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 So my telly I bought in Jan 2017 is deemed as out of date by Samsung!!!!!!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 It means my KS model I bought in Jan is now deemed out of date by Samsung.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

2,530 REPLIES 2,530
Highlighted
I'm trying to get the same thing moving in the US, but from Samsung directly instead of the resellers:

https://us.community.samsung.com/t5/TVs/KS-Owners-Unite-SmartThings-Extend/m-p/360386#M40317
Highlighted

@ncnofear wrote:
I'm trying to get the same thing moving in the US, but from Samsung directly instead of the resellers:

https://us.community.samsung.com/t5/TVs/KS-Owners-Unite-SmartThings-Extend/m-p/360386#M40317

We have found that they will come with every argument like,

Its an app so not covered,

It's not the retailer's fault because it was Samsung who pulled the dongle (under our consumer law it is the retailer who is responsible for anything they advertise and it must be accurate,

It is a fault so subject to a reduced refund due to use (it is misrepresentation which is not a full and subject to a full refund),

They will offer a Samsung Smart Hub worth £99 as a reasonable remedy (but the TV will not be the centre of your internet of things as advertised),

and so on as you can see if you read the full KS Refund thread.

Richer Sounds are members of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (which all of the other major retailer's are not) and one member took them to that and won, and here is the ruling,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wchOMdwsbyzfMV4dbYBvh0wxDkkn9Z_z/view?usp=sharing

and are now giving full refunds to all of their KS owners.

Hope you are successful

Paul

 

Highlighted
Yeah, my situation extends from a another situation and they are only offering my 75% of the value of the TV.

Here are the links I posted on the US community that they keep editing for anyone who finds themselves here:

FTC:
http://ftccomplaintassistant.gov/

http://piunikaweb.com/2017/12/18/samsung-pulls-plug-on-smartthings-smart-tv-integration/
https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/31/16585788/samsungs-chronic-failure-to-deliver-on-smartthings-tv-p...
Highlighted

Hello all,

 

I have also gone the route of asking for a refund from John Lewis, for my Nov. 2016 bought 55KS7000. 

 

After I created a case with Customer Service, copy-pasting one of the very helpful template letters here (coming from the which tool) that show the John Lewis ad of the product, mentioning the free Smart Things Extender, they initially they apologized at my disappointment and offered the 99£ Samsung Hub.

 

I followed up by pasting the links with the Samsung CEO announcements, I pasted the exact description of the Smart Things Extender and stated that the absence of this free product violates the "As described" clause of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Finally I pasted a link with the Richer Sounds ADR stating that there is a precedent for a similar case, insisting for a full refund.

 

They called me and asked me to explain why I was not accepting the Smart Hub, telling me that it provides the same functionality. I declined and told them that according to their website, the Smart Things Extender a) is a USB connected module, and b) it allows the TV to be the contolling hub of all smart things. I argued that the Smart Hub does neither of these, and if had a hub controlling my devices, it should be my expensive TV, rather than an inexpensive android phone I have, or an Alexa that I don't have, or a tablet that I don't have either. As it was Friday evening they asked me to wait until Monday for a response and I mentioned on the phone that I do not mind, but according to my interpretation of the law they still violate the Consumer Act, and if it eventually went to small claims I would unfortunately require compensation for any time spent from my behalf working on that case, including that call. As I was a bit impatient I called again later and I was told that they held a high level meeting just for this case! 

 

On Monday they send me an email and wrote me again that unfortunately they only thing they can provide is the 99£ hub...I followed up with a reply containing again the exact passages and links of the Consumer Act 2015, the "As described" clause, the entitlement to full refund, and their website for the TV, that still mentions the Smart Things Extender Dongle (I saved it in my computer in any case). I told them that I will follow up with a Letter of Intent. And I sent them one, again with the greatly appreciated help from posts here, with links to the product website, and my willingness to solve that dispute through ADR, before pursuing the legal route.

 

I sent the letter of intent by email, which I would assume is  equally traceable and accountable like a post, but as I have not done this before, do you think I should sent it by post as well? I told them that I give them 14 days for a reply but I did not have one yet.

