Support

Open search

KS Owners refund

Black Belt 

@Liam793 wrote:

Been going back and forth with John Lewis for 2-3 months.

 

This is there latest response.

 

Dear XXXX,
 
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the issue you’ve been having with your Samsung TV. This has been escalated to me as a Case Manager within the Customer Relations Department.
 
As previously advised by my colleague, Maria, the product description appearing on our website and at the point of sale was based solely on the information provided by Samsung, and I appreciate it caused frustration when Samsung failed to provide the promised SmartThings functionality and dongle.
 
Our website advised the dongle would be required to make the certain feature available at a later date, as the product was still in development. Samsung later confirmed the SmartThings Extend that was being developed at the time had been discontinued and replaced with a new, similar, service. Understandably, this alternative service would have differences. As with any manufacturer of hardware supplied with software, this would be subject to change through the life of the product and can be withdrawn or discontinued at any point. This situation falls outside of any retailers’ control.
 
To resolve this matter, Samsung have stated they’re offering a SmartThings hub free of charge to any customers who have purchased these televisions. To claim, please email xxxx
 
We’re not at liberty to discuss previous cases and other customers, as this would be a breach of Data Protection. We treat every case on an individual basis, and the offered SmartThings hub is Samsung’s official replacement for the removal of the functionality originally in development.
 
While I’m conscious this may not be the response you were hoping for, I’m confident I’ve clarified our position on this matter.
 
Kind regards,

 

XXXX

 

Anyone have any advise on how to respond?


Yep this is their stock answer.  They will not move unless pushed,  and that means section 75, or small claims court.  Like I said we have had a member here who JL settled with costs before court. Moon

Highlighted
Explorer

@Liam793 wrote:

 

 

Anyone have any advise on how to respond?


Yes you need to reject the SmartHub as it doesn't offer the same functionality despite what Samsung claim. You'll then most likely need to lodge a Section75 claim if paid by credit card or take them to the Small Claims Court.

 

See my post on the previous page on some ideas on why the functionality differs.

 

Regards

 

Neil

Explorer

Well MBNA just threw out my case due to “timing” have now logged a complaint to allow it to head to the Financial Ombudsman.

 

Another company just making up the rules as they see fit, complete joke then again being that MBNA was just bought out by Lloyd’s bank, doesn’t surprise me one bit. 

Black Belt 

@R1ckmister wrote:

Well MBNA just threw out my case due to “timing” have now logged a complaint to allow it to head to the Financial Ombudsman.

 

Another company just making up the rules as they see fit, complete joke then again being that MBNA was just bought out by Lloyd’s bank, doesn’t surprise me one bit. 


I have heard some odd excuses but timing is a new one.  Did they go into any detail? 

Explorer

So First Direct firstly rejected by C75 claim on the grounds there was no clear misrepresentation. I then complained about the results and had a call from the complaints department. They were adamant as it did not form part of my contract Currys are not liable. I responded by saying the techtalk site which is still up influenced my buy and was written by Currys. They are now reviewing my case again as i said the above and that i believe they are guilty of innocent misrepresentation. 

They went on to say Currys completed their side of the contract by providing you one part of the capability and the second part was to be provided by Samsung directly. I responded by saying the consumer rights law and the misrepresentations act fault the retailer and not the manufacture in all cases. They also said I would not be looking at a full refund either way as I have the TV for 3 years now to which I responded “to be clear I am seeing a refund due to the TV being faulty I am seeing a refund or replacement due to be being mis-sold the tv

 

Will update this thread on what First Direct respond with

 

 

Explorer

@dipesh44 wrote:

So First Direct firstly rejected by C75 claim on the grounds there was no clear misrepresentation. I then complained about the results and had a call from the complaints department. They were adamant as it did not form part of my contract Currys are not liable. I responded by saying the techtalk site which is still up influenced my buy and was written by Currys. They are now reviewing my case again as i said the above and that i believe they are guilty of innocent misrepresentation. 

They went on to say Currys completed their side of the contract by providing you one part of the capability and the second part was to be provided by Samsung directly. I responded by saying the consumer rights law and the misrepresentations act fault the retailer and not the manufacture in all cases. They also said I would not be looking at a full refund either way as I have the TV for 3 years now to which I responded “to be clear I am seeing a refund due to the TV being faulty I am seeing a refund or replacement due to be being mis-sold the tv

 

Will update this thread on what First Direct respond with

 

 


Section 75 seems just as useless then, if they come back saying no though go to the ombudsman, costs the bank £550 when a complaint reaches them know this as I used to work for a bank myself. 

Black Belt 

@paul1277 wrote:

@Liam793 wrote:

Been going back and forth with John Lewis for 2-3 months.

 

This is there latest response.

 

Dear XXXX,
 
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the issue you’ve been having with your Samsung TV. This has been escalated to me as a Case Manager within the Customer Relations Department.
 
As previously advised by my colleague, Maria, the product description appearing on our website and at the point of sale was based solely on the information provided by Samsung, and I appreciate it caused frustration when Samsung failed to provide the promised SmartThings functionality and dongle.
 
Our website advised the dongle would be required to make the certain feature available at a later date, as the product was still in development. Samsung later confirmed the SmartThings Extend that was being developed at the time had been discontinued and replaced with a new, similar, service. Understandably, this alternative service would have differences. As with any manufacturer of hardware supplied with software, this would be subject to change through the life of the product and can be withdrawn or discontinued at any point. This situation falls outside of any retailers’ control.
 
To resolve this matter, Samsung have stated they’re offering a SmartThings hub free of charge to any customers who have purchased these televisions. To claim, please email xxxx
 
We’re not at liberty to discuss previous cases and other customers, as this would be a breach of Data Protection. We treat every case on an individual basis, and the offered SmartThings hub is Samsung’s official replacement for the removal of the functionality originally in development.
 
While I’m conscious this may not be the response you were hoping for, I’m confident I’ve clarified our position on this matter.
 
Kind regards,

 

XXXX

 

Anyone have any advise on how to respond?


Yep this is their stock answer. 

Excuse  after excuse  but they are just trying to ware you down.     They will not move unless pushed,  and that means section 75, or small claims court.  Like I said we have had a member here who JL settled with costs before court. 


 

Navigator

MBNA were my card provider too and and ruled against my claim as well. I even escalated it to complaints department to no avail.

 

I agree MBNA treat customers very much like Currys.

Voyager

Well, I've just paid the £170 court fee, so that's about £300 down so far for the small claim I started against Currys in October. The deadline for this payment is tomorrow afternoon

 

Apparently Currys will have known about this deadline. I wonder if they are waiting for this date and for the payment to be made to actually act on this. I haven't heard anything from them for months despite a number of emails requesting comment.

 

Hearing date is 5th April 2019, so they have 4 weeks to pay me or I will be going to court!

Explorer

First direct have officially rejected my case. They say it is because the techtalk adverts do not form part of my contract.

 

Anyone more law minded on this forum care to comment?

 

 

Next dtrs financial obs

Top Liked Authors