Superfi refuse to replace 2 week old, £2600 faulty TV

beasty54

2 Weeks ago i purchased a Samsung UE65ES8000 TV from Superfi in Lincoln but straight away i noticed some extremely bad banding and uneven backlight issues. I informed superfi of the problem 5 days later and just today they have informed me that in their opinion the TV is fine and working within specifications so they are unable to help me any further.

There are threads on the popular AVforums and AVSforums regarding the 65" version of the 8 series samsung and the terrible banding and backlight problems so unfortunately its not an isolated case.

What has really surprised me is that the manager has visited my property too see the TV for himself and even he agreed that at £2600, it was not acceptable. If it helps at all, i purchased the TV on a buy now pay 12 months later plan (barclays) and paid a £250 deposit on my mastercard.

From Samsungs website..

Complete your viewing experience with ultimate picture quality

Boost your viewing pleasure with superior picture quality for a more realistic and vivid entertainment experience. Clear Motion Rate delivers smoother motion, so you can enjoy fast-moving images with awesome clarity. You’ll be able to see spectacular 3D imagery in Full HD 1080p, with advanced Samsung 3D glasses. With Micro Dimming Ultimate’s sophisticated algorithm, which enhances contrast, colour and sharpness, you’ll hardly believe what you’re seeing.

I certainly couldn't believe what i was seeing after spending over 2.5k

avforums.com/forums/lcd-led-lcd-tvs/1740179-samsung-ue-es8000-owners-thread-part-10-a-7.html#post18617227

As a new user i cant post links so i hope the above isn't against forum rules, if it is i apologise but images are a must in this situation surely?

Any help and info on what should be my next step would be much appreciated.

Thanks

ILW

Is it faulty or just not very good?

beasty54

arenaman wrote: »

Hi Beasty, I'll post your link, do you want your photos putting up here too?

Photos would be great, thanks

beasty54

ILW wrote: »

Is it faulty or just not very good?

IMO its of unsatisfactory quality, not very good is an understatement.

I also believe that banding is considered a manufacturing defect.

Owain_Moneysaver

beasty54 wrote: »

If it helps at all, i purchased the TV on a buy now pay 12 months later plan (barclays) and paid a £250 deposit on my mastercard.

It helps considerably.

Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, both the credit card provider and the finance plan provider are jointly and severally liable.

Moreover, for the first six months after purchase, the consumer does not have to prove the goods were faulty at the time of sale. It is assumed that they were. If the retailer does not agree, it is for the retailer to prove that the goods were satisfactory at the time of sale. This comes from Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became Clauses 48A to 48F inclusive of the Sale of Goods act in April 2003.

There's more information and a template letter here to claim from the credit card company, and a Sale of Goods Act claim against the retailer here.

ILW

Seems it is down to an argument about the picture quality rather than if it is faulty or not. Section 75 will not ususally cover subjective issues.

ThumbRemote

ILW wrote: »

Seems it is down to an argument about the picture quality rather than if it is faulty or not. Section 75 will not ususally cover subjective issues.

So you agree it's not of satisfactory quality then?

ILW

ThumbRemote wrote: »

So you agree it's not of satisfactory quality then?

Quality is a matter of judgement. Is it within the quoted spec?

Altarf

ILW wrote: »

Seems it is down to an argument about the picture quality rather than if it is faulty or not. Section 75 will not ususally cover subjective issues.

In my experience unlike an unhelpful retailer, the credit card company will just want to get the matter resolved. When I have invoked Section 75 (last time was PC World - 13 month old dead monitor) they just put a credit on my account, and did not get into such semantics. I assume that the contract they have with the retailer will just allow them to do a chargeback, which is why they are more willing to resolve.

And in comparison to the OP, I recently bought a Samsung TV from John Lewis. After a couple of weeks I noticed a slight problem with the sound which occurred in very specific circumstances. I just took the TV back to the store, where a very nice young man carried it from my car into the store, and arranged for a refund without hesitation.

dalesrider

Altarf wrote: »

When I have invoked Section 75 (last time was PC World - 13 month old dead monitor) they just put a credit on my account, and did not get into such semantics. I assume that the contract they have with the retailer will just allow them to do a chargeback, which is why they are more willing to resolve.
.

A chargeback and S75 are 2 totally diffrent things.

Neither of which cover quality. As other have said which is very subjective.
While I know its not the correct route and lets the retailer off the hook. have they contacted the manufacture to see what they say.
YES. They could look at taking the co/cc etc to court. But a call to the manufacture could get things sorted to the OP's satisfaction without having to jump through masses of hoops.

All well and good people quoting all the legal rights to get it sorted. Which when a company is stalling on.
It does not help get a quick resolve on the issue.

Altarf

dalesrider wrote: »

A chargeback and S75 are 2 totally diffrent things.

You misunderstand what I meant. I did not mean a chargeback in respect of the consumer doing a chargeback, but the credit card card company recovering the money that they have paid to the retailer, which is also called a chargeback.

dalesrider wrote: »

Neither of which cover quality. As other have said which is very subjective.
While I know its not the correct route and lets the retailer off the hook. have they contacted the manufacture to see what they say.
YES. They could look at taking the co/cc etc to court. But a call to the manufacture could get things sorted to the OP's satisfaction without having to jump through masses of hoops.

All well and good people quoting all the legal rights to get it sorted. Which when a company is stalling on.
It does not help get a quick resolve on the issue.

Who said anything about taking the credit card company to court?

My experience is a quick letter to the card company will sort the issue without delay.