Support

Open search

KS Owners refund

Apprentice

Agreed, seems people are having more luck with the stores they bought them from.

 

Shame though as I bought mine online so will have to deal with head office.

 

Sent in the email so will see what they say.

 

Explorer

Apologies for late reply, mad busy with work and home improvements. I will be posting up a template of my email shortly when i get 5 mins spare (i.e. once little one has gone to bed). 

 

Nice to see others getting positive responses in the mean time. 

Explorer

Brilliant to see that some progress is being made on this  , I'm still glad I bought mine from richer sounds , they were faultless in my dealings , as for Currys , I'm still in arguments with them over a £100 camera , it's highly likely they will never ever get another penny out of me after this 😡😡😡

Highlighted
Explorer

As promised:

 

Insert date

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:

 

https://www.johnlewis.com/electricals/samsung/smart-tv/c9601000048?rdr=1 (link no longer works as the advert has since been removed)

 

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.

 

Yours faithfully

 

INSERT NAME

 

Explorer

@Jep_uk wrote:

As promised:

 

Insert date

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:

 

https://www.johnlewis.com/electricals/samsung/smart-tv/c9601000048?rdr=1 (link no longer works as the advert has since been removed)

 

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.

 

Yours faithfully

 

INSERT NAME

 


Thank you very much for that, I’ve edited it and sent it to Currys. They reply so slowly (two responses in 20 days) and their responses don’t even address the points I’ve made.

 

I gave them 14 days to offer a refund or exchange towards another TV or I’d contact my credit card company for Section 75 which I have done this evening. Fingers crossed!

 

Helping Hand

@billinghamn and @Jep_uk , I salute you. Your letters are clear, robust yet polite. Many thanks for sharing.

 

Navigator

Thanks for posting your email, much appreciated . 

 

So can I presume that absolutely no one has had any success dealing with currys. 

 

I think currys might win the award for worst ever customer service, or maybe Samsung might just beat them to it!

 

Note to self avoid Samsung products and avoid purchasing anything from currys.

Black Belt 

@Mylo75 wrote:

Thanks for posting your email, much appreciated . 

 

So can I presume that absolutely no one has had any success dealing with currys. 

 

I think currys might win the award for worst ever customer service, or maybe Samsung might just beat them to it!

 

Note to self avoid Samsung products and avoid purchasing anything from currys.


Looks like they are still playing the hard ball game. Still worth the ADR for evidence then section 75 and or county court. 

Explorer
Awfull customer service from currys, I went to citizens advice and it been put forward to Trading standards. Iv mentioned this to them and they are not going to change their mind. Decission is final for partial refund. They have told me to seek 3rd party advice. Given me a address to send my letter stating I want to go to court. So if anyone who wants refund from Currys through customer service this aint happening. Best thing to do is to go via small claims court to which I am intending to do
Black Belt 

@Boofg100 wrote:
Awfull customer service from currys, I went to citizens advice and it been put forward to Trading standards. Iv mentioned this to them and they are not going to change their mind. Decission is final for partial refund. They have told me to seek 3rd party advice. Given me a address to send my letter stating I want to go to court. So if anyone who wants refund from Currys through customer service this aint happening. Best thing to do is to go via small claims court to which I am intending to do

They are behaving just like the poster today said and looks like calling your bluff. By them actually giving you help is to undermine you confidence in winning,  therefore hoping you give up. It now seems that they will not voluntary refund,  which they do not have to. It took a ADR decirto get richer sounds to pay up. As was said it could take the submission of legal papers or section 75 which would then force curry's. Their defence they see to be using is their instance of saying its a fault and ignoring the misrepresentation. The fact the richer sounds lost the ADR and it seems that jl are now paying out must show that it is misrepresentation. 

Paul

Top Liked Authors