Support

Open search

KS Owners refund

Explorer

apologies i read the thread its a long slog, i also looked at the "KS Owners Refund" thread and saw the template letter.

I will send a email to Richer Sounds see what stance they take.   Reading the threads it SEEMS Richer Sounds know about this issue(?) so i dont think it be a simple process.

Voyager

Right guys. I've agreed to mediation. I would appreciate responses to each of the points of Curry's defence so I can be well prepared for the phone call. Thanks in advance .

Explorer

 

  1. 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.

 

  • This is irrelevant. The TV should have also came with SmartThings functionality, but did not. This is less about what came with the TV, but with what did not.

 

  1. The Defendant contends that
    the principal purpose of the TV was to watch broadcast television programmes.

- The principal purpose is to watch TV, however if you simply wanted to watch TV, you would not be spending in the region of £2000. If somebody is selling you a TV based on features, and that is what caught your eye, then your reason for buying is that, how can they measure your use? By using it each day? What if you use it to turn off your lights everyday? A principal function of a light switch would be replaced by your TV. A principal use is surely defined by the end user? Also, imagine you had a car and its radio didn’t work, or air con. Would the car manufacturer also deem it fine as it was fulfilling its primary use? You do not pay the money for the bare minimum primary use, the reason you pay the extra is for those additional functions, and I highly doubt the sales advisor emphasised “This TV is SO good at watching broadcast television programmes”. They will have emphasised what it could do beyond other TV’s. They have developed that function to set it aside from other simple TV’s that provide just one principle function, trying to embed it within your daily lifestyle. The sales pitch itself mentions how it can “control up to 200 devices”. In an age that is rapidly progressing towards smart living, a device that is “the hub for your smart devices” is surely on its way to becoming a principal function to. It’s like putting indicators on a car for the first time, the driving aspect is still there, but the indicators then become part of the principal function. They were selling the TV as a central hub. Central hub does not correspond with ‘secondary function’. They have gone beyond selling TV’s for TV, and that began when they started selling Smart TV’s.

  

  1. The Defendant contends that the TV was of

satisfactory quality at the time of sale, in accordance with section 9 of the

Consumer Rights Act 2015 (referred to below as the ‘2015 Act’).

 

Not much use but a couple of amusing quotes on this topic.

 

Inspection does not improve the quality, nor guarantee quality. Inspection is too late. The quality, good or bad, is already in the product. As Harold F. Dodge said, “You can not inspect quality into a product.”

 

Quality cannot be inspected into a product or service, it must be built into it.” Dr. W. Edward Deming.

 

The function was not built in.

 

  1. The Defendant

also contends that the TV was fit for its purpose at the time of sale, in accordance

with section 10 of the 2015 Act.

In the Sales of Goods Act 1979 (although it is sadly replaced by the Consumer Rights Act so not of much use) it defines fit-for-purpose as

 

Fit for purpose means both for their everyday purpose, and also any specific purpose that you agreed with the seller (for example, if you specifically asked for a printer that would be compatible with your computer, or wall tiles that would be suitable for use in a bathroom). 

 

The TV was sold to be compatible with your Samsung SmartThings.

 

Found this in the Consumer Rights Act “015

 

“In a contract to supply goods a term about the quality of the goods may be treated as included as a matter of custom.” Not sure what it means, but figured it was relevant in them saying it was of satisfactory quality when sold.

 

“The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of—” (This is Subsection 2c)

 

“The relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2)(c) include any public statement about the specific characteristics of the goods made by the trader, the producer or any representative of the trader or the producer. That includes, in particular, any public statement made in advertising or labelling.”

 

Is this of any use? Is it reasonable to expect the missing functionality? If you specifically bought it for that and the salesman has potentially said it in his sales pitch, is it reasonable? I’m not fully competent with legislation and I’m quite tired, but maybe look into this section?

 

“Goods to be as described (1) Every contract to supply goods by description is to be treated as including a term that the goods will match the description. (2) If the supply is by sample as well as by description, it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods matches the sample if the goods do not also match the description. (3) A supply of goods is not prevented from being a supply by description just because— (a) the goods are exposed for supply, and (b) they are selected by the consumer. (4) Any information that is provided by the trader about the goods and is information mentioned in paragraph (a) of Schedule 1 or 2 to the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/3134) (main characteristics of goods) is to be treated as included as a term of the contract. (5) A change to any of that information, made before entering into the contract or later, is not effective unless expressly agreed between the consumer and the trader. (6) See section 2(5) and (6) for the application of subsections (4) and (5) where goods are sold at public auction.”

 

Maybe of use too?

 

 

Also, fit for which purpose? Watching TV? Great, but what about the other function that the TV was sold on? Surely purpose is defined by the user? If you bought that TV over another TV, surely the purpose of that product in your eyes and behind reason for purchase was the SmartThings functionality?

 

 

  1. If the TV is deemed not to

have conformed to the contract of sale, the Claimant had a short term right to

reject the TV within 30 days from when the TV was supplied, under section 22(3) of

the 2015 Act. However they Claimant has lost his short term right to reject, as the

time period for doing so passed.

