Support

Open search

KS Owners refund

Highlighted
Black Belt 

@hmsq wrote:

Hi,

 

Just had a response from Currys, sent email yesterday to the address mentioned, today got this reply.

 

Thank you for contacting Team KNOWHOW. 
  
We are really sorry that we haven't contacted you within our timescales we really do hope that your query has been answered. It may be that you have visited one of our stores or called us to discuss your query. 
  
However, if you feel the matter remains unresolved, please contact us on 0344 800 9090 or alternatively please respond including a contact number for us to call you at a convenient time and one of our colleagues will be happy to assist. 
  
Thank you for your patience and once again please accept our apologies.
 
I really don't have time to be on the phone, they haven't even bothered to reply to my query.

Hi just send them the original letter you sent and ask why they are not responding to you original request. 

Paul 

Highlighted
Black Belt 

@rosscouk wrote:
It was Barclaycard, is there a precedent for a full refund?

Yes the ADR ruling and all the people who gave had full refunds from Richer Sounds and John Lewis. Again use that explanation that @mrtickle kindly did for us and include that. As we know it is about "playing the game" and they are hoping you give up before them. It us a tactic used by businesses. Just keep a log of all correspondence. Paul 

Highlighted
Navigator

Its tricky as I am now in contact with the credit card company, who, verbally at least, have agreed to refund 4/6s of the value of the set. What are the explicit reasons to state in order to get the full value of the price paid?

 

As suggested, I have not had use of the Samsung Smartthings Extend USB adapter for obvious reasons. What else might be accepted as valid by Barclaycard? 

 

I have been looking for the ADR ruling, does anyone have it bookmarked by any chance? Thanks.

Highlighted
Black Belt 

@rosscouk wrote:

Its tricky as I am now in contact with the credit card company, who, verbally at least, have agreed to refund 4/6s of the value of the set. What are the explicit reasons to state in order to get the full value of the price paid?

 

As suggested, I have not had use of the Samsung Smartthings Extend USB adapter for obvious reasons. What else might be accepted as valid by Barclaycard?

 

Here is the adr link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wchOMdwsbyzfMV4dbYBvh0wxDkkn9Z_z/view?usp=sharing

 

and here is the reason why you should get a full refund,

 

Here is the explanation why you should get a full refund,
mrtickle
mrtickle Helping Hand
yesterday

wrote:

Hi. I have started pursuing this with Currys,

And Section 24, Paragraph 8 of the Consumer Rights Act states that "If the consumer exercises the final right to reject, any refund to the consumer may be reduced by a deduction for use, to take account of the use the consumer has had of the goods in the period since they were delivered, but this is subject to subsections (9) and (10)."
I've looked through large chunks of this thread and am unable to find an answer. It's great for Richer Sounds buyers that the ADR ruled in favour of a full refund, but for the rest of us, what is the legislation backing up the requirement for a full refund?

Thanks,

Alex
Hiya and welcome. I'll have a go at it. I am not a lawyer or qualified in any way.

Curry's, yuk. Good luck. :( I'll start with this - please learn from this, and the rest of this thread about the way they treat people, and never shop there again.

The Which website is entirely focssed on faults. It has nothing at all about misrepresentation, and is misleading for people in our situation who need to focus on misrepresentation. Curry's and JL have and are taking full advantage of this to mislead.

I'll use the Explanatory Notes. @Ramos049's letter references these, and I did to in my letter. "I’m sure you are aware of several key differences with the new Consumer Rights Act, namely that it has a different criteria for misrepresentation (applicable for a period of up to 6 years following the purchase) than it does with the more usual cases of faulty goods, as identified in Item 105 within the Commentary for Section 1."

that's all about the 6 years thing, always useful. But instead of reading the Act, read all the Explanatory Notes instead as they are clearer.

Start with: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/1/3/3/3

Section 11: Goods to be as described
68....... If the information regarding the main characteristics is not complied with, the consumer can pursue the protections for breach of section 11, as set out in section 19.

It's a breach of section 11 because the information was not correct.

The remedies are in section 19. NOTE! Not section 24!

Back to Explanatory notes: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/1/3/4/1

---Section 19: Consumer’s rights to enforce terms about goods

98.For goods, sections 19 and 20 provide that in certain situations the consumer has the right to terminate the contract and receive a refund. Where the contract is a mixed contract with a goods element, this means (unless the contract is severable, see paragraph 100 below) that the consumer has the right to terminate the whole contract (both the goods and non-goods elements) and receive a refund of the price of the contract (or for money already paid towards the full price of the contract). If the consumer wishes to continue part of the contract, it is open to the parties to agree to do so.

 

Also make sure you get any offer in writing.

 

Paul


 

Highlighted
Navigator

Thanks @paul1277.

 

I have found some interesting points, however Barclaycard said they do not follow the Consumer Rights Act 2015 but the Consumer Credit Act. If that is true I doubt I could argue the case citing the Consumer Rights Act.

