Support

Open search

KS Owners refund

Navigator
So I called into the currys store I bought my TV from. When I mentioned I had been mis sold a TV I got a look as if to say "so, what does that mean, what do you expect me to do about it?".

After 10 minutes with the manager showing them the relevant information (thanks to this thread) they kinda agreed the TV was mis sold, but had no idea what they could do about it!

The manager was to contact head office for advice and get back to me next week. To be fair the store manager seemed decent enough, but my next conversation with them will be interesting.
Highlighted
Navigator

@Boofg100 wrote:

Hi guys needs some advise, been following developments for some time. I purchased KS8000 in Aug 2016 from Currys. I have asked for a refund used the template from the first page.  So they came back with they can only offer me a partial refund of around £700 (orginal price £1300). This is what they said : We are able to offer you a partial refund of the TV to its current value. This is calculated based on the date of purchase and the price originally paid giving us a figure, after 21 months. As the problem was caused by the manufacturer after sale was completed, due to early take up of a planned manufacturer action which was not completed as was originally proposed, and completely beyond our control.

 

So i replied :

 

I understand that Samsung have changed their stance but you guys had this advertised on your site. I had to seek out that this is not available and you Currys have not been pro active in contacting their customers regarding the issue. The purchase was made from Currys, so it is Currys duty and please refer to consumer rights act 2015 and within the 6 years of purchase, I have a right to obtain a refund. As mentioned Richer sounds have issued a refund to customers regarding this case

 

Their final reply was : 

 

Due to the change of stance by the Manufacturer we are able to offer the partial refund as advised which is fully in line with the Consumer Rights Act 2015, we have to take into account you have had use of the TV for 21 months. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 enables us to issue you a partial refund for goods which has been used for up to 6 years. As such we do take into account the amount of use had (age wise) with the TV. The amount offered was the highest amount we could do so. This was offered due to the above Act and is fully in compliance with its conditions.


This is exactly the same argument that Richer Sounds were using against me in order to try and get me to accept a reduced refund. The case I raised with Retail ADR was not if they had missold the TV but if I was right to demand a full refund or if Richer Sounds were right to offer a partial refund. My TV was 18 months old and I still got a full refund. The date of purchase is on the Retail ADR document. Point this out to them and also say the case was not about misselling but about what refund the customer was entitled to.

Explorer

So after me telling them that i have been missold again and that Curry are liable, and showed them the retail ADR document from richer sounds they came back with this:

 

Yes, there is a 6 year limit to the time when you can report a problem. The refund offered though will take into account the length of time you have used the machine. This is stated in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the choice of repair or partial refund is ours. As a repair is not possible you have correctly been offered the right resolution. 

It got passed to upper management who have conferred with our legal team.

 

They are playing hard ball with me.

Black Belt 

@Boofg100 wrote:

So after me telling them that i have been missold again and that Curry are liable, and showed them the retail ADR document from richer sounds they came back with this:

 

Yes, there is a 6 year limit to the time when you can report a problem. The refund offered though will take into account the length of time you have used the machine. This is stated in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the choice of repair or partial refund is ours. As a repair is not possible you have correctly been offered the right resolution. 

It got passed to upper management who have conferred with our legal team.

 

They are playing hard ball with me.


Again they are trying to miss lead. Where they acknowledge a "repair" is not possible, you have not asked for a repair. You have asked for a replacement for misrepresentation and you must make it absolutely clear it is not a fault with the set but misrepresentation where there is a 6 year limit. 

It may be worth looking up the regs on Google have a read and send them the relevant bit. I also know that some have quoted them and the letters are on this thread. You can really see how they are trying to squirm out of this and you just need to shut each of their doors until they have now where to go. Ask them out right do they recognize this as misrepresentation and that leaves them no way out,  because what ever answer they give will dig a deeper hole. 

Paul

Helping Hand

 


@Boofg100 wrote:

So after me telling them that i have been missold again and that Curry are liable, and showed them the retail ADR document from richer sounds they came back with this:

 

Yes, there is a 6 year limit to the time when you can report a problem. The refund offered though will take into account the length of time you have used the machine. This is stated in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the choice of repair or partial refund is ours. As a repair is not possible you have correctly been offered the right resolution. 

It got passed to upper management who have conferred with our legal team.

 

They are playing hard ball with me.


That's not playing hard ball, that's just LYING to you.

 

"The choice of repair or partial refund is ours." - demand that they quote, Chapter, section and verse, which part of the act says this. It's NOT TRUE.

