Open search

KS Owners refund

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 So my telly I bought in Jan 2017 is deemed as out of date by Samsung!!!!!!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 It means my KS model I bought in Jan is now deemed out of date by Samsung.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

I bought mine from J Lewis and the Samsung Extend addvert is still there


If you bought your KS TV from currys


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.

2,539 REPLIES 2,539

@yannis_i wrote:

With this and as before, the functionality of the Extend (being able to control all connected Smart Things through a central point) is achievable through the Smart Things Hub, which we are offering to you as an alternative. It is of course your decision whether to accept. "

Is that correct technically?

Yes and no. Their sentence is correct, because the central point is the Smart Things Hub. This is FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to what you wanted - the TV to be the central point.


@yannis_i, I have just read your earlier posts. Good on you for making them have a meeting late on a Friday. 


What you can do is very limited with the Smart Things hub. That hub, if supplied, still does not make the TV conform to the advertising. And they would have to supply you with a smart phone to use it with, of course.


@Read the earlier posts from @tarbat who needed it for his wife, he went into some detail about the differences and how the Hub was utterly unsuitable, but the original Extend Device would have been.


But the onus is not on you to explain "why you don't want it"! The onus is on THEM to explain how it's identical (it's not) and would put you in the exact same position you should have been in. They can't do this of course, bceause it's fundamentally different



Promise vs Delivery.jpg


Thanks for again digging that out as I was trying to find the wording and you beat me to it. That would also be useful in the KS refund useful info thread, so I can find it easily in future.
feel free to copy, it there, but I'm rather uncertain on how bomb-proof it is. I had the benefit of being a RS customer.

JL haven't replied to my e-mail yet stating that I'll take them to small claims court unless they agree to a refund. They have until Friday 27th.


I could section 75, but I don't have much faith in that honestly and I'd rather take it to court to help out everyone else here. I'm half hoping they'll agree to settle outside of court once they receive the court documents, as I'm completely new at this and quite nervous at the prospect of appearing in court.


Am I right in assuming if John Lewis loses this case in small claims, they will lose every time somebody takes them to court over this in the future?

@mrtickle That is an excellent diagram that visualises better what I had explained numerous times to both JL and Samsung but they claim the opposite. Even worse, as you mentioned they phrase it in sentences that are technically correct on their own, but fundamentally they don't show how the solution they advertised is equal to the one they recommend, the two solutions are just alternatives. They must have wised up a bit after a few refunds and advice from their legal department and most probably they should be watching the same forum too.

Having them do a late Friday meeting was not my proudest achievement haha but hey, I spent many a night too, researching the law, this forum and writing lengthy answers to them, taking care to be technically and legally correct, considering that English is not my mother tongue too.

Thanks also for the great answer about which part of the Consumer Act is relevant for a full refund -I read here too that there is a difference between a faulty good (partial refund after 6 months) and a not as described one (full refund) but now we can point to the exact sections that state so.

JL replied to my Letter of Intent i sent by email with the same "We can only offer the Smart Hub" excuse, so the next steps is the reply to both of them if they can support the technical "equivalence of the solutions" in a court of law and whether they would like to reconsider their answers, an omnbudsperson complaint, the JL online ADR, a "Hail Mary" by visiting another John Lewis shop in person and explaining the situation just in case that way I can pull the strings better (I got the TV from Milton Keynes but in the meantime I moved to London), and then Small Claims court.

@Outcasst I would suspect that a win over small claims would create a legal precedent which would influence all future cases?

There's no case law or legal precedents set in County Courts, but a loss would mean they wouldn't be wise to force another claimant to take them to court again with the exact same claim as it would not be looked on favourably by the Judge.


It would also mean someone will need to take Currys to court separately but using the same argument as used in a loss for JL should result in the same judgement.


Good points.
On the "equivalence", it's like you wanted a car but they are offering you a bicycle, claiming it's the same. When you point out that there's no boot to carry things like with a car, they offer you a saddle-bag. When you point out that you can't take passengers like with a car, they offer you a tandem instead.


All the while, keeping a straight face and claiming you're the one being unreasonable for not accepting their tandem with saddle-bag "solution". "It goes on roads and takes you from A to B, what's the problem? Our lawyers have advised us that this will be our final offer".

It's just so crazy you can't engage on that level otherwise you legitimise it. Instead they need to answer your questions, instead of getting away with falsehoods like "we can only offer X". No, you can't "only offer X" because THE LAW requires you to give me a full refund.


@mrtickle wrote:
@Read the earlier posts from @tarbat who needed it for his wife, he went into some detail about the differences and how the Hub was utterly unsuitable, but the original Extend Device would have been.

If it helps, this is the part of the text I used for my EU ODR complaint about the difference between the EXTEND and the HUB:


"The only remedy that John Lewis have offered is telling me to contact Samsung to receive a SmartThings hub. This is a completely different solution, and fails in two respects. Firstly, it cannot be operated from the TV, and therefore doesn't match the promise made by John Lewis to "put your home under complete wireless control – all from your TV". And secondly, it requires me to buy a mobile phone in order to operate the SmartThings hub. As such, John Lewis have mis-sold the TV to me, as it is not as described, and never can be."


My EU ODR complaint is now just 7 days away from the deadline for JL to agree a dispute resolution body, which we know they won't.  Although I'm still 40 days away from the "last date for response" in my court case against JL, and my disgust with JL grows every day as my wife's requirement for Smart Things control from her TV has recently become more acute.


John Lewis and Curry’s sure are making life difficult for themselves.


They must realise that at some point it is going to go before a judge and they will inevitably rule in favour of the consumer which in turn is going to lead to added costs and compensation. They’re setting themselves up to lose millions on top of what they could have contained. They were better off just refunding each customer that made complaint rather than causing conflict and losing hundreds of loyal consumers.


This thread is spreading like wild fire as it is and everyday more people are coming forward with their disappointment of being mis-sold a television. When this eventually goes to a small claims court and the retailers lose they’re going to open up the flood gates for every single KS owner to return their TV. This will result in thousands more people claiming. Thousands more in compensation and costs, when they could have just simply accepted they made a mistake and exchanged the TV’s and kept the relatively small number of customers happy.


It really makes you wonder who it is they employ to run these companies because the way they’re handling things at the moment really is just plain stupid.


@Domaz1 - I agree that in most cases, Hanlon's Razor applies.


But in the case of these big retailers I can sum it up in one word - ARROGANCE.


Top Liked Authors