Support

Open search

KS Owners refund

Navigator

Still waiting for my complaint against creation finance against curry's.Had to fill out a form online for the Ombudsmen via there email, ombudsman  got bk to me about 2 days ago saying please tick all the boxes on the form which I must of forgot.....

 

So still waiting.... 

Explorer

Finally had a response from the Obbudman.

 

They have ultimatly rejected my complaint. A few snippits from their response..

 

A misrepresentation is when as a false statement of fact has been made and the false
statement induces a customer to enter into a contract.

You purchased the TV online, and I’ve taken a look at the screenshots from Currys website
which you provided. The advert doesn’t include any reference to that TV being provided with a
SmartThings Extend dongle, nor does it mention any of the functionality you’ve said was
misrepresented. So I can’t see they’ve told you inaccurate information here.
I’ve also looked at the Currys ‘tech talk’ information sheet from the retailer’s website you
supplied. This article is dated 17 March 2016 and it explains the full functionality of the feature
Samsung was planning to release on its 2016 models. This information at the time was accurate
and Currys would have had no way to know this feature wasn’t going to be released. So I can’t
say there was a false statement of fact on the website, as at the time of purchase the statement
was true.
I’ve watched the YouTube videos you sent and also done some of my own research and can
see that Samsung marketed the product widely. I’m aware that you may have been privy to this
information prior to purchasing the TV. But based on the evidence we hold, I can’t determine
that Currys provided you with any false statement of fact.
Had I looked at this differently and decided they had told you inaccurate information I would still
consider the outcome of this test to be the same. This is because I don’t think that having this
feature would have been the only reason you decided to purchase this TV

 

 

Not sure where to take this now, if anywhere!

Black Belt 

@dipesh44 wrote:

Finally had a response from the Obbudman.

 

They have ultimatly rejected my complaint. A few snippits from their response..

 

A misrepresentation is when as a false statement of fact has been made and the false
statement induces a customer to enter into a contract.

You purchased the TV online, and I’ve taken a look at the screenshots from Currys website
which you provided. The advert doesn’t include any reference to that TV being provided with a
SmartThings Extend dongle, nor does it mention any of the functionality you’ve said was
misrepresented. So I can’t see they’ve told you inaccurate information here.
I’ve also looked at the Currys ‘tech talk’ information sheet from the retailer’s website you
supplied. This article is dated 17 March 2016 and it explains the full functionality of the feature
Samsung was planning to release on its 2016 models. This information at the time was accurate
and Currys would have had no way to know this feature wasn’t going to be released. So I can’t
say there was a false statement of fact on the website, as at the time of purchase the statement
was true.
I’ve watched the YouTube videos you sent and also done some of my own research and can
see that Samsung marketed the product widely. I’m aware that you may have been privy to this
information prior to purchasing the TV. But based on the evidence we hold, I can’t determine
that Currys provided you with any false statement of fact.
Had I looked at this differently and decided they had told you inaccurate information I would still
consider the outcome of this test to be the same. This is because I don’t think that having this
feature would have been the only reason you decided to purchase this TV

 

 

Not sure where to take this now, if anywhere!


My third attempt to reply, keeps coming up with error.

First outrageous

 

I think you need to reply;y and ask if they think it is OK for retailers to make any claims about their products and if found to be incorrect in the future they can say they thought they were correct that is OK?

 

The law is clear on this,

 

"Product quality - what should you expect?

As with the Sale of Goods Act, under the Consumer Rights Act all products must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described.

 

The rules also include digital content in this definition. So all products - whether physical or digital - must meet the following standards:

 

Satisfactory quality Goods shouldn't be faulty or damaged when you receive them. You should ask what a reasonable person would consider satisfactory for the goods in question. For example, bargain-bucket products won’t be held to as high standards as luxury goods.

Fit for purpose The goods should be fit for the purpose they are supplied for, as well as any specific purpose you made known to the retailer before you agreed to buy the goods.

As described The goods supplied must match any description given to you, or any models or samples shown to you at the time of purchase."

 

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act

 

It is clear, they must the description, which was the ability to be the hub of your internet of things, which was made a big thing by the advertising the retailer and manufacture advertised.

 

Innocent misrepresentation

This is where a person making a misrepresentation, when entering into a contract, had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her false statement was true.

 

In other words, it is made entirely without fault. This type of misrepresentation primarily allows for the contract to be cancelled.

 

However the court has discretion to award damages instead of allowing you to end the contract if it deems it appropriate. It cannot award both.

