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 So my telly I bought in Jan 2017 is deemed as out of date by Samsung!!!!!!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 It means my KS model I bought in Jan is now deemed out of date by Samsung.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

2,528 REPLIES 2,528
Highlighted
Explorer

-- removed duplicate reply that I cannot delete --

Highlighted
Voyager

@yannis_i wrote:

 

Interestingly, although I got the TV from Milton Keynes and I stay in London, JL mentions that they will accept Scottish legal jurisdiction. @tarbat you mentioned that JL appointed a team of solicitors based in Scotland, is that because you are based in Scotland or because they accept Scottish legal jurisdiction? 


I live in Scotland and purchased online, so I specifically asked John Lewis "Can you please confirm that you will accept Scottish legal jurisdiction in this case, so I don’t waste my time with John Lewis contesting jurisdiction when it comes to court."

 

That's why in my deadlock letter they stated "John Lewis will accept Scottish legal jurisdiction if this is how you decide to proceed".

 

Looks to me like John Lewis just did a copy/paste of the deadlock letter they sent to me and accidently left in the bit about Scottish jurisdiction.  In your case I would have though English jurisdiction would be more appropriate, but I'm not clued up on the rules in England about choice of court/jurisdiction.

 
Highlighted
Voyager

@yannis_i wrote:

I have a similar email from John Lewis, with an attached Deadlock letter, if I decide to take the case to the next step, an Omnbudsman.


Little point in going to an Ombudsman other than to prove you’ve tried everything. John Lewis will not accept any ADR outcome anyway.  My EU ODR expired yesterday as John Lewis didn’t nominate an ADR body.

Highlighted
Explorer
-- removed duplicate reply that I cannot delete --
Highlighted
Explorer

@yannis_i wrote:

 

A particularly important piece of information came to me from Citizen Advice and I do not recall seing it here, but then I couldn't read all pages so apologies if it came up and was answered. They told me that even though they will refer my case to Trading Standards, a weakness in the argument for mis-representation, is the difference between a "Statement of Intent" and a "Statement of Fact". Statement of intent means that the trader had full intention to release the feature but have failed to do so, meaning no misrepresentation was made. Again, any legal expert here that could perhaps shed light if that is the case? Is this something that can win or lose an argument even in a Small Claims Court?

 

This is useful to know. Currys definitely advertise the dongle as a statement of fact, by my interpretation of these definitions:

 

From https://techtalk.currys.co.uk/tv-gaming/tv/how-to-control-your-home-from-your-smart-tv/ (emphasis mine):

 

  • "Samsung’s 2016 SUHD TVs have a built-in SmartThings hub, which is normally bought separately."
  • "Your new TV will come with the SmartThings Extend, a small USB-like dongle that plugs into your TV. Once you’ve done this, switch on your TV and connect to Wi-Fi."
  • "You need a new 2016 Samsung SUHD Smart TV, and a SmartThings Extend – a small, USB-like dongle that plugs into your TV. The Extend dongle is provided free with your new TV. "

Note that all of these claims state as fact that it happens from the first day you buy your TV, rather than stating that they intend to deliver it in the future.

Highlighted
Explorer

@yannis_i wrote:

 

A particularly important piece of information came to me from Citizen Advice and I do not recall seing it here, but then I couldn't read all pages so apologies if it came up and was answered. They told me that even though they will refer my case to Trading Standards, a weakness in the argument for mis-representation, is the difference between a "Statement of Intent" and a "Statement of Fact". Statement of intent means that the trader had full intention to release the feature but have failed to do so, meaning no misrepresentation was made. Again, any legal expert here that could perhaps shed light if that is the case? Is this something that can win or lose an argument even in a Small Claims Court?


In terms of shedding more light, this page contains useful information: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Misrepresentation.php

 

My thoughts based on that page is that the argument against Currys is one of innocent misrepresentation.

 

The available remedies to innocent misrepresentation are "rescission or damages in lieu of rescission". Rescission "is putting the parties back in their pre-contractual position." (So they take back the tv, you get back all your money.)

Highlighted
Navigator

Just to give everyone an update on my Section 75 claim.

 

Barclaycard came back with two offers:

 

1) Keep the TV, and they give me £650 cash refund. I paid £1299 so this was calculated as a 50% refund for the loss of functionality.

2) Give back the TV, and they give me about £950 cash (I forget the exact amount) pro-rated refund for usage.

 

Option 2 is the one where I think we've had some difficulities nailing down whether they can deduct for usage (with I think the main argument being we can't use the product if they havent supplied the full feature set?). I think I could probably argue for the full amount here, or at least put forward an argument and see where it went. 

 

However, I'm probably going to take option 1. I think it is a fair response, and I am happy with Barclaycard's here. I did send through quite a detailed and organised pack of information about the advertisements from John Lewis and all my correspondence with them, as well as an appendix detailing the difference between the Hub and the Extend.

 

I will try to post back soon hopefully with that document (with any of my own personal information removed) but would try to work separately with anyone who wanted a witness statement for these responses from John Lewis if it helps anyone who is taking it to court.

 

I really hope in some way Barclaycard claim this back from John Lewis (although I understand they might not). Its been a huge lesson for me to never buy anything from John Lewis again. I will use other retailers for appliances and Richer Sounds for TVs. I possibly will move this TV to a bedroom, and buy a new TV from Richer Sounds, at which point I'll definitely let them know why I'm buying from them. They've been fantastic and have put John Lewis to shame.

 

 

Highlighted
Black Belt 

@Tannoy20 wrote:

Just to give everyone an update on my Section 75 claim.

 

Barclaycard came back with two offers:

 

1) Keep the TV, and they give me £650 cash refund. I paid £1299 so this was calculated as a 50% refund for the loss of functionality.

2) Give back the TV, and they give me about £950 cash (I forget the exact amount) pro-rated refund for usage.

 

Option 2 is the one where I think we've had some difficulities nailing down whether they can deduct for usage (with I think the main argument being we can't use the product if they havent supplied the full feature set?). I think I could probably argue for the full amount here, or at least put forward an argument and see where it went. 

 

However, I'm probably going to take option 1. I think it is a fair response, and I am happy with Barclaycard's here. I did send through quite a detailed and organised pack of information about the advertisements from John Lewis and all my correspondence with them, as well as an appendix detailing the difference between the Hub and the Extend.

 

I will try to post back soon hopefully with that document (with any of my own personal information removed) but would try to work separately with anyone who wanted a witness statement for these responses from John Lewis if it helps anyone who is taking it to court.

 

I really hope in some way Barclaycard claim this back from John Lewis (although I understand they might not). Its been a huge lesson for me to never buy anything from John Lewis again. I will use other retailers for appliances and Richer Sounds for TVs. I possibly will move this TV to a bedroom, and buy a new TV from Richer Sounds, at which point I'll definitely let them know why I'm buying from them. They've been fantastic and have put John Lewis to shame.

 

 


Really good news in that Barclays are excepting that there is a breach of contract even though it seems they are using faulty goods instead of misrepresentation. It is more evidence from another source that we are right. It would be great if you could post the email you used and also post your result on the ks results thread. Well done

Paul

Highlighted
Explorer

I sent my last mail asking for a 77% refund (£1000) and I would return the television. This is their reply.

 

Thank you for your email.

 

At this point, I can only refer you to the content of the final response email which was sent to you.  This confirms what we are prepared to offer in respect of your situation.

 

I apologise for being unable to offer further assistance.

 

 

Highlighted
Explorer

Is my next step a Section 75 as I purchased the television with Currys instore finance Creation.

Top Liked Authors