I would argue that GDPR protects you from having your data being distributed or accessed without your consent. But people that post their case ids on public forums (including me) give an implicit consent for their cases to be accessed ... View more

Nope no worries, I was just about to as well. ... View more

And CASE ID for the above: 09217433 ... View more

Well yes I agree, that's why I said some respect instead of full respect :-) I still abide by the bad review I gave in trustedreviews with regards their attempts to divert or play down the requests of customers with all means necessary. However I cannot really complain now that I got the full refund especially after seeing that in some cases people have accepted partial refunds that take into account the usage of the TV. In this case, even waiting for months was not a bad thing as I can now exchange the KS7000 for a 2018 LG OLED rather than a 2017 some months ago, with the same money. All this while I had full usage of the Samsung TV these months. So even if that delay was a diversionary tactic...joke's on them.. ... View more

In an excellent and suprising turn of events, and 2 weeks ahead of the mediation appointment I arranged with the solicitor from John Lewis, I was sent an e-mail by them that they are willing to refund the full amount of the KS7000 TV, as well as the 70 pounds of the Small Claims process!   I am not sure what led to that decision, especially so long after my original complaints correspondence which started end of June! A bit suspicious too from the fact that the email came exactly after Black Friday and Cybermonday ended lol but I cannot really complain. I think what could have helped, is that in my small claims procedure and correspondence, as well as a preparation for my mediation, I emphasized the following 4 things:   How John Lewis advertised the TV, with the exact wording being a statement of fact rather than a statement of intention (after the warning given to my by Citizen Advise with regards to my argumentation) How the Smart Hub solution is not the same as the original functionality intended, not only from posting articles and from my technical explanation, but by specifically referencing and printing my correspondence with the Samsung CEO office that " This (the Smart Hub) will provide you with all the Smart Things capabilities originally offered with the Extend, with the exception of powering the television on and off". I posted their answer here in the forum some months ago, for me it was the most solid proof that the Smart Hub was a subset of the intended functionality, on top of any technical argumentation. How John Lewis fully reimbursed other customers for the same Television/issue, by printing the whole thread with the successful refunds, which even points specific John Lewis case ids. The legal framework (Consumer Rights Act) that defines full refunds in case of misrepresentation Perhaps appearing serious enough to take this to the Court Hearing, could also be a case. I could also have been a bit lucky since I got the TV on early November 2016, so when they mentioned in the advertisement that the Smart Things Extender would come within 2016 as a statement of fact, even after the original 30 days windows of the purchase where I could attest that it does not meet the intended functionality so I can return, there would still be 30 days left for the end of 2016, so by default I had to wait beyond the return window for the statement of fact to prove true or not.    I have to say that, after a question mark on whether JL really refunds customers now, or it is still a few isolated incidents, I can attest that my case had a good conclusion too and hopefully there is a trend or even better an established policy. This in my eyes levels a bit the original disappointment from the aggressive customer service, when they tried to dissuade me from a refund with all sorts of arguments, and gives back some respect for the John Lewis brand.    Hopefully my case can help others, as much as I was helped here. I will post the results (finally) in the refunds thread too. ... View more

I have also just arranged the mediation day with John Lewis, after a long and protracted small claims case. So in a couple of weeks I will jump through that loop and see if a reasonable refund can be made ... View more

It is interesting that in point 20 they make the distinction between a statement of fact and a statement of intent, that I posted some time ago that the Citizen advice upon my inquiry, informed me that it could be a weak link to my argumentation and ongoing claim as well.    The John Lewis website advertises the Dongle in what I consider a statement of fact (it could be not though):   "Control Your Connected Home With SmartThings Extend Developed alongside SmartThings, Samsung’s SUHD TV will have built-in software to let you do anything from switching on your lights to locking your doors**. It will connect to over 200 SmartThings compatible devices and put your home under complete wireless control – all from your TV. This way, you’ll be able to set the right scene in your living room without getting off the sofa. Please note that this feature is coming soon.   **With free Samsung SmartThings Extend USB adapter available within 2016, additional purchase necessary to connect other appliances to the TV."   How is Curry's advertising it? They have offered you as well a partial refund before you did the claim?   In addition they mention a 1967 Act to justify why a contract can be rescinded which from a short google it points to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/7 which is a misrepresentation act. I haven't read it yet, I will do it once home, but shouldn't this be superceded by the consumer right act as described clause (11)?   Consumer Right Act 2015 paragraph 19.3, which is describing the case when a good is not as described, points apart from a) the short right to reject (sections 20 and 22) also  (b) the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and (c) the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24).    Section 22 deals with the short right to reject. It mentions that   (3) The time limit for exercising the short-term right to reject (unless subsection   (4)   applies) is the end of 30 days beginning with the first day after these have all happened— (a) ownership or (in the case of a contract for the hire of goods, a hire-purchase agreement or a conditional sales contract) possession of the goods has been transferred to the consumer, (b) the goods have been delivered, and (c) where the contract requires the trader to install the goods or take other action to enable the consumer to use them, the trader has notified the consumer that the action has been taken.   In our cases, I would and potentially will argue that even though a and b have happened, c did not happen because till Samsung's announcement about the USB Dongle, our inquiry to the trader and subsequent offer for a SmartHub, the contract was requiring the trader to take other action to enable the consumer to use the goods   And then there is clause c describing the r ight to price reduction or  final right to reject   (5) A consumer who has the right to a price reduction and the final right to reject may only exercise one (not both), and may only do so in one of these situations— (a) after one repair or one replacement, the goods do not conform to the contract; (b) because of section 23(3)   the consumer can require neither repair nor replacement of the goods; or (c) the consumer has required the trader to repair or replace the goods, but the trader is in breach of the requirement of section 23(2)(a)   to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer.   Perhaps a choice is to ask a repair or replacement so that the TV will have the intended functionality, and since they won't be able to do that, you can exercise your final right to reject?   Somebody more legally adept can hopefully help more than I do!   ... View more

