Support

Open search

KS Owners refund

Highlighted
Black Beltย 

Do all you good people who bought a 2016 Samsung TV know Samsung have stopped supporting it. The promised they would support HLG (BBC Iplayer HDR). This was in the Dec 2016 Trusted Reviews and What Hi Fi. They have not and if you had bought a Panasonic or LG 2016 set you would be able to watch Iplayer Blue Planet 2 in glorious HLG. This is a big issue because HLG looks like the standard for all over the air broadcasting. Samsung are not even supporting a 4K update to Iplayer. The reason looks like it will cost just 5 cents or pence per unit. So my telly I bought in Jan 2017 is deemed as out of date by Samsung!!!!!!

You wrote in your Dec 2016 issue that Samsung were supporting HLG in their 2016 models. Do you know that Samsung have supported their 2017 models but not the 2016 models. I know because the BBC IPlayer Blue Planet 2 will not play in 4K or HLG. It's not good considering Panasonic and LG both do support their 2016 models. It means my KS model I bought in Jan is now deemed out of date by Samsung. It looks like their are royalty fees which Samsung will not pay! Not good.


All you people in the UK can return your KS TVs IF you bought it for the use of the smartthings Extend that will never be coming out for our TVs. ***** is how.

 

Tell them you want a full refund because they promised that if you bought a KS TV you would get a FREE Smartthings Extend. They proof you will need is easy to find and is the reason you bought this TV.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMc3V98yzNY

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRSWoUmU5YQ

I bought mine from J Lewis and the Samsung Extend addvert is still there https://www.johnlewis.com/electricals/samsung/smart-tv/c9601000048?rdr=1

 

If you bought your KS TV from currys http://techtalk.currys.co.uk/tv-gaming/tv/how-to-control-your-home-from-your-smart-tv/

 

They both say that you will get a free smartthings extend USB dongle.

Now send you TVs back for a full refund Smiley Happy

 

 

All those who bought a Samsung TV in 2016 may have claim for miss selling. It basically means that all you folks who bought the 2016 Samsung units have 2 choices. After Dec 2016 and if you had seen any articles that are press release's about HLG support and that influenced you decision to buy may have a case. For all those owners who read the info from the retailers on their web pages and saw and was influenced by the promise of the smart connect which has not been honoured, then you also have a case for miss selling. If you all spread this in all available media then I am sure the retailers would put pressure on to Samsung to correct this. If nothing else you could end up with nice shiny LG or Panasonic, or the new Philips that all are HLG BBC iplayer compatible, and with the HDR10 plus that again Samsung have still not implemented, you may be best with LG and Dolby Vision.

Also take a copy of the retailers web page before they change the description.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRSWoUmU5YQ

I will try to explain how to get a refund for miss selling (seen how much the LG's have come down). I followed this way and got a full refund or a JS8000.

You need to show that you asked or believed that or influenced by claims made about the capabilities of the TV. With BBC Iplayer HLG it's from the Trusted reviews and What Hi Fi, and any other publications and if you asked the retailer.

 

https://www.whathifi.com/advice/hdr-tv-what-it-how-can-you-get-it#6locceZo3Zf8yi5T.99

you can show you had been informed.

It's different with the smart connect as that is advertised on the main retailers web sites,

https://www.johnlewis.com/electricals/samsung/smart-tv/c9601000048?rdr=1
http://techtalk.currys.co.uk/tv-gaming/tv/how-to-control-your-home-from-your-smart-tv/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRSWoUmU5YQ

As the donngle's have not turned up you now claim miss selling, so either go to your retailer or email them with the web page, and explain why you think you were miss sold. Also phone Citizens Advice 03444 111 444 and raise a case (this also gets past on to Trading Standards). Explain that the retailer informed you off the capabilities via their web page information, and either show the page printer or the link, as above.

They will advise and link you to some template letters to send to your retailer.

I had to send a letter of intent to take legal action (template from Citizens Advice) against Curry's but then they gave me a refund.

So mention all the promises from Samsung full support for HLG, Smart Connect, and HDR10+

It will cost nothing to ask and again may bring some pressure on to Samsung.

2,530 REPLIES 2,530
Highlighted
Brilliant news! Not the full amount but much better then most! Dooes this mean all that have cases with Curry's can refer to this case?
Highlighted

@dipesh44 wrote:
Brilliant news! Not the full amount but much better then most! Dooes this mean all that have cases with Curry's can refer to this case?

You're welcome to quote my reference if you want to.

Currys Reference - HRR/542332

Mony Claim Reference - 024MC040

Highlighted

@dipesh44 wrote:
Brilliant news! Not the full amount but much better then most! Dooes this mean all that have cases with Curry's can refer to this case?

Yes it sets a presidence in that anyone going down this route can refer to it.  Also Curry's now know where they stand on this and a court has ruled it was misrepresentation.  It is a shame that he said it was innocent and the contract stands,  because the misrepresentation rules do say that the contract should be null and full refunds given.  Saying that though to get that award and keep the tv is I think reasonable.  

You could still argue that you wanted the smart things function and that award would not give you that,  unless the tv was replaced with a model that could do it. 

I think though  is all costs are covered,  compensation to the tune of half the cost,  and keep the tv is not bad. 

It also means all the Curry's customers should now be thinking a email to their customer support quoting this outcome. 

