Support

Open search

KS Owners refund

Highlighted
Explorer

It now appears most of the retailers are starting to see sense by making fair & substantial offers,  apart from Currys that is.

They continue to only offer a refund in the form of a voucher which equates to well over £800 less than the original purchase price no matter which KS TV you bought from them.

They also seem to be offering either £150 or £200 as a goodwill gesture if you decide to keep the TV. 

 

I won't be accepting their current offer and i certainly wouldn't want to spend any refund in their stores after the way they've conducted themselves so far.

Highlighted
Voyager
Here is my latest email from currys and my response above. 
Any thoughts and comments are welcome.
-------
Dear Mr ***** 
Is this Currys final position on the matter? 
If it is, and you state that it is, I will be able to proceed with legal action. 
As you can see from my previous emails to Ms ***** I believe Currys should only be offering a full refund as other retailers are. The  results of some of these refunds can be found on the Samsung forum -https://eu.community.samsung.com/t5/TV-Audio-Video/KS-Owners-refund-Results/td-p/591783 

The depreciating credit offer is not in keeping with current law, and the only acceptable offer is a full refund.  

Please contact your head office for their final position based on the information I have given you so that I can proceed with legal action should that be necessary. 

Yours sincerely

***


On 23 Aug 2018, at 15:33, wrote:

Dear Mr ***

 

Thank you for your response.

 

As my colleague Faye is out of the office today, I am responding in her absence.

 

As previously advised, we would not look to refund you in full, however the offer of £1,374.23 still stands. Alternatively, If you you wish to keep your television,  I would be happy to raise you a payment for £200.00.

 

If you would like to accept either of the above, please advise so I can inform our Finance Team.

 

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

***

Highlighted
Voyager
And now I've had a further email which states.



"Dear Mr ****,

Final Position Email

I am sorry that we have been unable to resolve this matter to your satisfaction. We have now exhausted our internal complaints process and this is our final position.

What we cannot agree on and why

As Samsung did not release the Smart Things dongle as expected, you believe we have mis-sold you the television and are claiming for a full refund 23 months after purchase.

Our final position

We have offered a deprecated payment of £1,374.23 as a store voucher, this takes into account the length of ownership and price paid. Alternately, we can pay you £200.00 and you may keep the television. We believe both offers to be fair as not having the Smart Things dongle does not affect the main function of the television. Due to this, we will not be offering a full refund.

Taking your complaint further

We are obliged to inform you that you have the right to refer your complaint to an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) provider. You have up to twelve months to do this.

Please find below the contact details for a certified ADR provider.

Ombudsman Services
Website www.ombudsman-services.org

Address:

Ombudsman Services
The Brew House
Widerspool
Greenall’s Avenue
Warrington
WA4 6HL

We need to advise you that ADR is voluntary and it is not a procedure to which we subscribe. Therefore any ADR decision would not be binding.

Yours Sincerely,

R**** P*****

CEO Support Team
Team Knowhow™ Customer Contact Centre"


What do you think? What's my next action?
Highlighted
Voyager
m
@Tyler_Durden wrote:
What do you think? What's my next action?

I guess only you can decide if you think this is a fair offer. How much did the lack of the Smart Things dongle affect your use of the TV over 23 months of ownership? You have to decide whether going to court is worth the time and money to hopefully get a full refund.

 

If you do decide to go to court, then going to ADR may strengthen your case, but will lose you a month or two in delays. Issues you may need to address in court are:

- Why did you wait nearly two years to complain?

- How definitive is your evidence on Curry’s advertising of the Smart Things dongle?

- Etc.

Pathfinder

@tarbat wrote:
m
@Tyler_Durden wrote:
What do you think? What's my next action?

I guess only you can decide if you think this is a fair offer. How much did the lack of the Smart Things dongle affect your use of the TV over 23 months of ownership? You have to decide whether going to court is worth the time and money to hopefully get a full refund.

 

If you do decide to go to court, then going to ADR may strengthen your case, but will lose you a month or two in delays. Issues you may need to address in court are:

- Why did you wait nearly two years to complain?

- How definitive is your evidence on Curry’s advertising of the Smart Things dongle?

- Etc.


Given that Currys have stated they won't recognise any ADR decision I don't think a court would look unfavourably on you for not bothering with that process.

 

As for the 2 years it's only a few months since Samsung admitted they will never supply the missing functionality of the TV.  Evidence is easy to find via the wayback machine, also.

