Support

Open search

KS Owners refund

Highlighted
Black Belt 

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 So my telly I bought in Jan 2017 is deemed as out of date by Samsung!!!!!!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 It means my KS model I bought in Jan is now deemed out of date by Samsung.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.

2,549 REPLIES 2,549
Highlighted
First Poster

Well after a couple of weeks of timewasted negotiations, I've finally had a sound resolution from Richer Sounds.

As many others can attest, they were quick to acknowledge the claims and straightaway spoke about a replacement, only they were offering a Q70T as a replacement of the UK KS8000, which is not in the same league.

 

I ended up getting them to give me the Q90T as a replacement and used it as credit, paid the extra cost for the LG CX to be delivered at some point this week.

Highlighted

Hey, can i possibly ask how much you paid extra? Thanks. Andy.

Highlighted

The difference between the 55Q90T and 55CX5 😉

Highlighted

ahh you got the 55 so not the same.

Highlighted
First Poster

I have a KS8000 originally  from John Lewis online. Anyone had any luck with JL? Just the "proof link" needed to claim from original post is now dead, not surprising as 3 years old so not sure  if i can claim now, anyone who has had good / bad experiences with JL over this issue ..be good to hear from you. I am not sure i would be entitled to anything as my KS8000 was an insurance replacement.

Highlighted
First Poster

Hi there, I bought my 65" KS8000 from Curry's online in October 2016. Recently, with the increased amount of HDR content on Prime and Netflix I have noticed light bleed bottom right and also a few spots across the bottom. The casing also is slightly open bottom right so I can see a few pixels. Always been like it I've just ignored it. 

 

Other day I called Team Know How and told them and they booked it in for collection and said they will take a look and see what they think but warned the offer might only be 1/4 of the price I paid for it as 4K TV's now are much cheaper. I paid £1799 for it.

 

That put me off a bit and then I flicked on to Trustpilot and saw the shockingly bad reviews for their 'service' with most saying they were offered pittance or they kept TV for months so I cancelled the pick up. They had also said take it off the stand and just leave it propped against the door for COVID reasons!!

 

I have since been pointed towards this thread and have read through many of the first and latter pages. In short, has anyone been successful at getting a full or partial refund from Curry's direct?

 

If not have the home insurance worked for it at all? Still within the 5 year Curry's warranty.

Highlighted
First Poster

My Money claim with Curry's and their reply. Any positive comments would appreciated as i feel i am been fobbed off and don't think mediation would be helpful to my claim. I might add while i don't have any proof of the content of my letters i do have the recorded delivery proof. I am sure i would also be able to get copy statements of the phone calls to team knowhow if it would help. I will post their reply separately 

 

Mis-selling of my Samsung UE65KS9000 television under the belief that it would be suitable for controlling SmartThings devices with the inclusion of a SmartThings extend usb adapter. I was also told that iplayer would be supported with 4k. The adapter was never made available by Samsung even though it was advertised on the Curry's website (see evidence). The 4k software support never happened as well. I have lots of Samsung devices that cannot now be linked up through the television. John Lewis, Richer Sounds etc and even Samsung are aware of the problem and have offered customers replacement televisions and refunds due to the misrepresentation. Even Curry's have been found guilty of innocent misrepresentation in the courts however they are not responding to my complaint

Timeline

Timeline summary
Date What happened
April 2017 Visited Wakefield and York stores and spoke with Sales team about which television suited my needs and their functions in more depth and based on which i had seen online
05/05/2017 Bought television from York store. They price matched their online price i had seen. It included a free soundbar which i value in the region of £300 (hence the difference in the claim amount)
May 2020 Over next months numerous hours on phone calls that were disconnected or put down after connection. Also unsuccessful web-chats
August 2020 2 x Recorded delivery letters sent to York store - No reply
August 2020 3 x Store visits - Not interested and told nothing to do with them . Letters had been forwarded to Head office supposedly!