 

In the meantime I went through the route of contacting the UK Samsung CEO, and after some back and fro correspondence where they required me to send the serial number of my TV they too, offered the 99£ Hub for free, telling me that this dispute should be eventually between the retailer and me...In my follow up I again stated the exact evidence that the Hub is not equal to the Smart Things Extender and I asked if they have any technical evidence for they contrary.  I thought that any evidence or absence of it could further support or not my case with John Lewis, or at least prove that I went through all possible avenues before a legal claim. I did not have a reply yet from them either.

 

That is my experience so far and thank all the people here for posting so many helpful comments. My experience so far was not the best yet, but at least I was encouraged to proceed to the biggest extend possible. I have seen the Richer Sounds ADR ruling in favour of the claimant, but (as I could not read all 132 pages here) has anybody gone the Small Claims route? In particular with JL? I saw that in the early pages some people got refunded so I am not sure if it is a Store Policy, or their policy/attitude changed after a couple of refunds. Do you think that if it goes to the Small Claims route, the argument of the difference between Smart Things Extender and Smart Hub is enough to guarantee refund whish is full and not partial?

 

Thanks in advance

 

Highlighted

We have not seen any county court yet as everyone is still going down the other routes,  section 75 and such. Your emails are to the point but with the letter if intent I think a written recorded is also helpful.  It means intent by doing that. 

Paul

Highlighted
Thanks Paul, I will send a post too in this case. My email was send a couple of days ago, so there is still time remaining for a potential acknowledgement any how.

In the meantime, from the Samsung UK CEO correspondence I got the following reply:

"Whilst I acknowledge your comments on the announcement of the Smart Things Extend, we have explained that this was not able to be released in the UK due to technical challenges, and this decision was not taken lightly. However, we would prefer to make the decision to withdraw release of a product if this is not providing the consistent service we wish to provide to our customers, and offer the stability of the Smart Things Hub as an appropriate alternative, free of charge to our customers where required.

While the Hub itself utilises a mobile device to control the connected Smart Things, the Extend would have required this connection also.

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?

You also mentioned other routes that most people are taking. I don't think I can go down the section 75 route as I purchased my TV through a Debit Card. Are there then more alternatives? I also saw that JL has an online tool in the customer complaint website, for starting an ADR, is anybody familiar with that?
Highlighted

The hub isn’t the same thing and the way that the SmartThings integration was intended and advertised was that you could see and control your devices from the TV itself. The hub will not allow this.

 

I understand that the 2018 range do indeed support SmartThings from the TV the way it was intended back in 2016. It’s taken Samsung two years to get it working it seems.

 

I am in the same boat as yourself and I have sent my letter before action to Currys legal department.

 

I did make my purchase using finance though and I have today made a complaint with my finance provider whom are now going to contact Currys.

 

With regards to the ADR, all retailers by law, have to advise you of your rights to take the matter to an alternative dispute resolution body should you be unable to reach a resolution with the company. John Lewis and Currys however do not subscribe to the service, so any decision made by an ADR isn’t binding.

 

Personally, I have contacted the consumer ombudsman and raised complaint because I believe this will carry weight should I take the matter to a small claims court. (Which I am prepared to do). So I think it’s very much worth filing a complaint as they will liaise with the retailer and try find a resolution both parties can agree on.

Highlighted

@yannis_i wrote:
Thanks Paul, I will send a post too in this case. My email was send a couple of days ago, so there is still time remaining for a potential acknowledgement any how.

In the meantime, from the Samsung UK CEO correspondence I got the following reply:

"Whilst I acknowledge your comments on the announcement of the Smart Things Extend, we have explained that this was not able to be released in the UK due to technical challenges, and this decision was not taken lightly. However, we would prefer to make the decision to withdraw release of a product if this is not providing the consistent service we wish to provide to our customers, and offer the stability of the Smart Things Hub as an appropriate alternative, free of charge to our customers where required.

While the Hub itself utilises a mobile device to control the connected Smart Things, the Extend would have required this connection also.

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?

