Re: KS Owners refund - Page 180

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 So my telly I bought in Jan 2017 is deemed as out of date by Samsung!!!!!!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 It means my KS model I bought in Jan is now deemed out of date by Samsung.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

Anonymous User · ‎31-08-2018

Id agree except with that except...

Why should he have agree to a lesser payment when people like myself are given a full refund within 24 hours of submitting the email, It seems JL are treating some customers unfairly by having different standards of approach.

If this was the case for everyone being offered a percentage back based on use then maybe it could be a consideration, but the legality is his entitlement to a full refund and the fact there are many cases now of JL giving a full refund.

Its obviously upto the individual to what they would consider acceptable, but personally I would'nt of considered anything below the full value I paid, If nothing more than to show consumer law is LAW.

tarbat · ‎31-08-2018

@crashcris wrote:
Sometimes a reasonable compromise is better than bashing your head against a brick wall.
What do you think?

That was exactly my thinking when I settled out of court with John Lewis. I had a choice:

Settle out of court for an 83% refund that took account of the 2 years of usage I'd had.
or
Proceed to the court case, but I had doubts about the case relying on "misrepresentation", given the requirement to report the misrepresentation promptly.

It could be argued that you should have raised the issue of misrepresentation with the retailer when it first became clear that the USB Extend adaptor was not available "within 2016" as JL advertised. It could be argued that by continuing to use the TV after 2016 you have "affirmed" the contract, foolishly relying on unsubstantiated statements on forums and twitter from Samsung.

Each individual has to make their own decision about what they consider to be a reasonable settlement. In my case I considered JL's offer to be reasonable and moved on. Others will no doubt want to fight for what they believe they're legally entitled too, but be aware of the risk that you're taking - or take legal advise.

tarbat · ‎31-08-2018

@paul1277 wrote:
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.

John Lewis often give refunds that aren't required under the law. They call it "goodwill". That doesn't set any sort of precedent.

crashcris · ‎31-08-2018

@paul1277 wrote:
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

Then by rights they 'should' NEVER have charged the full price of the TV at the beginning as it was sold without a significant piece of hardware (due to it not being in production at the time of sale). However, they did. They offered a TV missing a part that was to be delivered at an unspecified date in the future at FULL price and if the consumer purchased it at that full price under those circumstances, I'm positing that that contract only became a broken contract at the time of their admittance that there'd be no dongle ever. However it could also be considered thuswise:- Everything about this is open to conjecture. It might even be reasonable to take the date at which one was being deprived of the significant hardware as being the end of 2016 as that was the original delivery date at time of purchase (rather than mid 2018) in which case you could calculate a refund percentage close to 95%.

Of course, ideally they should be giving 100% refund and hang their heads in shame for the despicable way they've been acting to date and because that is what it seems is their legal obligation, but it seems they're playing hardball and you'd only get that 100% if you exercise that legal process and test it in a court of law, which I'd like to note, nobody has done so far since these threads have started (I might have missed it but I don't think I have).

What I'm offering is the direction that could get a reasonable outcome for the consumer.

I'm only offering this scenario as a rebuff to the Credit Card Provider as as yet they consider an arbitrary 2/3 refund as acceptable without showing exactly how they came to that percentage. My rebuff would be I'll accept X% refund and then show how and why I came to that percentage. On a personal level 80% would be the minimum I'd accept but I'd be pushing for 95%.

Thoughts?

LeRoi7 · ‎31-08-2018

As I recall Tyler paid £2199.99 (65" KS8000) and was offered £1374.76 which equates to a deduction of £825.76, therefore Currys estimate that the TV is worth approx 62% of the original purchase price.

I paid £1799.99 (55" KS8000) and was offered £960 which equates to a deduction of £839.99, therefore Currys estimate that the TV is worth approx 53% of the original purchase price.

Curry's are all over the place with their offers, it appears that they have no set formula on how they arrive at these figures, it would be interesting if other members also posted the offers Currys have made thus far.

As i can see it, it looks like they deduct £800+ no matter which KS TV has been purchased or the price paid.

