Re: KS Owners refund - Page 176

paul1277 · ‎24-12-2017

Do all you good people who bought a 2016 Samsung TV know Samsung have stopped supporting it. The promised they would support HLG (BBC Iplayer HDR). This was in the Dec 2016 Trusted Reviews and What Hi Fi. They have not and if you had bought a Panasonic or LG 2016 set you would be able to watch Iplayer Blue Planet 2 in glorious HLG. This is a big issue because HLG looks like the standard for all over the air broadcasting. Samsung are not even supporting a 4K update to Iplayer. The reason looks like it will cost just 5 cents or pence per unit. So my telly I bought in Jan 2017 is deemed as out of date by Samsung!!!!!!

You wrote in your Dec 2016 issue that Samsung were supporting HLG in their 2016 models. Do you know that Samsung have supported their 2017 models but not the 2016 models. I know because the BBC IPlayer Blue Planet 2 will not play in 4K or HLG. It's not good considering Panasonic and LG both do support their 2016 models. It means my KS model I bought in Jan is now deemed out of date by Samsung. It looks like their are royalty fees which Samsung will not pay! Not good.

All you people in the UK can return your KS TVs IF you bought it for the use of the smartthings Extend that will never be coming out for our TVs. ***** is how.

Tell them you want a full refund because they promised that if you bought a KS TV you would get a FREE Smartthings Extend. They proof you will need is easy to find and is the reason you bought this TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMc3V98yzNY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRSWoUmU5YQ

I bought mine from J Lewis and the Samsung Extend addvert is still there https://www.johnlewis.com/electricals/samsung/smart-tv/c9601000048?rdr=1

If you bought your KS TV from currys http://techtalk.currys.co.uk/tv-gaming/tv/how-to-control-your-home-from-your-smart-tv/

They both say that you will get a free smartthings extend USB dongle.

Now send you TVs back for a full refund Smiley Happy

All those who bought a Samsung TV in 2016 may have claim for miss selling. It basically means that all you folks who bought the 2016 Samsung units have 2 choices. After Dec 2016 and if you had seen any articles that are press release's about HLG support and that influenced you decision to buy may have a case. For all those owners who read the info from the retailers on their web pages and saw and was influenced by the promise of the smart connect which has not been honoured, then you also have a case for miss selling. If you all spread this in all available media then I am sure the retailers would put pressure on to Samsung to correct this. If nothing else you could end up with nice shiny LG or Panasonic, or the new Philips that all are HLG BBC iplayer compatible, and with the HDR10 plus that again Samsung have still not implemented, you may be best with LG and Dolby Vision.

Also take a copy of the retailers web page before they change the description.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRSWoUmU5YQ

I will try to explain how to get a refund for miss selling (seen how much the LG's have come down). I followed this way and got a full refund or a JS8000.

You need to show that you asked or believed that or influenced by claims made about the capabilities of the TV. With BBC Iplayer HLG it's from the Trusted reviews and What Hi Fi, and any other publications and if you asked the retailer.

https://www.whathifi.com/advice/hdr-tv-what-it-how-can-you-get-it#6locceZo3Zf8yi5T.99

you can show you had been informed.

It's different with the smart connect as that is advertised on the main retailers web sites,

https://www.johnlewis.com/electricals/samsung/smart-tv/c9601000048?rdr=1
http://techtalk.currys.co.uk/tv-gaming/tv/how-to-control-your-home-from-your-smart-tv/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRSWoUmU5YQ

As the donngle's have not turned up you now claim miss selling, so either go to your retailer or email them with the web page, and explain why you think you were miss sold. Also phone Citizens Advice 03444 111 444 and raise a case (this also gets past on to Trading Standards). Explain that the retailer informed you off the capabilities via their web page information, and either show the page printer or the link, as above.

They will advise and link you to some template letters to send to your retailer.

I had to send a letter of intent to take legal action (template from Citizens Advice) against Curry's but then they gave me a refund.

So mention all the promises from Samsung full support for HLG, Smart Connect, and HDR10+

It will cost nothing to ask and again may bring some pressure on to Samsung.

paul1277 · ‎27-08-2018

@Tyler_Durden wrote:
It certainly looks like I'll need to go to court to get this sorted. I've never done it, and don't really have the first idea of how to go about it.

@You have done the hard work and all the info is on the citizen's advice site. As with jl Scotland who settled before court, I am convinced Curry's will do the same. They do know that unless forced by court or the real threat of court they do not need to comply, because unlike a criminal court they would not be punished even if they lost. But if they lost they know that would open the door to all their ks owners to ask for a full refund and they know that. They are hoping people will give up, and that would let them off the hook. The whole process is designed to enable the person on the street to get redress no matter how much money they can throw at it, that is why costs are so limited. You do not need to prove beyond doubt, but what is reasonable. John Lewis and Richer Sounds are giving full refunds and would not do so if they did not think they had to. It @@@Moily@@ on how much damage to them as retailers they want to do to themselves. Richer Sounds being members of the ADR process have come out as the best major retailer in my book , Curry's as the pi

Paul

Tyler_Durden · ‎27-08-2018

I have replied that it isn't realistic for them to expect me to wait for an indefinite period while their litigation team investigate how they stand, and that I have no other option I will be beginning the processing a claim through the small claims court.

paul1277 · ‎27-08-2018

@Tyler_Durden wrote:
Here's their response.

Thank you for your email. I do appreciate this, and understand your comments in regards to this.

