Support

Open search

KS Owners refund

Highlighted
Black Belt 

@Tyler_Durden wrote:

I have just come to answer point 2.

2. The TV was provided with a 12 month guarantee covering parts and labour but which excluded damage caused by accident, misuse, neglect or fair wear and tear

 

I realised that I took out the "Whatever Happens" insurance policy that I am still paying for, and wonder whether this policy has cover for this kind of incident. Perhaps I could have avoided all this by requesting a refund through the policy rather than Currys direct!


Again it shows they do not have all the correct information and you can show that with point 2, as you can prove that you took out extra cover which they should know about. 

Highlighted
Voyager

If you're relying on misrepresentation, then read up on the advice at http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/misrepresentation-act-1967

 

Remember, you're accusing them of "Innocent misrepresentation", not fraudulent or negligent.

 

But, in particular, note this bit about timeliness, and be clear on when you first became aware of their failure to provide the dongle, which is when you should have reported this to them.  It's the bit that John Lewis's solicitors were using in my case as a defence, as JL said the dongle would be available by the end of 2016, at which time I should have reported the misrepresentation.

 

Limitations of a misrepresentation

There are certain limitations on the right to unwinding a contract.

For example, if you are aware of a misrepresentation but choose to continue with the contract (either in writing or through conduct), you will not then be able to go back to the person who made the misrepresentation and end the contract, or indeed go to court and ask them to unwind the contract if you change your mind later. 

In law, you would be taken to have “affirmed” the contract. 

Highlighted
Voyager

My argument is that I was patiently waiting while the dongle was delayed. Once the announcment came in July 2018 that the dongle would not be supplied I began my claim wihin 30 days of the annoucment. 

Highlighted
Apprentice

@Moily wrote:

M,@Tyler_Durden wrote:

My money claim has just been updated at the last minute.

 

"Claim status

The defendant’s response

DSG Retail Ltd has rejected the claim. They’ve suggested mediation to help resolve this dispute.

Find out how mediation works (PDF, 399KB) (opens in a new window)

You need to email moneyclaims@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk before 6 October 2018 to tell us if you agree to mediation or not.

If you don’t send an email before the deadline, the claim will proceed without mediation."

 

What do I do now? 


It would be prudent to agree to mediation. That involves a conference call with an independent mediator and the Defendant and is a final attempt to agree to settle the claim before it gets to a hearing. There's no obligation for you to accept anything as a result of that mediation, nor to even have the call, but it shows the Court that you are being reasonable in attempting to resolve the issue.

 

The mediation call gives you an opportunity to address the Defendant's response to your claim. It would be worth going through it, writing down bullet points shooting down each of their false statements so that you can express it clearly and calmly.

 

Depending on how that goes they MAY propose a settlement offer but it will unlikely be the full value of the claim. In case they do make an offer, have a think about the minimum you'd be willing to accept.  Having said that, this is Currys so they may well look to take it all the way.


Remember, the mediator has no other objective in mind other than to avoid this going to a court hearing. 

 

Currys will have a lawyer representing them who will have done this many times and you are unlikely to have done this before.  Make sure you know clearly what you want and what the law says is your right.  The mediator really doesn't care who wins or loses as long as it doesn't take up any court time.

Pathfinder

@tarbat wrote:

If you're relying on misrepresentation, then read up on the advice at http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/misrepresentation-act-1967

 

Remember, you're accusing them of "Innocent misrepresentation", not fraudulent or negligent.

 

But, in particular, note this bit about timeliness, and be clear on when you first became aware of their failure to provide the dongle, which is when you should have reported this to them.  It's the bit that John Lewis's solicitors were using in my case as a defence, as JL said the dongle would be available by the end of 2016, at which time I should have reported the misrepresentation.

 

Limitations of a misrepresentation

There are certain limitations on the right to unwinding a contract.

For example, if you are aware of a misrepresentation but choose to continue with the contract (either in writing or through conduct), you will not then be able to go back to the person who made the misrepresentation and end the contract, or indeed go to court and ask them to unwind the contract if you change your mind later. 

In law, you would be taken to have “affirmed” the contract. 


@Tyler_Durden I don't know what your original claim specifics were but this ^^ is what I would be concentrating on with the mediation and hearing, if I were you. The Misrepresentation Act 1967 is not part of the Consumer Rights Act so the 'Innocent Misrepresentation' would not be conveyed by referring to that, just the Misrepresentation Act 1967.

 

Note, IANAL though so have a read up of both, to make sure of where your argument lies and what you wish to contend in mediation and at the hearing.

Highlighted
Voyager

@Tyler_Durden wrote:

My argument is that I was patiently waiting while the dongle was delayed. Once the announcment came in July 2018 that the dongle would not be supplied I began my claim wihin 30 days of the annoucment. 


Be ready for the argument that you should have asked the retailer about the missing dongle earlier, rather than relying on statements on twitter and in this forum by a third party (Samsung).

Highlighted
Black Belt 

@tarbat wrote:

@Tyler_Durden wrote:

My argument is that I was patiently waiting while the dongle was delayed. Once the announcment came in July 2018 that the dongle would not be supplied I began my claim wihin 30 days of the annoucment. 


Be ready for the argument that you should have asked the retailer about the missing dongle earlier, rather than relying on statements on twitter and in this forum by a third party (Samsung).


I see that as a possible  issue but,  civil court is about what is reasonable and I think you should be able to show it is not unreasonable to rely on statements from the manufacturer as to when the dongle would be made available.  You can show this was a correct decision as it was from the moderator on this forum who informed us that the dongle would not be made available, not the retailers, and that was only a few months back. 

Highlighted
Voyager

@Tyler_Durden, if you go to mediation, it’s worth thinking about what compromise, if any, you’d accept. If Currys insist on a reduced refund based on your 2 years of use, argue that the TV was expected to last at least 10 years.  That’s based on the no-burn-in guarantee that was provided on the KS TVs. Of course only you can decide if you’re open to a compromise settlement.

Highlighted
Black Belt 

@tarbat wrote:

@Tyler_Durden, if you go to mediation, it’s worth thinking about what compromise, if any, you’d accept. If Currys insist on a reduced refund based on your 2 years of use, argue that the TV was expected to last at least 10 years.  That’s based on the no-burn-in guarantee that was provided on the KS TVs. Of course only you can decide if you’re open to a compromise settlement.


Again you could also argue that you have not had full use of your telly as it was advertised for the entire time you have owned it and feel that you should be compensated for the disappointment of not being able to enjoy using the Smart Internet off things through your telly as per their advert, which they acknowledge was on their website and was also heavily pushed by Samsung as well with their promotional advertising.

Highlighted
Voyager

@paul1277 wrote:

@tarbat wrote:

@Tyler_Durden wrote:

My argument is that I was patiently waiting while the dongle was delayed. Once the announcment came in July 2018 that the dongle would not be supplied I began my claim wihin 30 days of the annoucment. 


Be ready for the argument that you should have asked the retailer about the missing dongle earlier, rather than relying on statements on twitter and in this forum by a third party (Samsung).


I see that as a possible  issue but,  civil court is about what is reasonable and I think you should be able to show it is not unreasonable to rely on statements from the manufacturer as to when the dongle would be made available.  You can show this was a correct decision as it was from the moderator on this forum who informed us that the dongle would not be made available, not the retailers, and that was only a few months back. 


Hey Paul, do you have a link to this announcement?

Top Liked Authors