These figures \ percentages by Currys are way below that offered by other retailers.

crashcris · ‎31-08-2018

@Anonymous User wrote:
Id agree except with that except...

Why should he have agree to a lesser payment when people like myself are given a full refund within 24 hours of submitting the email, It seems JL are treating some customers unfairly by having different standards of approach.

If this was the case for everyone being offered a percentage back based on use then maybe it could be a consideration, but the legality is his entitlement to a full refund and the fact there are many cases now of JL giving a full refund.

Its obviously upto the individual to what they would consider acceptable, but personally I would'nt of considered anything below the full value I paid, If nothing more than to show consumer law is LAW.

I totally agree and you can consider yourself fortunate to have dealt with the individuals who afforded you the best outcome.

But the legallity of the situation is totally irrelevent unless it is tried in court. Illegal events take place every second of every day and anywhere. Restitution only ever happens on the day of a court case and in front of a Magistrate or a Judge.

paul1277 · ‎31-08-2018

@crashcris wrote:
@paul1277 wrote:
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
Then by rights they 'should' NEVER have charged the full price of the TV at the beginning as it was sold without a significant piece of hardware (due to it not being in production at the time of sale). However, they did. They offered a TV missing a part that was to be delivered at an unspecified date in the future at FULL price and if the consumer purchased it at that full price under those circumstances, I'm positing that that contract only became a broken contract at the time of their admittance that there'd be no dongle ever. However it could also be considered thuswise:- Everything about this is open to conjecture. It might even be reasonable to take the date at which one was being deprived of the significant hardware as being the end of 2016 as that was the original delivery date at time of purchase (rather than mid 2018) in which case you could calculate a refund percentage close to 95%.

Of course, ideally they should be giving 100% refund and hang their heads in shame for the despicable way they've been acting to date and because that is what it seems is their legal obligation, but it seems they're playing hardball and you'd only get that 100% if you exercise that legal process and test it in a court of law, which I'd like to note, nobody has done so far since these threads have started (I might have missed it but I don't think I have).

What I'm offering is the direction that could get a reasonable outcome for the consumer.

I'm only offering this scenario as a rebuff to the Credit Card Provider as as yet they consider an arbitrary 2/3 refund as acceptable without showing exactly how they came to that percentage. My rebuff would be I'll accept X% refund and then show how and why I came to that percentage. On a personal level 80% would be the minimum I'd accept but I'd be pushing for 95%.

Thoughts?

Also we must not forget the ADR against Richer Sounds which was absolutely clear, and no mention of time, it was a full refund including delivery and pickup.

I believe someone has started the small claims court, and as for the section 75 credit claim, it is always worth appealing as it costs nothing, and point out rather than having full use you have had partial use, and until Samsung actually came clean and said they would not be supplying the dongle, it would be hard to claim misrepresentation. Also the av forums have been asking the question for sometime and the retailers were in the dark as much as us, so could give no further information. Even on Samsungs own forums here, we were kept in the dark until they admitted it, just a few months. We were sold a product and promised it would be fully functional with the missing part at the end of the year. Even the retailers were still advertising that this year, so yes we were all treated poorly by Samsung and it would be great if it was them that we could hold responsible but the law says we can not. But the law is there to protect us, the public from this kind of bad practice, we just have to follow the different processes. As we have seen Richer Sounds and John Lewis are giving full refunds, just need to crack Curry's .

I knew it would take time but we are getting there. You only need to look in the ks owners refund result thread.

Paul

Noddy · ‎02-09-2018

Hi, I've just sent my email to richer sounds.
Finger's crossed as I love the store and hoping for an easy refund without a fight.

🍀

Noddy · ‎02-09-2018

Mate, you know your stuff! My email regarding this issue sent today to richer sounds, can't see how they can argue given they've already replaced these sets.
Although they are one of the better firms, hence I exclusively shop there.

Noddy · ‎02-09-2018

I bought mine in store, R/S.
Does that make a difference, it had to be purchased there as was on interest free.
I did say I'd seen online advert in my review which was true.