This issue had been raised with our litigation team to investigate how we stand. it is our companies that as the model was advertised as having the service as a future service, and at the time of purchase, this was correct, this would not be classed as misrepresentation.

As such, up to the point the declaration that this service would not be released, the TV was working as described, ie without this feature, awaiting release. This is why a partial refund has been offered, or a "live with" payment rather than a full refund.

Out litigation team are still reviewing. Although the offer would not be retracted, and you can accept either option any time, I can leave the case open, and get in touch once there is a further response, however I cannot offer a time scale, nor advise that the decision would change.

Yours sincerely,

They are scraping the barrel.

They are wrong to offer as a future service as the smart hub was already built into the TV at purchase. They said that it would be activated when the USB dongle would be supplied by the end of 2016. The misrepresentation at the time of sale was them saying the USB dongle WOULD be supplied by the end of 2016. It only was made clear this would not happen in August 2018! So you were saying and did not have this function for this length of time, which you could argue that you should be compensated for.

Paul

paul1277 · ‎27-08-2018

@Tyler_Durden wrote:
I have replied that it isn't realistic for them to expect me to wait for an indefinite period while their litigation team investigate how they stand, and that I have no other option I will be beginning the processing a claim through the small claims court.

It's more proof if them trying to delay court action.

Paul

tarbat · ‎27-08-2018

I guess the one grey area is whether you should have raised this with the retailer at the end of 2016 when it became clear that the dongle was not available within the timescale advertised. They could argue that by not reporting the misrepresentation at the end of 2016, you would be taken to have “affirmed” the contract.

Check the “Limitations of a misrepresentation” section at http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/misrepresentation-act-1967

Tyler_Durden · ‎27-08-2018

They have replied with this.

Thank you for your email. I am sorry that we could not reach an agreed resolution for this issue, but if you did wish to accept the gestures suggestion at any time, please feel free to let me know, and I will be happy to get this processed for you.

Tyler_Durden · ‎28-08-2018

@paul1277 wrote:
@Tyler_Durden wrote:
Here's their response.

Thank you for your email. I do appreciate this, and understand your comments in regards to this.

This issue had been raised with our litigation team to investigate how we stand. it is our companies that as the model was advertised as having the service as a future service, and at the time of purchase, this was correct, this would not be classed as misrepresentation.

As such, up to the point the declaration that this service would not be released, the TV was working as described, ie without this feature, awaiting release. This is why a partial refund has been offered, or a "live with" payment rather than a full refund.

Out litigation team are still reviewing. Although the offer would not be retracted, and you can accept either option any time, I can leave the case open, and get in touch once there is a further response, however I cannot offer a time scale, nor advise that the decision would change.

Yours sincerely,
They are scraping the barrel.
They are wrong to offer as a future service as the smart hub was already built into the TV at purchase. They said that it would be activated when the USB dongle would be supplied by the end of 2016. The misrepresentation at the time of sale was them saying the USB dongle WOULD be supplied by the end of 2016. It only was made clear this would not happen in August 2018! So you were saying and did not have this function for this length of time, which you could argue that you should be compensated for.
Paul

Paul, do you think this is the first instance that they have denied misrepresentation?

paul1277 · ‎28-08-2018

@tarbat wrote:
I guess the one grey area is whether you should have raised this with the retailer at the end of 2016 when it became clear that the dongle was not available within the timescale advertised. They could argue that by not reporting the misrepresentation at the end of 2016, you would be taken to have “affirmed” the contract.

Check the “Limitations of a misrepresentation” section at http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/misrepresentation-act-1967

It was not clear at the end of 2016 and it was at the end of 2017 when they said they were in beta testing. It was only in mid 2018 and it was one of the moderators @AntS who informed us that Samsung would not be delivering the dongle due to security issues. So we were only informed this year and that was why we could only claim so late.

Paul

paul1277 · ‎28-08-2018

@Tyler_Durden wrote:
They have replied with this.

Thank you for your email. I am sorry that we could not reach an agreed resolution for this issue, but if you did wish to accept the gestures suggestion at any time, please feel free to let me know, and I will be happy to get this processed for you.

I think you can take that as their final word. Paul

paul1277 · ‎28-08-2018

@Tyler_Durden wrote:
@paul1277 wrote:
@Tyler_Durden wrote:
Here's their response.

Thank you for your email. I do appreciate this, and understand your comments in regards to this.

This issue had been raised with our litigation team to investigate how we stand. it is our companies that as the model was advertised as having the service as a future service, and at the time of purchase, this was correct, this would not be classed as misrepresentation.

As such, up to the point the declaration that this service would not be released, the TV was working as described, ie without this feature, awaiting release. This is why a partial refund has been offered, or a "live with" payment rather than a full refund.

Out litigation team are still reviewing. Although the offer would not be retracted, and you can accept either option any time, I can leave the case open, and get in touch once there is a further response, however I cannot offer a time scale, nor advise that the decision would change.

Yours sincerely,
They are scraping the barrel.
They are wrong to offer as a future service as the smart hub was already built into the TV at purchase. They said that it would be activated when the USB dongle would be supplied by the end of 2016. The misrepresentation at the time of sale was them saying the USB dongle WOULD be supplied by the end of 2016. It only was made clear this would not happen in August 2018! So you were saying and did not have this function for this length of time, which you could argue that you should be compensated for.
Paul
Paul, do you think this is the first instance that they have denied misrepresentation?

They are not denying misrepresentation but admitting to it when they accept that they supplied the TV without that function.

Paul