Re: KS Owners refund - Page 179

paul1277 · ‎24-12-2017

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 So my telly I bought in Jan 2017 is deemed as out of date by Samsung!!!!!!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 It means my KS model I bought in Jan is now deemed out of date by Samsung.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

Moily · ‎30-08-2018

@Tyler_Durden wrote:
I am about to submit my Small Claims court claim and I am wondering what I should be claiming for:

So far I only have:

TV - £2199
Hearing Fee - £170

Should I include anything else or should I only have the TV cost?

Have you sent JL/Currys a Letter Before Action and has the time you gave them to respond expired?

Mylo75 · ‎30-08-2018

@Moily wrote:
@Mylo75 wrote:
MBNA update and it's not good.

MBNA think Currys offer of a £500 refund and returning the tv is very reasonable or Currys offer of £150 and keep the tv is also very reasonable. They then told me I could go and buy an Amazon echo which would do all the tv would have done if the dongle had been released.

Why oh why do these companies not understand simple UK law and get away with this kind of thing. So angry right now. Will be changing my credit card provider asap.
😡😠😡
I'm about to raise a S.75 claim with MBNA myself. How did you submit yours? Did you have to call them?

Yea I had to call them and ask to speak to section 75 claims department.

Then email all your claim details, proof etc back to them.

Hope you have more luck than I had with them.

Moily · ‎30-08-2018

Cheers, I'll get that submitted shortly and report back here.

You should get a better response from the F.O.S, so once MBNA's process has been exhausted then make sure you start the process with them.

Tyler_Durden · ‎30-08-2018

I have now processed and paid for my claim against Currys through this website www.moneyclaims.service.gov.uk

Currys have until 18th September to respond.

It has cost me £105.

Wish me luck!

paul1277 · ‎30-08-2018

@Tyler_Durden wrote:
I have now processed and paid for my claim against Currys through this website www.moneyclaims.service.gov.uk

Currys have until 18th September to respond.

It has cost me £105.

Wish me luck!

You don't need luck you have the law on your side. I am sure Richer Sounds and John Lewis have got legal teams and checked the law and come to the conclusion they broke consumer law and that is now why they are giving full refunds. They had to be pushed with ADR and court so Curry's seem to need a little bigger push. I bet their legal will be in contact soon.

But I will say good luck and waiting the discission with keen interest, because when they fall that is the job here done.

Paul

rosscouk · ‎30-08-2018

I think might ping an email off to JL, just to check. That's a good suggestion, thanks. I will probably make reference to being made aware that they have paid out in cases similar to my own.

I will keep going with the section 75 in the meantime.

paul1277 · ‎30-08-2018

@rosscouk wrote:
I think might ping an email off to JL, just to check. That's a good suggestion, thanks. I will probably make reference to being made aware that they have paid out in cases similar to my own.

I will keep going with the section 75 in the meantime.

Worth a try and your credit card supplier must supply you with details and address of the appeal process if they do not up hold your claim. Then you have the FO after that.

Paul

rosscouk · ‎30-08-2018

Request to JL gone!

I will let people know how I get on

crashcris · ‎31-08-2018

@rosscouk wrote:
An update from me. I am still in discussions with me credit card provider. They agree I have a case in regard to my 49ks8ooo bought from John Lewis in 2016 however they are trying to apply a 'fair use' element and only recompense to the tune of 4/6s of the overall price paid. I sent this letter a few weeks ago

Further to our telephone conversation (07th August 2018), thank you for your offer to reimburse me for 4/6s (which equates to £871.66) of the value of the television. However, this is not a case where any onies should be deducted from the original purchase value. This is a clear case of miss-representation and I have previously supplied evidence where John Lewis have admitted as such (Email 7 and 15). In this instance if the retailer (John Lewis) fails to comply with the Oct 2015 European Consumer Regulations then the credit card company (Barclaycard), under the Consumer Credit Regulations (2010), (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1014/made) is as liable as the retailer. Therefore, if the retailer does not or will not rectify the issue under the 2015 European Consumer Regulations, a person can make a claim against the credit card issuer, under the Consumer Credit Regulation’s 2010, which was amended in 2011.
In addition to this fact I also attach an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) ruling - Complaint by Mr Ramos against Richer Sounds, Ref 113351574, where a full refund has been recommended in an identical case.
Therefore, considering this additional further proof of misrepresentation and Barclaycards responsibilities a refund for the full amount of £1307.50 is the only recourse.
Can you please confirm your offer in writing.