Highlighted

Great news! Bit odd how I got a full refund though. Anyhow, hopefully mean Currys will stop their bulls**t although I very much doubt it. 

 

Just found out today too my Q9FN needs a hub to control the devices anyhow in addition to the tv ๐Ÿ˜‚ 

Highlighted

@paul1277 wrote:

@dipesh44 wrote:
Brilliant news! Not the full amount but much better then most! Dooes this mean all that have cases with Curry's can refer to this case?

 the misrepresentation rules do say that the contract should be null and full refunds given.


This is not actually the case Paul. Section 2 of the Act states:

 

2 Damages for misrepresentation.
(1)Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another party thereto and as a result thereof he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages in respect thereof had the misrepresentation been made fraudulently, that person shall be so liable notwithstanding that the misrepresentation was not made fraudulently, unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made the facts represented were true.

(2)Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him otherwise than fraudulently, and he would be entitled, by reason of the misrepresentation, to rescind the contract, then, if it is claimed, in any proceedings arising out of the contract, that the contract ought to be or has been rescinded, the court or arbitrator may declare the contract subsisting and award damages in lieu of rescission, if of opinion that it would be equitable to do so, having regard to the nature of the misrepresentation and the loss that would be caused by it if the contract were upheld, as well as to the loss that rescission would cause to the other party.

(3)Damages may be awarded against a person under subsection (2) of this section whether or not he is liable to damages under subsection (1) thereof, but where he is so liable any award under the said subsection (2) shall be taken into account in assessing his liability under the said subsection (1).

 

The bit the judge focussed on was section Section 2 Sub Section 2.  I have cut it down to show the relevent bit as I found the full point pretty confusing to disect!  

 

"Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him......the court or arbitrator may declare the contract subsisting and award damages in lieu of rescission, if of opinion that it would be equitable to do so, having regard to the nature of the misrepresentation and the loss that would be caused by it if the contract were upheld, as well as to the loss that rescission would cause to the other party."

 

 


@R1ckmister wrote:

Great news! Bit odd how I got a full refund though. Anyhow, hopefully mean Currys will stop their bulls**t although I very much doubt it. 

 

Just found out today too my Q9FN needs a hub to control the devices anyhow in addition to the tv ๐Ÿ˜‚ 


Hi Rick, I discussed your case with the rep and she told me that your case was settled due to the fault and not misrepresentation. I did say that a fault would have been refunded with store credit, and that you had received the refund to your card but she didn't know why that was. However she was clear that was in the notes that the TV was refunded due to a fault, not misrepresentation. 

Funnily enough, during a break for lunch she was looking into the possibility of an exchange option and found that the new TVs I had suggested needed the Hub, however we ran out of time researching this and went back in for the above ruling.

Highlighted

@Tyler_Durden wrote:

@R1ckmister wrote:

Great news! Bit odd how I got a full refund though. Anyhow, hopefully mean Currys will stop their bulls**t although I very much doubt it. 

 

Just found out today too my Q9FN needs a hub to control the devices anyhow in addition to the tv ๐Ÿ˜‚ 


Hi Rick, I discussed your case with the rep and she told me that your case was settled due to the fault and not misrepresentation. I did say that a fault would have been refunded with store credit, and that you had received the refund to your card but she didn't know why that was. However she was clear that was in the notes that the TV was refunded due to a fault, not misrepresentation. 

Funnily enough, during a break for lunch she was looking into the possibility of an exchange option and found that the new TVs I had suggested needed the Hub, however we ran out of time researching this and went back in for the above ruling.


Oh weird the guy when refunding me said it was due to the misrepresentation, unless he just became confused but yeah it should have been store credit, the tv was faulty too though and upon assessment of the first repair they even admitted they didnโ€™t use official Samsung parts to try and fix it .... had a lot going for me I guess that they just knew it wouldnโ€™t go down well. 

 

But still that much back for a 2K tele and guess the tv still works so itโ€™s a win for you either way. I just wouldnโ€™t buy a tv again from Currys. 

 

Also Samsung need to buck their advertising up, Iโ€™m not too miffed as I went the SmartThings route anyhow due to the panel failing, but when I bought the Q9FN I was under the assumption it would just work using the tv alone. But again not even angry as I got it for ยฃ1,400 using discount vis Samsung instead of 3K when launched and had a full refund when I used my KS9000 for 3 years anyhow. 

Highlighted

Just thinking what I should do now. 

 

Should I forward this court case Id to my finance company and let them know or  just wait.

 

Or maybe forward this case to curry's via the last email they sent me which was weeks ago and give them an update lol.. 

Highlighted

It's up to you. When I mentioned the Section 75 cases to the rep she says that the credit card companies Ts & Cs are quite different to those between a consumer and retailer. Not sure if the same applies to finance companies, but I would expect so.
I would hang fire as they might decide to refund in full, use mine as a fall back position.

Highlighted

@Tyler_Durden wrote:

It's up to you. When I mentioned the Section 75 cases to the rep she says that the credit card companies Ts & Cs are quite different to those between a consumer and retailer. Not sure if the same applies to finance companies, but I would expect so.
I would hang fire as they might decide to refund in full, use mine as a fall back position.


 

 

Good call think I will do that thx. 

Top Liked Authors