Highlighted
Apprentice

Hi all,

i have a KS800 TV I bought from Currys online in sept 2016 and have been following this thread with interest (it took me several hours to read through all posts). 

 

I paid with AMEX so know I have the section 75 open to me too but want to start the ball rolling with Currys first. Before I do so, I had some questions for the experts on this thread:

 

1) Tyler (and others) - there have been reports that Currys have been offering refunds of £800 less than the price paid. Can you confirm that your offer of £1300 means you paid over £2K for your TV?

 

2) I plan to submit several pieces of evidence in my initial submission to Currys to show I am serious and plan to order them as suggested by a lawyer on this thread. With that said:

a) Ramos - would you be willing to sign an affidavit confirming the authenticity of the ADR ruling you got from Richer Sounds?

b) Paul - would you be willing to sign an affidavit confirming the email you got from Samsung stating that they will no longer provide the dongle?

 

i know this is strictly speaking not required but I am hoping that this approach will short circuit any of the messing around that Currys seem to be doing  its other complainants. 

 

3) Unlike the JL and Richer adverts for the TV, the Currys advert did not explicitly mention the functionality but as others have said, it is referenced in a knowhow article - can those with a legal background opine on whether that weakens the case materially?

 

4) Has anyone progressed their claim from Currys following a deadlock letter with either their Credit Card company, arbitration or court. 

 

Many thanks in advance

 

Highlighted
Voyager

@Moily wrote: 
As for the 2 years it's only a few months since Samsung admitted they will never supply the missing functionality of the TV.  Evidence is easy to find via the wayback machine, also.

Yes, I’m aware of that.  But Samsung aren’t any part of the sales contract. I’m just saying that anyone relying on misreprentation should thoroughly research the meaning in law, of having “affirmed” the contract as defined in the Misrepresentation Act 1967.  It could be argued that you should have contacted the retailer about this sooner, and not just relied on statements from Samsung on twitter and forums, a party not even involved in the sales contract.

 

Just be prepared for these points when going to court.

 

As for retailers wanting to reduce the refund to allow for usage, research the expected lifetime of a TV. I argued that 10 years is the expected lifetime of a Samsung TV, given that they provided a 10 year “no burn-in” guarantee on KS models. So, 2 years of usage should equate to a 20% reduction in the refund amount.

Highlighted
Explorer

As I recall Tyler paid £2199.99 (65" KS8000) and was offered £1374.76 which equates to a deduction of £825.76, therefore Currys estimate that the TV is worth approx 62% of the original purchase price.

I paid £1799.99 (55" KS8000) and was offered £960 which equates to a deduction of £839.99, therefore Currys estimate that the TV is worth approx 53% of the original purchase price.

Tyler was offered £200 if he kept the TV, i was offered £150.

There's other members on here who have also had offers from Currys.

P S .. I hope my math is correct :thinking-face:

Highlighted
Pathfinder

@tarbat wrote:

@Moily wrote: 
As for the 2 years it's only a few months since Samsung admitted they will never supply the missing functionality of the TV.  Evidence is easy to find via the wayback machine, also.

Yes, I’m aware of that.  But Samsung aren’t any part of the sales contract. I’m just saying that anyone relying on misreprentation should thoroughly research the meaning in law, of having “affirmed” the contract as defined in the Misrepresentation Act 1967.  It could be argued that you should have contacted the retailer about this sooner, and not just relied on statements from Samsung on twitter and forums, a party not even involved in the sales contract.

 

Just be prepared for these points when going to court.

 

As for retailers wanting to reduce the refund to allow for usage, research the expected lifetime of a TV. I argued that 10 years is the expected lifetime of a Samsung TV, given that they provided a 10 year “no burn-in” guarantee on KS models. So, 2 years of usage should equate to a 20% reduction in the refund amount.


The mention of Samsung is purely in relation to the initiator of the fact that Currys will never be able to fulfil the contract, specifically in regards to the question 'why wait 2 years before claiming?'.

 

The 2 year wait was for Currys to supply the rest of the product that was bought originally. Samsung have now confirmed that they won't ever be supplying Currys with the required components and by inference Currys will never be supplying us with the required components, but the point stands that Currys' customers' contracts are solely with Currys.

Highlighted
Explorer

Has anyone here who purchased from curry’s, have insurance on the tv taken out from curry’s themselves coverering for “accidental damage”? 

Top Liked Authors