My claim against JL with regards to my KS7000 has also been issued last week, after more than two months of back and fro communication, a Deadlock and a Letter Before Action having expired. I am now at the final lap with regards to this story. One week after the claim issue has passed with no communication, I saw in this forum that there is a possibility they ask 14 days extension, so it is now a waiting game.   Even though I read increasingly JL started refunding, my case does not attest to that yet.  ... View more

That is interesting, I will certainly put that email as part of my claims form. It is extremelly annoying that they play so much hardball with me in particular, but all that intimidation, discrimination or distraction they try to give, will work to their disadvantage -even the delay for me means that by the time they refund me, the 2018 TV models could have a reduced price.    Let's see, I will start the process from MoneyClaim and hopefully I will have another refund case to share about JL in the refund forum.  ... View more

Hello, I am correct to assume that for starting a small claims case in England, it is simply a matter of going to the moneyclaim website, registering as an individual and starting it? My Letter Before Action countdown for my John Lewis case expired these days. I sent them another email asking if the policy has changed inbetween, quoting more cases they have refunded through this forum. But they were adamant not to give a refund. The small claims route is the next step, and hopefully the will be a resolution. I just find it weird that in their last reply they mentioned that "when a customer informs us of this intent (meaning the small claims), any further communication should be sent via your solicitor to our Legal Department". I do not need a solicitor for that do I? I read a few sporadic things in the forum about a sherrif handing the small claims case to their office, I assume that is done automatically through the moneyclaim process? ... View more

Could you also post the result in the Refund thread with a Case ID if it is not a problem? ... View more

That's exactly how I debated it in my correspondence @paul1277. And then in my LBA i attached the reply from Samsung where they also state that "With the above in mind, to conclude I can offer you a Smart Things Hub free of charge. This will provide you with all the Smart Things capabilities originally offered with the Extend, with the exception of powering the television on and off.", which coming from Samsung lips is proving in my opinion as solidly as possible non-equivalence/subset of functionality. ... View more

That is incredibly useful @tarbat thank you. Another question if I may ask: In my Letter Before Action, using a template from this forum if I remember correctly, I included supporting documents, where I mentioned the product description and the letter from Samsung CEO office mentioning that the functionality of the Smart Hub is not exactly the same as the Smart USB Extender (posted earlier in this forum too), so as to prove non-equivalence. Is the claim process itself allowing for more supporting evidence once you start, where you used the list above? Or you used this evidence in the LBA too? Yours seems much more comprehensive and I have a deadlock letter too from John Lewis. ... View more

Did solicitors contact you after you sent the Letter Before Action? Or when you initiated the small claim process through Money Claim -after the Letter Before Action deadline expired? ... View more

I concur, it does not seem that JL's official policy is about giving refunds. Even after I sent my Letter Before Action, I called some days ago my case manager and she still denied any refund. I asked whether they are aware of any refunds given so far to other customers, and she mentioned that if they were they would be accidental.    I still have a 18 days before the 25 days notice I gave in my LBA run out. Is there anybody perhaps who is closer to the small claims court with John Lewis? ... View more

I happened to message the Samsung CEO office and got the following interesting reply, before they came with repeated offers to have the Smart Hub as an alternative, separate to the John Lewis offer of the same thing.   "Good afternoon Mr ****, thank you for providing this information.   With regard to the Smart Things Extend hardware, unfortunately for technical reasons we were not able to release this in the UK. However if you are seeking SmartThings connectivity, we are pleased to be able to provide the functionality of the Samsung SmartThings Hub with the confidence of consistent performance. With the above in mind, to conclude I can offer you a Smart Things Hub free of charge. This will provide you with all the Smart Things capabilities originally offered with the Extend, with the exception of powering the television on and off. Should you wish to go ahead, please let me know and confirm your postal address, I will arrange this for you.   Thank you for taking the time to contact us. Regards"   Since it specifically mentions that there is an exception in how the Smart Hub is equal to the original Smart USB Extender, I used it as attached documentation along my Letter before Action to John Lewis, as an official affirmation coming from the Samsung CEO office that there is not an equivalence between what they propose and what they advertised.   Still waiting to be contacted by John Lewis unfortunately ... View more

