fall for any retailer asking this question, or engage in any line of questioning about the age of the TV!

 

The 2015 consumer law gives you up to 6 years from the data of purchase, and the 2016 KS models were launched in March 2016.

 

Only when we get to the year 2022, do retailers gets to question how old the TV is.

 

 


It's entirely relevant , as your first year is with Samsung and after that it is with whoever provides your extended warranty 👍


No. False. That's why I corrected it.

Please read the thread, please don't rock up and post misinformation today after months of correct information and advice has been discussed.

 

This is not a "warranty" issue.

 

It's about getting a full 100% refund under the terms of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, for the RETAILER (not the manufacturer) mis-representing the item at the point of sale. The TV can be in 100% full working order, that's not relevant. You have up to 6 years to do this, so - one more time - only when we get to the year 2022, does the question "how old is the TV" become relevant.

 

 

 

 

Black Belt 

@mrtickle wrote:

 


@paulyoung666 wrote:

@mrtickle wrote:

@paulyoung666 wrote:

How old is the TV ?


Not relevant in any way to this thread.  Don't fall for any retailer asking this question, or engage in any line of questioning about the age of the TV!

 

The 2015 consumer law gives you up to 6 years from the data of purchase, and the 2016 KS models were launched in March 2016.

 

Only when we get to the year 2022, do retailers gets to question how old the TV is.

 

 


It's entirely relevant , as your first year is with Samsung and after that it is with whoever provides your extended warranty 👍


No. False. That's why I corrected it.

Please read the thread, please don't rock up and post misinformation today after months of correct information and advice has been discussed.

 

This is not a "warranty" issue.

 

It's about getting a full 100% refund under the terms of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, for the RETAILER (not the manufacturer) mis-representing the item at the point of sale. The TV can be in 100% full working order, that's not relevant. You have up to 6 years to do this, so - one more time - only when we get to the year 2022, does the question "how old is the TV" become relevant.

 

 

 

 


This is very sound advice and correct on everything said. It is not a warranty issue and if you go down that route you will get nothing. All the information and help is on this thread from page one. 

Paul

Explorer

 


@mrtickle wrote:

 


@paulyoung666 wrote:

@mrtickle wrote:

@paulyoung666 wrote:

How old is the TV ?


Not relevant in any way to this thread.  Don't fall for any retailer asking this question, or engage in any line of questioning about the age of the TV!

 

The 2015 consumer law gives you up to 6 years from the data of purchase, and the 2016 KS models were launched in March 2016.

 

Only when we get to the year 2022, do retailers gets to question how old the TV is.

 

 


It's entirely relevant , as your first year is with Samsung and after that it is with whoever provides your extended warranty 👍


No. False. That's why I corrected it.

Please read the thread, please don't rock up and post misinformation today after months of correct information and advice has been discussed.

 

This is not a "warranty" issue.

 

It's about getting a full 100% refund under the terms of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, for the RETAILER (not the manufacturer) mis-representing the item at the point of sale. The TV can be in 100% full working order, that's not relevant. You have up to 6 years to do this, so - one more time - only when we get to the year 2022, does the question "how old is the TV" become relevant.

 

 

 

 


Ok , fair enough , just glad I didn't have to go through all this heartache when I got my ks7000 exchanged for a Q7F with richer sounds , I just hope they survive the high street crunch because there is no better place to shop than with them !!!

Black Belt 

@paulyoung666 wrote:

@mrtickle wrote:

@paulyoung666 wrote:

How old is the TV ?


Not relevant in any way to this thread.  Don't fall for any retailer asking this question, or engage in any line of questioning about the age of the TV!

 

The 2015 consumer law gives you up to 6 years from the data of purchase, and the 2016 KS models were launched in March 2016.

 

Only when we get to the year 2022, do retailers gets to question how old the TV is.

 

 


It's entirely relevant , as your first year is with Samsung and after that it is with whoever provides your extended warranty 👍


Wrong.  Under the October 2015 European consumer regs you have 6 years and it is the retailer who is liable for misrepresentation and you are entitled to a full refund. 

Paul

Helping Hand

@paulyoung666 wrote:

 


Ok , fair enough , just glad I didn't have to go through all this heartache when I got my ks7000 exchanged for a Q7F with richer sounds , I just hope they survive the high street crunch because there is no better place to shop than with them !!!


Phew. Yes. Richer Sounds are great and always go the extra mile.

 

 

Explorer

Ok , out of curiosity , who has had a refund and who was the retailer , I'll start it with me and richer sounds , anyone else ?

Explorer

@mrtickle wrote:

@paulyoung666 wrote:

 


Ok , fair enough , just glad I didn't have to go through all this heartache when I got my ks7000 exchanged for a Q7F with richer sounds , I just hope they survive the high street crunch because there is no better place to shop than with them !!!


Phew. Yes. Richer Sounds are great and always go the extra mile.

 

 


Off topic , but I'm in a right argument over a £100 camera with Currys , hate to think what would happen with a £2000 TV !!!

Navigator

Just so I'm clear can anyone confirm they got a refund from JL on the basis of the "dongle" alone. I was in dialogue for months and JL stated categorically they had offered all customers in my position the same deal...and this was far from a refund. If anyone is prepared to give me details I'll go back to JL

Helping Hand

@ewanstancarr wrote:

Just so I'm clear can anyone confirm they got a refund from JL on the basis of the "dongle" alone. I was in dialogue for months and JL stated categorically they had offered all customers in my position the same deal...and this was far from a refund. If anyone is prepared to give me details I'll go back to JL


I'm surprised at the resistance you are getting. You don't care what other customers got, each case is on its own merits. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is so black and white on this; it's so clearly a case of mis-representation (if you have the evidence that JL mentioned the SmartThings Extend Dongle); and the law doesn't allow the retailer to make the decision to offer you less than a refund.

You may have to threaten to take them to the small claims court, which you'll win, and it'll cost them more.

 

Top Liked Authors