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 So my telly I bought in Jan 2017 is deemed as out of date by Samsung!!!!!!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 It means my KS model I bought in Jan is now deemed out of date by Samsung.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

Lies are good because more evidence of them trying to cover up,  and miss lead their own customers. Shame.  Keep a separate log of everything just in case this forum stops. Again there is a copy on cnet forums. Paul 

Highlighted

Paul did you recieve the name of the Team knowhow member i sent you in a PM.? I wonder if it's the same one who signed for  the ‘Letter before action’  from Domaz1

Highlighted

@LeRoi7 wrote:

Paul did you recieve the name of the Team knowhow member i sent you in a PM.? I wonder if it's the same one who signed for  the ‘Letter before action’  from Domaz1


Yes I did thanks and will be doing my thing with it.  Not sure about the name but could do with who signed for the letter before action as well. For them to give legal advice from a company to their customers they must be legally trained,  and it does seem they are giving wrong advice! I will also be asking them that on twitter and Facebook. Paul 

Highlighted

Just thinking as well,  ask them where in the consumer rights act or in the interpretation of misrepresentation does it say that the manufacturer is responsible and the consumer has to get redress from the manufacturer? 

The reason I ask you to ask them is their response would be very interesting depending on what they say for future court or section 75 claims,  as we all know it is the retailers not the manufacturer who are responsible under the Consumer act. Paul 

Highlighted

The gentleman that signed for my letter before action was ‘Anthony’.

Highlighted

@Domaz1 wrote:

The gentleman that signed for my letter before action was ‘Anthony’.


No surname or is that their surname. Still not very professional for a legal department , but that does not surprise me. Personal any name I get who gives me rubbish will be plastered on these forums,  so they may be a bit more careful what rubbish they are saying,  as it us all recorded,  and published. Paul 

Highlighted

Hi all.

 

Worth bearing in mind the Community TOS:

 

Community_TOS_2.1.JPGCommunity_TOS_3.JPG

 

(Link to full Community TOS here if you want to know more.)

 

 

PM'ing any personal info is fine though.

 

Cheers.

Highlighted

I think we can now say this is Currys official response to this issue now. As others have posted similar emails from Currys over the last few days.

Obviously I told them both options were totally unacceptable. 

 

Thank you for your email, please accept my apologise for the delay in this response.

Our position with regards to the Samsung TV Smart Things issue is, as the TV's are fulfilling their primary purpose, at the time of sale these items were being sold and advertised accurately.    We can provide two available resolutions for you to choose from.

We can offer a Payment  Voucher to the Sum of £150.00 and you keep the working TVWe can provide a contribution towards a replacement Item of £558.89, and we will collect the TV.  This takes into account the 20 months of use you have had from the TV since purchase in November 2016.

To accept either of these options, please respond by return or contact me on the number below.  I understand that this is not the response you wanted, however, this is our position on the matter. 

Yours sincerely,

Adam *****

Highlighted

I wonder if Adam ***** is the same Adam that signed for @Domaz1 letter.
Domaz1, can you clarify this as you have said Adam initially and then said Anthony.

Highlighted
Here is the extract explaining misrepresentation. Remember when it talks about time, we were only informed by Samsung that they would not be supplying the dongle in June.

Types of misrepresentation
A misrepresentation is a statement of fact (not opinion) which is made by a seller before a contract is made.

If you relied on that statement when deciding whether or not to go ahead with your purchase, and this then turns out to be wrong, you may be able to claim compensation.

There are three types of misrepresentation and your path to redress will depend upon whether the false statement was made fraudulently, negligently, or innocently.

The general remedy for misrepresentation is cancelling or unwinding the contract so that both parties are put back in the position they were in before they made the contract. Damages will also be available in some circumstances, either in addition to or as an alternative to unwinding the contract.

Damages or unwinding the contract?
Once it has been established that there has been a misrepresentation and what type it is, then the remedies available can be determined.

There are two types of remedy:

Damages Financial compensation designed to compensate the victim of a misrepresentation for the harm done insofar as money can do this
Unwinding a contract The ability to end a contract and the parties are treated as though the contract never existed
The availability of the different remedies is mostly determined by the type of misrepresentation and the stage the contract has reached when the victim discovers the misrepresentation.

Fraudulent misrepresentation
A fraudulent misrepresentation occurs when someone makes a statement that -

they know is untrue, or,
they make without believing it is true, or,
they make recklessly (i.e. that person does not care about whether the statement is true or not).
If you enter into a contract as a result of a fraudulent misrepresentation, then you can choose to unwind the contract, claim damages, or both. You may lose your right to cancel the contract, however, in certain circumstances detailed below.

Negligent misrepresentation
There is a negligent misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 where a statement is made carelessly or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth.

When a claim for negligent misrepresentation under the Act is based on negligence, the law states that the person who made the misrepresentation has to disprove the negligence.

In other words, they must prove that they had reasonable grounds to believe the statement, and that they believed the facts represented were true.

There is a right of action for negligent misstatement under common law in addition to the rights under the Act, but the Act is often more useful for claimants because it contains broader remedies, and because the common law action requires claimants to prove a greater number of facts.

If you make a successful claim under the Act, you will be entitled to unwind the contract. You may also be entitled to damages, or a court might award you damages as an alternative to unwinding the contract. Financial loss may be recovered in some circumstances.

Innocent misrepresentation
This is where a person making a misrepresentation, when entering into a contract, had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her false statement was true.

In other words, it is made entirely without fault. This type of misrepresentation primarily allows for the contract to be cancelled.

However the court has discretion to award damages instead of allowing you to end the contract if it deems it appropriate. It cannot award both.

This would be judged on both the nature of the innocent misrepresentation and the losses suffered by the victim of the misrepresentation.

Limitations of a misrepresentation
There are certain limitations on the right to unwinding a contract.

For example, if you are aware of a misrepresentation but choose to continue with the contract (either in writing or through conduct), you will not then be able to go back to the person who made the misrepresentation and end the contract, or indeed go to court and ask them to unwind the contract if you change your mind later.

In law, you would be taken to have “affirmed” the contract.

An example would be, if you purchased a car on the basis of a misrepresentation as to the number of owners and then, after discovering the truth, you nevertheless continued to use it.

You may find that the court would say that by doing so, you had affirmed the contract.

In other words you could not later go back to the seller to end the contract, asking him to take back the car.

Timely reporting of misrepresentation
Another bar to ending the contract for a misrepresentation is if the lapse of time from discovering the misrepresentation is sufficiently long.

If this is the case, then it may also amount to evidence of accepting the position and this may give grounds for denying you the remedy of rescission.

For example, you book a holiday in October to be taken in August of the following year, and you discover in November that the brochure contains a misrepresentation in relation to the facilities at the hotel.

If you do nothing until the following June, when the balance becomes payable, and then try to claim the right to cancel the booking due to the misrepresentation, the court might say that such a long delay before trying to end the contract amounted to you “affirming” the contract.

Obviously, each case would be considered on the individual facts of that case, and you should take legal advice where appropriate.

But it's important to always bear in mind the potential bars to your remedies for misrepresentation, which is why it's important to act very quickly upon discovering that you've been a victim of a misrepresentation.

Also remember that if you are a victim of a misrepresentation and a credit card was used to purchase the goods or service, then you may also be able to pursue a your claim against the credit card company under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/misrepresentation-act-1967
Top Liked Authors