Evidence

Evidence summary
Type Description
Letters, emails and other correspondence https://www.samsung.com/uk/tvs/suhd-ks9000/UE65KS9000TXXU/ http://techtalk.currys.co.uk/tv-gaming/tv/how-to-control-your-home-from-your-smart-tv/ https://web.archive.org/web/20161012053844/http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/samsung-tv-technology-1888-c... The 3 weblinks are advertisements about the SmartThings adapter. These are what persuaded me to choose one of these models
Highlighted

2.1. 1. The Defendant contends that the Claimant has not issued proceedings
against a legal entity. The stores trading as Currys, PC World and Currys PC
World are trading names of, and are operated and controlled by, DSG Retail
Limited – who is the correct Defendant. References below to ‘the Defendant’
should be construed accordingly.
2.2. 2. The Defendant contends that its records indicate that it supplied the
Claimant with a Samsung 65KS9000 Television (referred to below as 'the
television’) under a contract of sale dated the 5 May 2017 with delivery
services. The purchase price of the television itself was £1,799.98. Also
purchased by the Claimant under the same contract of sale was a Samsung
soundbar, which cost £327.31.
2.3. 3. The television was provided with a 5-year extended guarantee which
covers parts and labour but excludes damage caused to the television by
accident, misuse, neglect or fair wear and tear.
Claim number: 167MC653
OCON9B For further details of the courts www.gov.uk/find-court-tribunal © Crown copyright Page 2 of 10
2.4. 4. The Defendant contends that the principal purpose of the television
was to watch broadcast television programmes.
2.5. 5. The Defendant contends that an additional feature which was to be
launched at some point in the future by Samsung would allow consumers to
use their television to control other devices such as their home windows,
doors or lighting (referred to below as ‘SmartThings’). This would become
accessible once consumers plugged a ‘SmartThings dongle’ (which the
Claimant calls ‘a SmartThings extend usb adapter’ in his Particulars of Claim
and which is referred to below as the ‘dongle’) into their television. A live
internet connection would be required at the consumer’s premises in order to
use SmartThings, together with the purchase of additional equipment.
2.6. 6. The Defendant contends that there was no consideration paid by the
Claimant for the dongle which was to have been provided by Samsung 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 in respect of the dongle, since a general promise unsupported by
consideration is not a binding contract.
2.7. 7. The Defendant makes no admissions as to the Claimant’s allegations
about any discussions he had with its staff prior to making his purchase,
namely his statements that he visited its stores in Wakefield and York and that
he ‘spoke with Sales team about which television suited my needs and their
functions in more depth and based on which i had seen online’ – as alleged or
at all.
2.8. 8. The Defendant does not admit and requires the Claimant to prove that
he was ‘also told that iplayer would be supported with 4k’ as alleged in the
Particulars of Claim or at all. This relates to the BBC iPlayer service which
allows for users to stream or playback BBC broadcast programming, and is
referred to as ‘iPlayer’ below.
2.9. 9. For technical reasons Samsung did not go on to release the dongle, or a
firmware update to support iPlayer in 4k, in the UK.
2.10. 10. The Defendant makes no admissions as to the subsequent
performance of the television (or whether the Claimant has ‘lots of Samsung
devices that cannot now be linked up through the television’) as alleged or at
all.
2.11. 11. Save that the Defendant contends that its stores were temporarily
closed from around the 23 March to early-July 2020 and that its Customer
Services department faced a huge increase in the volume of incoming
customer calls and correspondence which left it unable to respond rapidly as
it would usually, it makes no admissions as to the Claimant’s assertions about
the length of time he spent on ‘web-chats’, and categorically denies that it ‘put
Claim number: 167MC653
OCON9B For further details of the courts www.gov.uk/find-court-tribunal © Crown copyright Page 3 of 10
down’ any calls from the Claimant once connected, as alleged or at all. The
Defendant will contend that these issues were an unfortunate consequence of
the enforced nationwide ‘lockdown’ ordered by the UK government in light of
the circumstances surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic, among which were
technical problems whilst staff worked from home and the fact it had to
operate with reduced staffing in general.
2.12. 12. The Defendant contends that its records illustrate that it heard no
further from the Claimant until its Technical department received a telephone
call from him on the 19 June 2020. During the call the Claimant reported that
he felt the television had been mis-sold to him on the basis that he had
thought it would be ‘4k compatible’ with BBC iPlayer. The Defendant’s records
for the call do not indicate that the Claimant made any mention of
SmartThings or the dongle.
2.13. 13. The Claimant went on to ask for either a replacement television or a
full refund of the purchase price he had paid for it in May 2017; the Defendant’