 

This would be judged on both the nature of the innocent misrepresentation and the losses suffered by the victim of the misrepresentation."

 

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/misrepresentation-act-1967

 

This clearly states that if the retailer believes what they advertise and it is found to be incorrect, that is innocent misrepresentation which is still misrepresentation as per the 2015 European Consumer law,

 

"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.

(7)See section 19 for a consumer’s rights if the trader is in breach of a term that this section requires to be treated as included in a contract."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/11/enacted

 

So I need thing you need to ask are they saying that they are believe innocent misrepresentation is OK, and any retailer can make any claim right or wrong, as long as they think it is correct, without breaking the law?

 

You could send something like this and see their response.

 

This answer gives retailers the opportunity to say and anything, and just turn round and say I thought it was correct!!!

 

Paul

Apprentice

Did you use this?

https://web.archive.org/web/20161012053844/http:/www.currys.co.uk:80/gbuk/samsung-tv-technology-1888...

It clearly states the smart things dongle would be free and available in 2016.

I can't believe the ombudsman has the cheek to make the assumption you didnt buy the TV due to smart things... The model was no better than any other at its price range at the time, but had the added bonus of (supposedly) controlling smart appliances.. How can they just assume this wasnt a major factor in buying the TV?

Explorer

Quite. And, in fact, it doesnt matter if it was a major factor. Just that it was a factor, no matter how minor, and could have been (was) the deciding factor in the tv you chose, as it was for others of us (myself included) who have been successful in our return.

 

Voyager

Frankly, I'm shocked at the attitude of the ombudsman, all the rulings seem to fly in the face of the guidelines.

Explorer

I pointed out to them nearly everything on this forum! Including the links, facts on mis-representation etc. I have asked for the case to be re-reviewed by another Ombudsman 

 

One thing that was weird in their response to me saying "I also do not believe the fact that I purchased the TV based on the idea of having the SmartThings extend USB dongle contributes to either a major or minor factor, just that it was a factor is enough. I could have picked another manufacture who has since delivered on such technology if I was not “innocently misrepresented”. The only analogy I can think of is if you purchased a car with electric windows in the winter and once you opened the windows in the summer and realised they were manual is that factor not big enough since you brought the car for driving and not the windows…."

 

The Ombudsman response to that was ...

 

"When we are looking at misrepresentation under section 75 there are two important parts of it. The inducement to enter a contract is a main part of this. Had the product have been misrepresented innocently as you’ve said, I don’t think that the feature was the only reason you purchased the TV. I know you’ve said this is a minor factor but I can’t agree."

 

Minor or Major should'nt matter in a court of law right?

Black Belt 

@dipesh44 wrote:

I pointed out to them nearly everything on this forum! Including the links, facts on mis-representation etc. I have asked for the case to be re-reviewed by another Ombudsman 

 

One thing that was weird in their response to me saying "I also do not believe the fact that I purchased the TV based on the idea of having the SmartThings extend USB dongle contributes to either a major or minor factor, just that it was a factor is enough. I could have picked another manufacture who has since delivered on such technology if I was not “innocently misrepresented”. The only analogy I can think of is if you purchased a car with electric windows in the winter and once you opened the windows in the summer and realised they were manual is that factor not big enough since you brought the car for driving and not the windows…."

 

The Ombudsman response to that was ...

 

"When we are looking at misrepresentation under section 75 there are two important parts of it. The inducement to enter a contract is a main part of this. Had the product have been misrepresented innocently as you’ve said, I don’t think that the feature was the only reason you purchased the TV. I know you’ve said this is a minor factor but I can’t agree."

 

Minor or Major should'nt matter in a court of law right?


Did it influence your decision to buy that tv? If it did, and was a plus point, and was pointed out to you that it would be a function that would be enabled by the free supply of the USB dongle, then as soon as you were told that the function would not be available then that is misrepresentation.  You bought the tv as a package, which you could not only use to watch TV, but to control your internet of things, which I would say is quite an important function you were promised, which they renaged on. 

First Poster
Result with Richer Sounds. One email to local store and one call with Customer Services and I had a return authorisation.

Next day, before they opened, after a demo of the sets I was  interested in with the store manager the KS7000 was swapped for an LG B8 plus the difference in cash.

Superb customer service again from Richer Sounds, both their HQ team and the local store. 
Explorer

Never buying from those Numpties Currys again! Richer sounds the way to go

Top Liked Authors