 

There was no reason to, you were informed it was on its way. If they had told you it wasn’t coming at all in the month you had bought it, you probably would have returned it that very same month.

 

 

  1. If, which is not

admitted, there has been a misrepresentation under section 2(2) of the 1967 Act

the Defendant contends that the contract should be held to be subsisting and

damages in lieu of rescission be awarded as it is impossible to restore the parties

substantially to their original position, as the Claimant has had use of the TV for

almost two years.

 

Use of the TV – but not full use. If you had full use, why wouldn’t they say ‘full use of the TV’? Define it has full use of the product. Put it in business terms maybe? A product which was advertised and sold. Definition of a product?

 

“A good, idea, method, information, object or service created as a result of a process and serves a need or satisfies a want. It has a combination of tangible and intangible attributes (benefits, features, functions, uses) that a seller offers a buyer for purchase.”

 

By having use of the TV you had a use of some of its features. Is it a full product when it only offers an incomplete combination of those advertised ‘benefits, features, functions and uses’? Can you have full use of a product if one of the functions is not there?

 

  1. The

Defendant does not admit and requires the Claimant to prove that he is entitled to

recover 12 hours @ £15:00 per hour on ‘emails + preparations’ and that the

Defendant can be held liable for such a loss in any event as alleged in the

particulars of claim or at all.

 

Interesting they feel the need to worry about these costs, aren’t these only payable if they lose? You can prove that when necessary.

 

Explorer

If anyone needs advice for Curry's, hit me up. You'll get something back even if you just keep the TV. Frustrated at their blatant disregard for the consumer, so the more who get on to them the better.

Black Belt 

@ad1994 wrote:

If anyone needs advice for Curry's, hit me up. You'll get something back even if you just keep the TV. Frustrated at their blatant disregard for the consumer, so the more who get on to them the better.


Any advice would be great and also would be useful posted on this thread as well,

 

https://eu.community.samsung.com/t5/TV-Audio-Video/KS-Owners-Refund-usefull-info/m-p/579806#M14123

 

Thanks

Paul

Navigator

So mbna are now giving me the run around as bad as currys. After rejecting my section 75 claim, I escalated it to their complaints team. Was told it would take 4 to 6 weeks, but now after this time I get an email saying "Due to its complex nature, we're still looking into your complaint"

 

Anyone taken currys to small claims court yet? 

Apprentice

I’ve just had this response from John Lewis. Any suggestions on how to proceed...

 

Thank you for your email regarding the Samsung KS7000 55 inch TV.

I am sorry to read that you have not been able to receive the SmartThings USB extender. I understand that this was a part of the description and was part of the reason that you purchased the Samsung TV with us. 

Having looked into your case and spoken to several different departments. I can advise that while Samsung aren't making the specific USB extender they have arranged for those customers to receive a SmartThings Hub, to be delivered to you instead, which provides the same functions as the extender would have.  

You would need to contact "Support@Smartthings.co.uk" with your order details, and TV serial number. From there they will be able to assist you further and send you out a SmartThings Hub. 

If you have any further enquires, please do not hesitate to get in contact.

Black Belt 

@mistuk wrote:

I’ve just had this response from John Lewis. Any suggestions on how to proceed...

 

Thank you for your email regarding the Samsung KS7000 55 inch TV.

I am sorry to read that you have not been able to receive the SmartThings USB extender. I understand that this was a part of the description and was part of the reason that you purchased the Samsung TV with us. 

Having looked into your case and spoken to several different departments. I can advise that while Samsung aren't making the specific USB extender they have arranged for those customers to receive a SmartThings Hub, to be delivered to you instead, which provides the same functions as the extender would have.  

You would need to contact "Support@Smartthings.co.uk" with your order details, and TV serial number. From there they will be able to assist you further and send you out a SmartThings Hub. 

If you have any further enquires, please do not hesitate to get in contact.


Yep we have heard this before and the simple answer is the smart things will not allow you to use the TV as the hub of your smart home,  as advertised, so is not a like for like replacement. A like for like replacement would be a 2018 TV with the smart things built in that actually works as advertised. If you look on the condensed thread ks owners more info thread you will find more info. Also look on the ks owners refund results thread to see how many have received refunds from JL and ask them why are you as a customer being treated differently? 

Paul

Highlighted
Voyager

@ad1994 wrote:

If anyone needs advice for Curry's, hit me up. You'll get something back even if you just keep the TV. Frustrated at their blatant disregard for the consumer, so the more who get on to them the better.


I would appreciate some help with this comment from my Currys claim:

"The Defendant contends that there was in fact no consideration paid by the Claimant for the dongle which was to have been provide at some point in the future at no cost. Accordingly, the defendant denies that there has been a breach of contract upon which the Claimant can found a claim since a general promise unsupported by consideration is not a binding contract."

What does that mean? How should I comment about it?

Voyager

And also this point

"If, which is not admitted, there has been a misrepresentation under section 2(2) of the 1967 Act the Defendant contends that the contract should be held to be subsisting and damages in lieu of rescission be awarded as it is impossible to restore the parties substantially to their original position, as the Claimant has had use of the TV for almost two years."

 

What does that mean?

Top Liked Authors