Open search

KS Owners refund

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 So my telly I bought in Jan 2017 is deemed as out of date by Samsung!!!!!!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 It means my KS model I bought in Jan is now deemed out of date by Samsung.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

I bought mine from J Lewis and the Samsung Extend addvert is still there


If you bought your KS TV from currys


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.

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.

you can show you had been informed.

It's different with the smart connect as that is advertised on the main retailers web sites,

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

To me it looks like they're trying to say it's not entirely dependent on them, and that it would require an internet connection too. Clutching at straws a bit because if that was the case they should be noting it needs an internet connection on the advertisement. 


Going beyond that, it doesn't need an internet connection. I'm pretty sure itijust needs a WiFi local connection. 


My smart lights work without an internet connection, they usually just need a network connection, but not certain on that.

So they're saying that there was nothing wrong with the TV and you had full use of it. Strange how that's been their defence over the phone and their reason for not giving a refund, but they won't admit that now. But they're basically saying they're not admitting you haven't had full use, and they're not touching the subject from what I can gather.

Here's my response to their defence -


Let's see how they like them apples!


That’s a great response Tyler, I would be delighted to see curry’s turned over here.

I had a taste of their customer service a few years ago, I’ve not looked at their website or entered one of their shops since. They’re a shocking company who are well overdue a legal kicking.

watching with interest and best of luck!


So finally got a response from mbna about my complaint about them declining my section 75 claim.  Surprise surprise they upheld their decision. See below for their response. Any suggestions what to do now. 


Reference: 7078614
11 October 2018
Dear Mr S*********
Account: **********
I'm writing further to your recent telephone calls with us regarding a
claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I'm sorry that
you're unhappy with our decision to reject your claim.  I've independently
assessed this case and I'd like to issue with my findings as follows:  
My understanding of your claim is that you purchased a Samsung television
(UE55KS7000) in store from Curry's in Lisburn on 24 November 2016.  This
was a replacement product for a Sony television you state was initially
mis-sold to you.  You've said that you carried out your research and this
included the product information the merchant had outlined in their
techtalk webpage.  You were specifically interested in the statement that
the Samsung 2016 SUHD television would have a built in SmartThings hub with
a SmartThings Extend, being a small USB-like dongle that plugs into your TV
and would access your Wi-Fi.  You've said that this was the primary reason
you purchased this television; however, the dongle didn't materialise as
Samsung halted the production and roll-out of this technology.  You've said
you were induced into the contract under false pretences and had it not
been for these representations you wouldn't have made this purchase.  
To clarify, Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 can provide a
certain level of protection where a customer has paid between ?100 and
?30,000 for goods or services using a credit card where a breach of
contract or misrepresentation has occurred; however, it doesn't provide an
automatic entitlement to a refund.  Section 75 does form part of your
consumer rights and it allows you to hold us either solely liable or
jointly liable with the merchant but we don't represent the customer and
the onus is on you as a claimant to prove that a breach of contract or
misrepresentation has occurred.  
As part of the process, if the merchant is still trading, we would still
try to reach out to them to resolve this matter and give them the
opportunity to respond to the allegations that are being made.  Section 75
doesn't allow us to compel a merchant to issue a full refund or provide a
replacement product.   We're unable to provide any specific legal advice
but on occasions we may seek guidance from our Legal department with it
being a legal claim being made against ourselves.
Although I appreciate that you've sent in documentation in support of your
claim, including findings of other cases against other merchants,
regrettably, our decision does remain unchanged as outlined in our letter
dated 5 September 2018.  
Our Legal department has considered your case in detail; however, at the
time of the purchase, Curry's were reliant on the information supplied to
them by the manufacturer (Samsung).  As we have already stated, we're
unable to see any evidence that Curry's made any false representations to
you about the use of this application or the expected delivery date of this
add-on feature.  I appreciate that it is frustrating that Samsung hasn't
followed through with the SmartThings dongle application but this has no
bearing on what you were told at the time of purchase (because at that
moment in time, it was believed and expected that this add-on would be
available at a later date).
You have provided us with information surrounding another customer who'd
experienced a similar situation.  Regrettably, we're unable to take this
into consideration when assessing this claim; however, I did note that it
was recommended that the merchant (Richer Sounds) offer a refund to this
customer upon return of the product.  
I understand that Curry's have also offered you a partial refund of ?558.89
on return of the television (of which they've said they'd collect).  The
partial refund is because you've had the use of the television since the
date of purchase on 24 November 2016 before bringing the complaint to them
about 18 months later.   As I've already stated, there was no agreed date
given by Curry's or Samsung of when the dongle would be available to
consumers.   Curry's also offered you a voucher of ?150 and for you to keep
the television.  We feel that the offer ?150 in vouchers would be
sufficient for you to purchase equipment that would allow you to perform
the same functions that the Samsung SmartThings dongle would have done.  
I feel that these offers of resolution by Curry's are fair and reasonable
taking into consideration all of the information and evidence available. 
Regrettably, we don't believe that you've established your claim for
misrepresentation or breach of contract, or that you have demonstrated that
you have suffered any losses.
I have looked into your allegations that the claim had been mishandled but
I'm unable to find any evidence that would support this statement.  When
you notified us of your dispute, we requested that you send us
documentation in support of your claim.  We don't follow a specific
timeframe to review and conclude Section 75 claims as this can involve us
liaising with different parties.  We follow a procedure of case ownership
in that once the claim has been allocated to a case worker, they are
responsible for assessing it from start to finish to ensure consistency.  I
can assure you that we review all of the information in an unbiased and
fair way but regrettably on this occasion, we don't feel that the claim has
been proven.
I appreciate that you'll be disappointed with this outcome, but I hope that
I've been able to clarify our position in this matter.
I'm sorry for the formality of the following wording, but financial
regulations require us to let you know that this is our final response to
your complaint. If you are not satisfied, you have the right to refer your
complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, free of charge - but you must
do so within six months of the date of this email.

If you do not refer your complaint in time, the Ombudsman will not have our
permission to consider your complaint and so will only be able to do so in
very limited circumstances. For example, if the Ombudsman believes that the
delay was as a result of exceptional circumstances.
For more information visit:
A hard copy of the Financial Ombudsman Service leaflet is also available
from us on request.
Yours sincerely
Sarah Littler
Case Manager



So now take it to the F. O. 


Hello All,


finally using the template letter and remove JL references as mine is from RS i am ready to send the email.  Is it wise to add the RS ADR to the letter (Complaint by Mr Ramos against Richer Sounds)? Any harm in that? i would think they already know about it but just gives them all the info in 1 email.  






Could you post the linkt to template or could you share your letter?





@cyteh84 wrote:



Could you post the linkt to template or could you share your letter?




They are all in a condensed version of this thread.  Just search for ks owners refund more info thread. 



Hello guys


Just update on my RS claim.


Got a email they agreed it's fine to come to a compromise of full refund or exchange.  They asked me Do you know which TV you would be interested in instead.  


I am completely stuck what model be reasonable to ask for I have the KS7000 55".  wife said she wouldn't say no to bigger but anyone with any ideas on alternatives from RS? 


ONCE again RS within 1 day replied to my email and look to resolve quickly.  I can't praise enough how good they been.  

Top Liked Authors