You also mentioned other routes that most people are taking. I don't think I can go down the section 75 route as I purchased my TV through a Debit Card. Are there then more alternatives? I also saw that JL has an online tool in the customer complaint website, for starting an ADR, is anybody familiar with that?

they are lying as you do not need a mobile device to control the USB smart connect.  Your TV controls it,  and with the free hub ask how you connect your ks TV to the hub without the USB dongle. 

Also you could ask jl why they have paid or replaced some if their customers and not others.  They will probably answer that they can not comment on other cases at which point it may be useful to ask would that be the same answer in court why they can not lie and we can show people have had refunds in the ks owners results thread. 

Paul

Highlighted

Hi. I have started pursuing this with Currys, as I bought the TV excited about the SmartThings hub feature, and was disappointed to learn it had been cancelled last year but was not aware at the time that I had options available to me.

 

I do have a question for the legally savvy among you, though. Is anyone aware why the ADR ruled that a full refund was due. From what I've been able to read in the legislation, companies are within their rights to reduce the refund offered for fair use of the product after 6 months.

 

For example, the Which website advises that for goods not as described, that, after 6 months or more, the "retailer can also make a deduction from any refund for fair use after the first 6 months of ownership if an attempt at a repair or replacement is unsuccessful."

 

 

And Section 24, Paragraph 8 of the Consumer Rights Act states that "If the consumer exercises the final right to reject, any refund to the consumer may be reduced by a deduction for use, to take account of the use the consumer has had of the goods in the period since they were delivered, but this is subject to subsections (9) and (10)."

 

I've looked through large chunks of this thread and am unable to find an answer. It's great for Richer Sounds buyers that the ADR ruled in favour of a full refund, but for the rest of us, what is the legislation backing up the requirement for a full refund?

 

Thanks,

Alex

Highlighted

 wrote:

Hi. I have started pursuing this with Currys,

 

And Section 24, Paragraph 8 of the Consumer Rights Act states that "If the consumer exercises the final right to reject, any refund to the consumer may be reduced by a deduction for use, to take account of the use the consumer has had of the goods in the period since they were delivered, but this is subject to subsections (9) and (10)."

 

I've looked through large chunks of this thread and am unable to find an answer. It's great for Richer Sounds buyers that the ADR ruled in favour of a full refund, but for the rest of us, what is the legislation backing up the requirement for a full refund?

 

Thanks,

Alex


 

Hiya and welcome. I'll have a go at it.  I am not a lawyer or qualified in any way.

 

Curry's, yuk. Good luck. 😞 I'll start with this - please learn from this, and the rest of this thread about the way they treat people, and never shop there again. :smiling-face:

 

The Which website is entirely focssed on faults. It has nothing at all about misrepresentation, and is misleading for people in our situation who need to focus on misrepresentation. Curry's and JL have and are taking full advantage of this to mislead.

 

 

I'll use the Explanatory Notes. @Ramos049's letter references these, and I did to in my letter. "I’m sure you are aware of several key differences with the new Consumer Rights Act, namely that it has a different criteria for misrepresentation (applicable for a period of up to 6 years following the purchase) than it does with the more usual cases of faulty goods, as identified in Item 105 within the Commentary for Section 1."

 

that's all about the 6 years thing, always useful. But instead of reading the Act, read all the Explanatory Notes instead as they are clearer.

 

Start with: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/1/3/3/3

---

Section 11: Goods to be as described
68....... If the information regarding the main characteristics is not complied with, the consumer can pursue the protections for breach of section 11, as set out in section 19.

 

---

 

It's a breach of section 11 because the information was not correct.

The remedies are in section 19. NOTE! Not section 24!

 

 

 

Back to Explanatory notes: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/1/3/4/1

---

Section 19: Consumer’s rights to enforce terms about goods

98.For goods, sections 19 and 20 provide that in certain situations the consumer has the right to terminate the contract and receive a refund. Where the contract is a mixed contract with a goods element, this means (unless the contract is severable, see paragraph 100 below) that the consumer has the right to terminate the whole contract (both the goods and non-goods elements) and receive a refund of the price of the contract (or for money already paid towards the full price of the contract). If the consumer wishes to continue part of the contract, it is open to the parties to agree to do so.

---

 

 

actually it is very complicated. I'm getting lost so I will press "post" before I lose what I've typed so far!

 

Top Liked Authors