 

6 year time limit for reporting a problem

* if the problem is misrepresentation and you haven't had "full use" of the product: resolution is full refund. Do not pass Go, do not collect £200. Slam dunk

* OR, completely different part of the Act - if the problem is a fault: resolution is allowed to take into account the age of the TV, how much use you've had, etc.

 

They aren't being cheeky, they just are being dishonest.

 

regarding the Hub issue, pictures again for people who may not have seen them:

Smart Promise.pngThis was Samsung's promiseSmart Delivery.pngThis was NOT the promise - don't be fooled into accepting this

Black Belt 

@mrtickle wrote:

 


@Boofg100 wrote:

So after me telling them that i have been missold again and that Curry are liable, and showed them the retail ADR document from richer sounds they came back with this:

 

Yes, there is a 6 year limit to the time when you can report a problem. The refund offered though will take into account the length of time you have used the machine. This is stated in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the choice of repair or partial refund is ours. As a repair is not possible you have correctly been offered the right resolution. 

It got passed to upper management who have conferred with our legal team.

 

They are playing hard ball with me.


That's not playing hard ball, that's just LYING to you.

 

"The choice of repair or partial refund is ours." - demand that they quote, Chapter, section and verse, which part of the act says this. It's NOT TRUE.

 

6 year time limit for reporting a problem

* if the problem is misrepresentation and you haven't had "full use" of the product: resolution is full refund. Do not pass Go, do not collect £200. Slam dunk

* OR, completely different part of the Act - if the problem is a fault: resolution is allowed to take into account the age of the TV, how much use you've had, etc.

 

They aren't being cheeky, they just are being dishonest.

 

regarding the Hub issue, pictures again for people who may not have seen them:

Smart Promise.pngThis was Samsung's promiseSmart Delivery.pngThis was NOT the promise - don't be fooled into accepting this


He is dead right. They keep trying to say it is a faulty TV and it is not. It is the misrepresentation. If you look back you will see they have actually never denied misrepresentation, but they have never admitted to it. They try to confuse with the faulty goods argument. You need to make it absolutely clear it is not faulty goods but misrepresentation and a smart hub will not allow the TV to be any part of the IOT as promised when you bought the TV.  They are fighting this because they do not want a Richer Sounds, but Richer Sounds are now paying out, so that must say you have a very strong case. Once you can get them to admit misrepresentation you have won, so keep chipping away and close each of the lame arguments. It is when they stop talking that the next step is credit card section 75, ADR, and the threat of civil court. All the templates for all of this are on the citizen's Advice site and on this thread. People have had results and now have TV's that work as promised so just keep chipping away at them.

Paul

Helping Hand

And let this be a lesson to everyone reading, DO NOT BUY ANYTHING FROM CURRY'S, EVER, for the rest of your lives. Otherwise you are supporting a bunch of crooks and you are guilty by association!

 

Look at the lies they are telling - "it got passed to upper management who conferred with the legal team". So many lies in that one phrase.

1. No way did you refer it up, you just wrote the email back trying to fob the customer off.

2. Upper management did the conferring, and relayed the message back did they? So the legal team are so important, more than "upper management", that they can't supply the answer back themselves?

3. Where is their answer? Chapter, line and verse, where the Currys interpretation of a very clear law which says "full refund", is different to every other retailer in the country. Give me the exact sentences that the alleged lawyer - who I do not believe for a second was actually ever asked - give your management.

4. etc.

 

Curry's just makes my blood boil - and I hope you can all see, with good reason. I don't even buy batteries from them.

 

At a time when GOOD retailers are going to the wall (and we've all had over 10 years of this now), it's a crime that BAD retailers like Curry's inexplicably do not go under.

 

Explorer

Thanks for the info. So looks like they are not going to give me full refund and stated thats their final offer. I have no alternative now but to contact ADR now. Can you give me some advise on how I go about contacting them and what I need to state to them?

Voyager

@rozel wrote:

Guys

 

If I start to persue a claim against Currys, will it make any difference that I purchased via their 6 months Buy Now Pay Later Offer?


There's been a bit of activity since I asked this  maybe it's been overlooked?   Can someone please advise me,  I'd  be ever so grateful.

Explorer

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:
 
support@smarthings.co.uk
 
I hope you find this helpful and are able to resolve the issue.

 

Erm, they are trying to fob me off.

Top Liked Authors