Support

Open search

iPlayer HLG/UHD HDR on Samsung’s J and K Series TVs

Helping Hand

Used my visa debit card so no go for me under section 75

Hotshot

@daleski75 wrote:

Used my visa debit card so no go for me under section 75


If you are with in 6 months you claim a chrge back. Again just ring the CC company.

Helping Hand

Way over that unfortunately.

Hotshot

No probs still got the 2015 Oct European Consumer regs.

 

Does any one else have to use the silly catcha now when logging in?

Hotshot

Here are the basic facts about section 75 I have copied from this site

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/goods-and-services-bought-with-cr...

 

what went wrong?

Section 75 only helps the consumer where there has been either a breach of contract or a misrepresentation by the supplier of the goods and services. These are legal terms. But for the purpose of section 75 and put very simply:

  • A breach of contract is where the supplier fails to do what the contract says it must, either expressly or by implication.
    For example, there is a breach of contract where goods that have been paid for are not supplied at all, or are not up to standard.
  • A misrepresentation is an incorrect statement of fact that causes the consumer to go ahead with the contract. 
    For example, there is misrepresentation if the supplier persuades a consumer to buy an expensive piece of software - by telling him wrongly that it will be compatible with his existing PC operating system.

We do not expect consumers to make complicated legal arguments about breach of contract or misrepresentation. Instead, we ask the consumer to tell us exactly what happened, so that we can assess for ourselves whether there are grounds for a successful claim under section 75.

In some of the cases we see, there is a question about whether the person who contracted to buy the goods is the sameperson who was provided with the credit.

This is important because of the connection between the consumer, lender and supplier that is necessary for section 75 to apply. Where this question arises, we consider this point first, taking into account the facts in the case - and then we go on to look further into the complaint, if we decide that the transaction is covered by section 75.

common misunderstandings

The complaints we see show that there are frequent misunderstandings by consumers and businesses about how section 75 works. Here are some of the most common misunderstandings we see:

Section 75 gives an automatic entitlement to a refund, if credit was used to fund the purchase.

No. There is no automatic entitlement to a refund under section 75. Instead, the consumer has the same claim against the lender that they would have against the supplier of the goods, if there were a misrepresentation or a breach of contract by the supplier.

You have to take the supplier to court before you can claim against the lender under section 75.

No. The consumer does not have to take the supplier to court before making a claim against the lender under section 75. In most of the cases we see, the consumer will have complained initially to the supplier - because this is usually the quickest way to get things put right. But the law does not require the consumer to pursue the supplier first, for section 75 to apply.

All purchases made with plastic cards are covered by section 75.

No. Section 75 only covers transactions made using consumer credit. So only transactions made with credit cards (including most store cards) are covered. Transactions made using other types of plastic cards - like charge cards or debit cards - are notcovered by section 75.

Section 75 gives you a "cooling-off" period.

No. By itself, section 75 does not give any "cooling-off" period to the consumer. So, for example, section 75 would not allow a consumer to cancel a transaction following a change of heart about a purchase.

You can claim under section 75 if you do not get value for money.

No. Section 75 gives the consumer a right to claim against the lender in specific circumstances - where there was a misrepresentation or a breach of contract by the supplier. But there is no claim simply because, for example, you find you could have bought the same goods at a better price somewhere else - or if, on reflection, you feel the purchase was not worth the money.

If you bring a claim under section 75, the most you can get back from the lender is the amount of the credit.

No. Where section 75 applies, it gives the consumer exactly the same claim against the lender as they would have against the supplier of the goods or services, if there were a misrepresentation or a breach of contract by that supplier. This might be more than, or less than, the amount of the credit transaction - depending on what happened.

 

Paul

Explorer

As I understand it, for section 75 protection, you must have used a credit card to pay for all or part of the cost. Minimum £100, maximum £30,000

 

And yes, that ***** new thing on the log in will drive me crazy! 

Hotshot

I have just been thinking more about the section 75 route and it becomes attractive because the credit card companies do the work and it's free. It does say you should firstly deal with the retailer, which some of you have with typical denails, which when you look at the regs again there seem's to be no time limits!

That's fine because you have now done the first requirement. You could if you wanted to is send another email to your retailers, informing them that you are now going to contact the FSA for support and assistant in claiming a refund for misrepresentation (posh way of saying miss selling), under the 1974 Consumer Credit act section 75.

You will need to supply all you evidence for this but I do not think that will be hard.

When someone gets a refund under this it will open the doors for every owner who has been given or seen advertising material which was incorrect, and as there is only one FSA I would think their judgement will affect us all in a good way.

 

Paul

The law is strong in miss selling or misrepresentation and is there to protect us all from companies and retailers making false claims about any of their products.

Navigator

@daleski75 wrote:

@Jones1 wrote:

I've not taken anything through small claims but my understanding is the process is fairly customer friendly and in the main done in writing, having worked for several large companies in relevant areas I'm fairly sure they will pay your request if you go to small claims as it will not be worth there time trying to defend it , regarding the missell unless you can evidence you purchased the product on the basis it came with the dongle I'm fairly sure you will struggle  I think the issue is that if you purchased the tv on the basis it came with a dongle it would be reasonable to assume you would have reported this at an earlier date, whilst you can claim miss sell for six years there still needs to be consideration as to whether you purchased the set on this basis, whereas hlg issue is much more relevant, if any one does pursue this though would be interested in the outcome! 


The evidence is there that it should of come with the dongle, as far as I can see it's not up to us to prove thats the reason or reasons for purchasing the television as which ever way you cut it it's still mis-sold by Currys, JL etc.

 

The HLG in my case was mentioned after I brought the television so I cannot persue that avenue.

 

Also many thanks for providing some perspective on this topic and you have definitely raised some very valid points.


As per Wikipedia

“On April 18, 2016, the Ultra HD Forum announced their guidelines for UHD Phase A which includes support for HLG.[35][36] The Ultra HD Forum also defined HLG10 as HLG, a bit depth of 10-bits, and the Rec. 2020 color space.[36]“ - this ultra hd forum is somewhat UHD alliance..

also “On November 4, 2016, the Trusted Reviews website reported that Samsung had told them that all of their 2016 HDR TVs could support HLG with a firmware update.”

Not sure when you bought your TV? but I bought mine on 21/11/16

Black Belt 

It's great how people are remembering the links they saw as part of their research before buying the TV as Curry's have said we should do. I first posted that Trusted reviews said Samsung were supporting HLG in 2016, but could not remember the link, so thanks. The evidence for misrepresentation is growing, and I now again think section 75 might be the easiest, and cost free option. Keep these links as evidence, as it is not unreasonable to say they influenced your decision in buying a Samsung TV.

Paul

Helping Hand

Got mine 25/07/16

Top Liked Authors