 

That being said, under Section 24 of the CRA - Right to price reduction or final right to reject; (9)

 

(9)No deduction may be made to take account of use in any period when the consumer had the goods only because the trader failed to collect them at an agreed time.

 

 

John Lewis/Samsung did not directly make me aware that the Smarthings extend USB adapter was not forthcoming or I would have rejected the TV at that point however this was not confirmed until late 2017 and its taken the next 8 months to get to a point of a refund. I am being unfairly forced to pay for a delay that is not of my making.

 

I could put this to Barclaycard, but again, I am not sure how much weight it carries.

Highlighted
Black Belt 

@rosscouk wrote:

Thanks @paul1277.

 

I have found some interesting points, however Barclaycard said they do not follow the Consumer Rights Act 2015 but the Consumer Credit Act. If that is true I doubt I could argue the case citing the Consumer Rights Act.

 

That being said, under Section 24 of the CRA - Right to price reduction or final right to reject; (9)

 

(9)No deduction may be made to take account of use in any period when the consumer had the goods only because the trader failed to collect them at an agreed time.

 

 

John Lewis/Samsung did not directly make me aware that the Smarthings extend USB adapter was not forthcoming or I would have rejected the TV at that point however this was not confirmed until late 2017 and its taken the next 8 months to get to a point of a refund. I am being unfairly forced to pay for a delay that is not of my making.

 

I could put this to Barclaycard, but again, I am not sure how much weight it carries.


I know Barclays do not follow the consumer "rights act" because I don't think it exists. They are right when they say they are governed by the consumer credit act. But if the retailer fails to comply with the Oct 2015 European Consumer regs then the credit card company under the consumer credit regs 2010,

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1014/made

is just as liable as the retailer? Therefore if the retailer does not or will not rectify the issue under the 2015 consumer regs, a person can make a claim against the credit card issuer, under the consumer credit regs 2010, which was amended in 2011.

Just point that out to them with the links to the regs and the adr ruling as further proof of misrepresentation and a full refund as the only recourse.

Paul

Pathfinder

Note, if you don't get anywhere with a Section 75 claim to your card provider then you can escalate it to the Financial Ombudsman Service for free so you have nothing to lose.

 

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases

Highlighted
Navigator

Thanks @paul1277 - I have adapted into a letter so I can keep this in writing. Any more thoughts?

 

Dear ***

 

Further to our telephone conversation (07th August 2018), thank you for your offer to reimburse me for 4/6s (which equates to £871.66) of the value of the television. However, this is not a case where any monies should be deducted from the original purchase value. This is a clear case of miss-representation and I have previously supplied evidence where John Lewis have admitted as such. In this instance if the retailer (John Lewis) fails to comply with the Oct 2015 European Consumer Regulations then the credit card company (Barclaycard), under the Consumer Credit Regulations (2010), (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1014/made) is just as liable as the retailer. Therefore if the retailer does not or will not rectify the issue under the 2015 European Consumer Regulations, a person can make a claim against the credit card issuer, under the Consumer Credit Regulation’s 2010, which was amended in 2011.

 

In addition to this fact I also attach an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) ruling - Complaint by Mr ***** against Richer Sounds, Ref 113351574, where a full refund has been recommended in an identical case.

 

Therefore, in light of this additional further proof of misrepresentation and Barclaycards responsibilities a refund for the full amount of £1307.50 is the only recourse.

 

Can you please confirm your offer in writing.

 

Yours sincerely

etc

 

 

Highlighted
Black Belt 

@rosscouk wrote:

Thanks @paul1277 - I have adapted into a letter so I can keep this in writing. Any more thoughts?

 

Looks good to me.

 

 


 

Highlighted
Helping Hand

@paul1277 wrote:

@rosscouk wrote:
It was Barclaycard, is there a precedent for a full refund?

Yes the ADR ruling and all the people who gave had full refunds from Richer Sounds and John Lewis. Again use that explanation that @mrtickle kindly did for us and include that. As we know it is about "playing the game" and they are hoping you give up before them. It us a tactic used by businesses. Just keep a log of all correspondence. Paul 


Please be ultra cautious about quoting anything I said as "proof". I just gave my layman's opinion of how I read it.

 

@rosscouk, you are quoting remedies from Section 24 but those are the remedies for faulty goods which is what we are trying to avoid, and what John Lewis/Curry's keep trying to steer people down.

You want the remedies which apply to misrepresentation, which is in a different section.

 

I personally do not recommend that people take my snippets and use them in their letters - what I do recommend is that people use those as starting point for reading up on the websites themselves. I only made that post as a crib-sheet for a "starter for ten".

 

My advice is to read the "explanatory notes" on the gov website from top to bottom. Then have a lie down in a dark room. Then the next day, read them again and see if you think they still mean the same thing. Only then should you be confident to quote stuff from the act and notes.

 

EDIT: I think your letter just posted is very good and says all it needs to.

 

 

Top Liked Authors