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

dalesrider

Altarf wrote: »

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.
.

So do you.
If a CC is doing a chargeback. There is no need for S75.


In the case you quoted of the monitor going dead after 13 months. There is NO chargeback right avaiable.
So that would be a S75 claim.
Which I would be surprised was resolved without you providing some paperwork to prove your case.
Unless that card provider has a threshold under which they simply refund without the need for paperwork. (cost issue)

S75 will see the CC paying out of their own funds. There is no way of them recovering them, unless they took the retailer to court.....

neilmcl

OP, what have the manufacturer said about all this, have you made any contact with them?

ILW

arenaman wrote: »

Apparently Samsung now have a disclaimer about clouding and light bleed stating they're within normal spec (but not banding)

Where this disclaimer is and when it was introduced I've no idea, spent 10 mins on their website and I can't find it, I also assume that customers aren't made aware of this when buying. If it is buried deep somewhere and customers are not being made aware before purchase then this seems very underhand.

There are that many sets being returned that the stores in consultation with samsung now seem to be refusing to comply and are saying this is normal, surely this can't be right for a premium flagship TV?

Terms such as premium and flagship are meaningless in consumer law. If the item works within spec it is down to goodwill of the retailer or manufacturer.

Example
If someone buys a car for £50k that does 0-60 in 10 seconds, they cannot claim it is faulty if another model costing £25k does 0-60 in 8 seconds.
But, if the spec claims :cool:0-60 in 10 secs but it is only capable of 12 secs, there would be a claim.

beasty54

ILW wrote: »

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

"Complete your viewing experience with ultimate picture quality"

The above is from the Samsung website... Would ANYONE consider the images i've posted on AV Forums to be ultimate picture quality?
Are dirty streaks down your TV that you can clearly see on most panning shots ultimate?

The above alone is enough for me to say that its not as advertised and its certainly not fit for purpose since it does NOT in any way, do what samsung have said it will .. Boost your viewing pleasure with superior picture quality for a more realistic and vivid entertainment experience

Samsung are replacing some of these 8 series TVs or just the actual panel multiple times, sometimes as many as 5-6 times per customer, surely that is as good as admitting the banding is a defect?

beasty54

ILW wrote: »

Terms such as premium and flagship are meaningless in consumer law. If the item works within spec it is down to goodwill of the retailer or manufacturer.

Example
If someone buys a car for £50k that does 0-60 in 10 seconds, they cannot claim it is faulty if another model costing £25k does 0-60 in 8 seconds.
But, if the spec claims :cool:0-60 in 10 secs but it is only capable of 12 secs, there would be a claim.

I don't think that's a good example at all, we aren't talking about a specific feature not working or being missing completely.

Say you go and spend your 50k on a car and once you get it on the road you notice the tracking is off and you cant get it into 3rd gear without multiple attempts and having to really force the gear stick, tell me you wouldn't be straight back to the place you purchased it.

Same principle applies, i spend £2600 on a TV and notice that it looks like crap because there are dirty lines down the screen... in what world is that ok?

Manufacturers seem to think that they can simply decide what is and isn't acceptable, unfortunately there's no way i'm letting Superfi take over 2.5k of my money and then tell me i'll have to live with a faulty TV

ILW

Have you seen another example of the same model that does not have the issues you describe?

beasty54

ILW wrote: »

Have you seen another example of the same model that does not have the issues you describe?

Yes, the smaller 55" version only seems to suffer from this in rare cases.

beasty54

What would you guys recommend I do next?

ThumbRemote

ILW wrote: »

Terms such as premium and flagship are meaningless in consumer law. If the item works within spec it is down to goodwill of the retailer or manufacturer.

Example
If someone buys a car for £50k that does 0-60 in 10 seconds, they cannot claim it is faulty if another model costing £25k does 0-60 in 8 seconds.
But, if the spec claims :cool:0-60 in 10 secs but it is only capable of 12 secs, there would be a claim.

Your example is irrelevant because there are many things that aren't objectively part of the spec.

If you buy a car and it has no bonnet, would than be fine because the spec doesn't say "Bonnets: 1"?

Thankfully the law is much broader than this. "goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances"

A reasonable person would not count banding as satisfactory.
The description given makes play of the high picture quality.
The price was high, this was a premium product, thus expectations are high.

On all these counts the TV is not of satisfactory quality, and the OP is entitled to reject it for a full refund.

ThumbRemote

beasty54 wrote: »

What would you guys recommend I do next?

Write to the retailer and tell them you are rejecting the goods as per the Sale of Goods Act, and give the reasoning I posted above re not of satisfactory quality. Ask them to contact you regarding collection of the TV and providing a full refund. Send it recorded delivery.