Support

Open search

KS Owners refund

Pathfinder

@Tyler_Durden wrote:

I am about to submit my Small Claims court claim and I am wondering what I should be claiming for:

 

So far I only have:

 

TV - £2199

Hearing Fee - £170

 

Should I include anything else or should I only have the TV cost?


Have you sent JL/Currys a Letter Before Action and has the time you gave them to respond expired?

Highlighted
Navigator

@Moily wrote:

@Mylo75 wrote:

MBNA update and it's not good.

 

MBNA think Currys offer of a £500 refund and returning the tv is very reasonable or Currys offer of £150 and keep the tv is also very reasonable. They then told me I could go and buy an Amazon echo which would do all the tv would have done if the dongle had been released. 

 

Why oh why do these companies not understand simple UK law and get away with this kind of thing. So angry right now. Will be changing my credit card provider asap.

😡😠😡


I'm about to raise a S.75 claim with MBNA myself.  How did you submit yours?  Did you have to call them?


Yea I had to call them and ask to speak to section 75 claims department. 

 

Then email all your claim details, proof etc back to them.

 

Hope you have more luck than I had with them.

Highlighted
Pathfinder

Cheers, I'll get that submitted shortly and report back here.

 

You should get a better response from the F.O.S, so once MBNA's process has been exhausted then make sure you start the process with them.

Highlighted
Voyager

I have now processed and paid for my claim against Currys through this website www.moneyclaims.service.gov.uk

 

Currys have until 18th September to respond.

 

It has cost me £105.

 

Wish me luck!

Highlighted
Black Belt 

@Tyler_Durden wrote:

I have now processed and paid for my claim against Currys through this website www.moneyclaims.service.gov.uk

 

Currys have until 18th September to respond.

 

It has cost me £105.

 

Wish me luck!


You don't need luck you have the law on your side. I am sure Richer Sounds and John Lewis have got legal teams and checked the law and come to the conclusion they broke consumer law and that is now why they are giving full refunds. They had to be pushed with ADR and court so Curry's seem to need a little bigger push. I bet their legal will be in contact soon. 

But I will say good luck and waiting the discission with keen interest,  because when they fall that is the job here done. 

Paul

Highlighted
Navigator
I think might ping an email off to JL, just to check. That's a good suggestion, thanks. I will probably make reference to being made aware that they have paid out in cases similar to my own.

I will keep going with the section 75 in the meantime.
Highlighted
Black Belt 

@rosscouk wrote:
I think might ping an email off to JL, just to check. That's a good suggestion, thanks. I will probably make reference to being made aware that they have paid out in cases similar to my own.

I will keep going with the section 75 in the meantime.

Worth a try and your credit card supplier must supply you with details and address of the appeal process if they do not up hold your claim. Then you have the FO after that. 

Paul

Highlighted
Navigator
Request to JL gone!

I will let people know how I get on
Highlighted
Voyager

@rosscouk wrote:

An update from me. I am still in discussions with me credit card provider. They agree I have a case in regard to my 49ks8ooo bought from John Lewis in 2016 however they are trying to apply a 'fair use' element and only recompense to the tune of 4/6s of the overall price paid. I sent this letter a few weeks ago

 

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 onies 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 (Email 7 and 15). 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 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 Ramos against Richer Sounds, Ref 113351574, where a full refund has been recommended in an identical case.
Therefore, considering 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.

 

However despite two more calls when I have had to explain everything from scratch the situation is unchanged basically. It's now a level 2 case and if I don't like the outcome, and I have not been promised that they will even call me, then I can refer the case to the financial ombudsman.


Ok, here's my 2 pennies worth (playing Devil's advocaat -delicious at Christmas). It could be argued that the case of misrepresentation only came about at the time that Samsung declared the there'd be no dongle, ie this summer, and that up until that time, you had full use of the TV as was intended and expected before the release of the dongle. Therefore a reduction of a percentage of a refund for the use of the TV could be fair. However, were that the case I would argue that 2/3 of the price is unacceptable. I read elsewhere, on this forum I think, that the Screen was guaranteed for 10 years and as such it might not be unreasonable to argue that you've had only 2 years use of a 10 year TV, therefore a refund of 4/5 of the cost of the TV might be fair. Personally I think that's what I would push for.

 

Sometimes a reasonable compromise is better than bashing your head against a brick wall.

 

What do you think?

Highlighted
Black Belt 

@crashcris wrote:

@rosscouk wrote:

An update from me. I am still in discussions with me credit card provider. They agree I have a case in regard to my 49ks8ooo bought from John Lewis in 2016 however they are trying to apply a 'fair use' element and only recompense to the tune of 4/6s of the overall price paid. I sent this letter a few weeks ago

 

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 onies 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 (Email 7 and 15). 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 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 Ramos against Richer Sounds, Ref 113351574, where a full refund has been recommended in an identical case.
Therefore, considering 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.

 

However despite two more calls when I have had to explain everything from scratch the situation is unchanged basically. It's now a level 2 case and if I don't like the outcome, and I have not been promised that they will even call me, then I can refer the case to the financial ombudsman.


Ok, here's my 2 pennies worth (playing Devil's advocaat -delicious at Christmas). It could be argued that the case of misrepresentation only came about at the time that Samsung declared the there'd be no dongle, ie this summer, and that up until that time, you had full use of the TV as was intended and expected before the release of the dongle. Therefore a reduction of a percentage of a refund for the use of the TV could be fair. However, were that the case I would argue that 2/3 of the price is unacceptable. I read elsewhere, on this forum I think, that the Screen was guaranteed for 10 years and as such it might not be unreasonable to argue that you've had only 2 years use of a 10 year TV, therefore a refund of 4/5 of the cost of the TV might be fair. Personally I think that's what I would push for.

 

Sometimes a reasonable compromise is better than bashing your head against a brick wall.

 

What do you think?


I think that could set a dangerous pressident.  The law says a full refund and Richer Sounds and John Lewis are giving full refunds. If they did not have to under the law they would not. 

I would argue that you have not had the full function of the tv since new and where waiting for the dongle,  which was promised in 2016 buy the retailers. At the end of 2017 Samsung said they were in beta testing of the dongle. It was only summer this year that they admitted that there would be no dongle. That means you have not had the full function of the tv since purchased therefore a full refund is not only reasonable but is the law. 

Paul 

Top Liked Authors