Outstanding reply, well said! ... View more

I would be very grateful! Which JL shop would that be? Was it after you threatened with legal action or before? ... View more

I contacted via phone the Case Manager today for my John Lewis case after the encouraging posts that they started refunding people.   They notified me that their position is still the same as described in the letter of Deadlock, and they are still not aware of other people being refunded. They are unwilling to comment on other cases, telling me that although they are aware of the dispute, the situtation is resolved on a case by case basis, even though I then argued that the same case should theoretically have the same results. I have asked their post address to send a Letter Before Action (as so far I sent it by email) but in the meantime I would like to ask the following:   For people that got a full refund from John Lewis, has anyone done it for the KS7000 model?   For people that got a call yesterday for a refund, was it only after  the sent a Letter Before Action or it could be inbetween their normal Complaints/Customer service correspondence?   Is anyone willing to personally contact me with any written evidence that their case was succesfully refunded by John Lewis, in a more formal way than a post of their result in this thread or the results thread? Or point me to a post in case I have not seen it? I understand that the forum has a strong community spirit and thank you all for supporting and helping me and each other, however a success result behind a forum nickname (which could be as much true as not true) might be easily deconstructed legally unfortunately. Special kudos to the people that uploaded the ARD and Section 75 results that are solid evidence of a refund and helped the rest in a similar case.    Thanks in advance     ... View more

That is excellent news, I was on the stage that I received the letter of Deadlock from JL and have not  gone the Small Claims route yet.    Let's see if there will be any resolution. I will also wait for a potential phone call, then nudge them by e-mail. I agree now that with so many precedents for a refund it will be incredibly hard for them to prove the opposite in Small Claims.   Yannis ... View more

Done mine too   Yannis ... View more

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.   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? Is there any difference in interpretation between Scottish law and English one, for a case like that, where Scottish law protects the retailer more? They don't say that they will accept ONLY Scottish legal jurisdiction though..   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?   @JLSuccess if you have a JL case in favour of you for full refund, can you provide the Sheffield branch number you called? Your case is important in my opinion, because it shows that there is a precedent that John Lewis acted in a specific way, so acting in another way for the same case could be discrimination? Maybe I am just totally misinterpeting the law though so somebody more legally adept could clarify if that is a strong argument. However reading about Small claims, people can bring witnesses if they want to support their case. JL hasn't commented in my question if there has been a refund in the past, or omitted that reply, and obviously they will never accept any past refund in an ongoing case.    As another thought, what would happen if you accepted the Smart Hub they offer, and then prove that even with this, the TV does not act as advertised? Would you be able to still claim refund for it, not because it is misrepresented this time, but because it is a fault that will never be fixed, therefore your normal warranty can be used?                 ... View more

@mrtickle That is an excellent diagram that visualises better what I had explained numerous times to both JL and Samsung but they claim the opposite. Even worse, as you mentioned they phrase it in sentences that are technically correct on their own, but fundamentally they don't show how the solution they advertised is equal to the one they recommend, the two solutions are just alternatives. They must have wised up a bit after a few refunds and advice from their legal department and most probably they should be watching the same forum too. Having them do a late Friday meeting was not my proudest achievement haha but hey, I spent many a night too, researching the law, this forum and writing lengthy answers to them, taking care to be technically and legally correct, considering that English is not my mother tongue too. Thanks also for the great answer about which part of the Consumer Act is relevant for a full refund -I read here too that there is a difference between a faulty good (partial refund after 6 months) and a not as described one (full refund) but now we can point to the exact sections that state so. JL replied to my Letter of Intent i sent by email with the same "We can only offer the Smart Hub" excuse, so the next steps is the reply to both of them if they can support the technical "equivalence of the solutions" in a court of law and whether they would like to reconsider their answers, an omnbudsperson complaint, the JL online ADR, a "Hail Mary" by visiting another John Lewis shop in person and explaining the situation just in case that way I can pull the strings better (I got the TV from Milton Keynes but in the meantime I moved to London), and then Small Claims court. @Outcasst I would suspect that a win over small claims would create a legal precedent which would influence all future cases? ... View more

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? ... View more

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   ... View more

Hello all,   I am also interested in getting a refund for the KS7000 I purchased from John Lewis.    I do not know if this had been answered before but the website mentioned here that advertised the Smart Things Dongle extender:   https://www.johnlewis.com/electricals/samsung/smart-tv/c9601000048?rdr=1   does not show anything. I tried some portals that allow retrieving cached versions of a site but I could not find anything. Is there a way to retrieve that exact website, to proceed with a claim?   Thank you in advance.   Regards, Yannis ... View more