However despite two more calls when I have had to explain everything from scratch the situation is unchanged basically. It's now a level 2 case and if I don't like the outcome, and I have not been promised that they will even call me, then I can refer the case to the financial ombudsman.

Ok, here's my 2 pennies worth (playing Devil's advocaat -delicious at Christmas). It could be argued that the case of misrepresentation only came about at the time that Samsung declared the there'd be no dongle, ie this summer, and that up until that time, you had full use of the TV as was intended and expected before the release of the dongle. Therefore a reduction of a percentage of a refund for the use of the TV could be fair. However, were that the case I would argue that 2/3 of the price is unacceptable. I read elsewhere, on this forum I think, that the Screen was guaranteed for 10 years and as such it might not be unreasonable to argue that you've had only 2 years use of a 10 year TV, therefore a refund of 4/5 of the cost of the TV might be fair. Personally I think that's what I would push for.

Sometimes a reasonable compromise is better than bashing your head against a brick wall.

What do you think?

paul1277 · ‎31-08-2018

@crashcris wrote:
@rosscouk wrote:
An update from me. I am still in discussions with me credit card provider. They agree I have a case in regard to my 49ks8ooo bought from John Lewis in 2016 however they are trying to apply a 'fair use' element and only recompense to the tune of 4/6s of the overall price paid. I sent this letter a few weeks ago

Further to our telephone conversation (07th August 2018), thank you for your offer to reimburse me for 4/6s (which equates to £871.66) of the value of the television. However, this is not a case where any onies should be deducted from the original purchase value. This is a clear case of miss-representation and I have previously supplied evidence where John Lewis have admitted as such (Email 7 and 15). In this instance if the retailer (John Lewis) fails to comply with the Oct 2015 European Consumer Regulations then the credit card company (Barclaycard), under the Consumer Credit Regulations (2010), (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1014/made) is as liable as the retailer. Therefore, if the retailer does not or will not rectify the issue under the 2015 European Consumer Regulations, a person can make a claim against the credit card issuer, under the Consumer Credit Regulation’s 2010, which was amended in 2011.
In addition to this fact I also attach an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) ruling - Complaint by Mr Ramos against Richer Sounds, Ref 113351574, where a full refund has been recommended in an identical case.
Therefore, considering this additional further proof of misrepresentation and Barclaycards responsibilities a refund for the full amount of £1307.50 is the only recourse.
Can you please confirm your offer in writing.

However despite two more calls when I have had to explain everything from scratch the situation is unchanged basically. It's now a level 2 case and if I don't like the outcome, and I have not been promised that they will even call me, then I can refer the case to the financial ombudsman.
Ok, here's my 2 pennies worth (playing Devil's advocaat -delicious at Christmas). It could be argued that the case of misrepresentation only came about at the time that Samsung declared the there'd be no dongle, ie this summer, and that up until that time, you had full use of the TV as was intended and expected before the release of the dongle. Therefore a reduction of a percentage of a refund for the use of the TV could be fair. However, were that the case I would argue that 2/3 of the price is unacceptable. I read elsewhere, on this forum I think, that the Screen was guaranteed for 10 years and as such it might not be unreasonable to argue that you've had only 2 years use of a 10 year TV, therefore a refund of 4/5 of the cost of the TV might be fair. Personally I think that's what I would push for.

Sometimes a reasonable compromise is better than bashing your head against a brick wall.

What do you think?

I think that could set a dangerous pressident. The law says a full refund and Richer Sounds and John Lewis are giving full refunds. If they did not have to under the law they would not.

I would argue that you have not had the full function of the tv since new and where waiting for the dongle, which was promised in 2016 buy the retailers. At the end of 2017 Samsung said they were in beta testing of the dongle. It was only summer this year that they admitted that there would be no dongle. That means you have not had the full function of the tv since purchased therefore a full refund is not only reasonable but is the law.

Paul