s Technical department advised him however that due to the age of the
television and the fact that the Claimant had clearly been using the television
without issue till this juncture, they would be offering neither remedy. As the
Defendant was not willing to offer the resolution he sought the Claimant
asked if he could submit a written complaint, and the Defendant accordingly
provided a complaints email address.
2.14. 14. The Defendant does not admit and requires the Claimant to prove
that he sent ‘2 x Recorded delivery letters’ to its York store in August 2020, as
alleged in the Particulars of Claim or at all.
2.15. 15. The Defendant unfortunately cannot locate a record of these letters
on its Customer Services records and although it has asked the Claimant to
provide them with copies of the same has been advised that he is unable to
do so. The Claimant has however mentioned that the content of those letters
matched what he has expressed in his Particulars of Claim.
2.16. 16. The Defendant also makes no admissions as to whether the Claimant
made ‘3 x Store visits’ or as to what was said by its staff, as alleged or at all.
2.17. 17. Proceedings were issued on the 7 October 2020.
2.18. 18. The Defendant maintains that the principal function of the TV
(outlined at paragraph 6 above) was not affected by the non-release of the
dongle in the UK and, save that iPlayer could still in any event be viewed,
makes no admissions as to the impact of any issues relating to 4k support, as
alleged or at all.
Claim number: 167MC653
OCON9B For further details of the courts www.gov.uk/find-court-tribunal © Crown copyright Page 4 of 10
2.19. 19. Based upon its arguments advanced at paragraph 18 above, the
Defendant contends that the television 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’).
2.20. 20. The Defendant also contends that the television was fit for its
purpose at the time of sale, in accordance with section 10 of the 2015 Act.
2.21. 21. If, and which is denied, the television did not conform to sections 9
and 10 of the 2015 Act at the time of sale the Defendant contends that section
19(3) provides consumers with additional rights and remedies against the
trader.
2.22. 22. The Defendant contends however that the Claimant has fulfilled
none of the requirements which would permit him to reject the television for
a refund of the purchase price (whether full or partial), with said requirements
being laid out at various other sections of the 2015 Act. These are, namely, his
short term right to reject the television (provided for at section 22) and his
final right to reject the goods (section 24).
2.23. 23. The Defendant contends firstly that the Claimant has lost his short
term right to reject the television as he has failed to exercise said right within
30 days of the date on which the Defendant supplied the television to him
(section 22(3) of the 2015 Act), with that deadline having now long passed.
2.24. 24. The Defendant secondly contends that, as he has lost his short term
right to reject, should the Claimant instead wish to exercise his final right to
reject or seek a reduction in the purchase price of the goods then as the
trader it is at first instance entitled to have one opportunity to attempt to
either repair or replace the goods (with these remedies being subject to the
tests around a) possibility and b) proportionality at sections 23(3) and 23(4) of
the 2015 Act).
2.25. 25. The Defendant contends that in particular section 23(4) of the 2015
Act makes it clear that the trader shall not be required to provide a remedy to
the consumer if either of the remedies (repair or replacement of the goods) is
disproportionate compared to the other. The 2015 Act goes on to specify that
a remedy will be disproportionate if it imposes costs on the trader which,
when compared to those imposed by the other, are unreasonable taking into
account a) the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the
contract, b) the significance of the lack of conformity and c) whether the other
remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the consumer.
2.26. 26. The Defendant contends that since Samsung did not make the
dongle available they were unable to provide the Claimant with a repair or
replacement of his television, thereby making both remedies impossible
pursuant to section 23(3)(a) of the 2015 Act.

Highlighted

I think the court will take a dim view on the fact you waited three years to contact them. If you had a solid record of contact attempts between 2017 and 2020 that might be different, but looking from the outside in, you used the TV without issue for three years, then decided it wasn't fit for purpose, which would be hard to swallow.

Highlighted
First Poster

I appreciate you comments, however the point was i was missold the tv. Proving what i was told by the sales staff is my word against theirs which is impossible to prove. I would have thought the links, proof of my phone calls and unanswered proof of letters would have sufficed. If i remember right it wasnt until the end of 2018 Samsung stopped supporting this tv. I had forgotten all about the promises until i found this discussion group in early 2020. I thought i had 6 years to make my complaint or have I misunderstood. Currys are liars and a total waste of time. I hope this helps anyone thinking of taking them to small claims and not to waste their time and money

Top Liked Authors