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 So my telly I bought in Jan 2017 is deemed as out of date by Samsung!!!!!!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 It means my KS model I bought in Jan is now deemed out of date by Samsung.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.
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.
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.
you can show you had been informed.
It's different with the smart connect as that is advertised on the main retailers web sites,
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.
Response from Currys looks like they are happy to go to court.
Case reference: *****
Thank you for your email dated 5th January 2018. I would have liked to discuss this further over the telephone, however, it was not possible to locate a contact number for you.I am sorry that we can't remedy this to your satisfaction. Any instances of miss-sale would need to be raised within reasonable time. I understand you know escalate this legally and apologise you feel the need to do this.Although this may not be the response you were looking for I trust we have clearly explained our position on this matter.Kind regards,Tom *****Team Knowhow
They can not afford to goto court because when they lose it will be very embarrassing for them and open the door for every one. They are doing their best to try to contain this. A letter of intent costs a stamp. Make sure you have copies of the web pages as proof. Also use section 75 credit consumer act. Just phone you credit or store card issuer and start the process, cost nothing. If they are not helpful report them to the FSA who will investigate, again cost nothing.
Also don't forget this link
promising HDR10 + for 2016 set's. This is also miss selling.
Also don't forget this link
promising HDR10 + for 2016 set's. This is also miss selling.
Sorry this link
Samsung tried to say only US sets were getting this update but I think this link is qutie clear it is global.
Jones1... The smartthings dongle pledge made by Tim Baxter COO of Samsung Electronics can be seen on the video of the 2016 CES event. Just watch the first 1.5mins.
The pledge to supply these is unequivocal and was made before you purchased your set.
All I can say is magic. Some off the reply's you have had from Curry's say you should do your research, and I remember watching that but could not find the clip. I pretty sure it was early 2016.
Also do not be put off wich this time issue. Did it mention anything about a time limiton the which tool? No.
It's part of the disinformation. I am some what pleased that they have not come out and denyed the miss selling, that should say a lot.
I have contacted trading standards and lodged a formal complaint against currys and I also have a letter of intent drafted just need to get this printed and sent on Monday by recorded delivery.
I might have a case for section 75
Section 75 only applies where goods or services are bought using types of consumer credit where arrangements are already in place between the supplier of the goods and the provider of the credit. When the consumer uses that credit to make a purchase, this creates the necessary connection between the consumer, the lender and the supplier.
For section 75 to apply, the provider of the credit and the supplier of the goods need to be separate businesses. Occasionally we see a complaint where the supplier of the goods has itself made the loan to the consumer to buy the goods - so no claim is possible under section 75.
Supplier of finance - creation
Supplier of goods - currys
I would like to address the issue of people who bought using the store's credit, either interest free or not. Believe it or not you have as much, if not better protection, and read on as there could be a nice surprise at the end.
I had an issue 20 years ago when I bought a TV, video player, and Sat system on an interest free store loan. I found out the Sat system was second hand, but had been sold to me as new. I complain to the retailer and was fobbed off (again raise the issue with the retailer and keep copies). I did a bit of research and found that under the 1974 credit act when you buy an item on a loan agreement that item again must be as described and you enter into a legally binding contract. Once you sign and pay the deposit the goods are legally yours. Here is the kicker (for the retailer) if there is a breach of that contract i.e. by miss selling then you are entitled to a full refund of all monies, and you also get to keep the item, as it is legally yours. The agreement can not be enforced if there is a breach, so you can advise the loan company that due to the miss selling of that item you are with holding payments until the breach is readied. I have been through this process and it worked. It did not cost me a penny and I got a full refund from the loan company, and kept the equipment. I did not have to threaten court either and again I think the FSA will investigate if you are fobbed off.
That link that shows the smart connect video I think proves miss selling, and again I do not think there is a time limit whilst you are still paying. I am not sure about when the loan has finished but Trading Standards should know. I always think a interest free load with a deposit over £100 paid on your credit card is the best way as you get far more protection, you section 75, 1974 consumer credit regs, and Oct 2015 European regs. I am not sure if you only have to pay the deposit with a credit card to get the section 75 protection. Some one already said when you do a section 75 claim you can leave it to the credit card company and the retailer to sort it out. I sure the retailer can give porkies to the credit card company.
Here are the basic facts about section 75 I have copied from this site
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:
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.
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.
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.