Faulty TV returned to retailer. They say it's damaged.

NickR164

Hi guys,

So I bought a new Samsung SUHD TV a month ago which had issues with the picture. Provided Samsung with pictures and they confirmed it was faulty and told me to return it to the retailer along with a reference number. Sent it back yesterday in the original box. Today I get a call from the manager saying the TV is damaged. He provided me with picture of the TV with a huge hole gouged out of the side and causing the bezel to bow out!

To say I'm shocked is an understatement. Even more so at his street level detective skills - he said that the missing piece isn't in the box so it must have been done before it was packaged up! I've provided them with stacks of photos from the picture issue. Unfortunately none are from the side but you can clearly see it's not bowed at the front.

What would be my options here? He's calling me back tomorrow saying he needs to discuss it with his bosses. As far as I can see it's either been damaged in transit or they've done it their end.

The TV was delivered and picked up by their courier. So it seems to me that this is an issue between them. I was just looking for a replacement TV but now I really just want my money back!

Al_Ross

Damaged in Transit by their couriers very common, should be no arguments from the Retailer. They should supply new TV. By the way who are they?

NickR164

Reliant Direct.

I just didn't like the way he was angling it on the phone. He said there is no damage to the box and this large piece of the side that has been gouged out is missing. Clearly suggesting I was the one who had damaged it.

He also dismissed out of hand the initial problem I had with the TV despite sending numerous photos and getting a reference number from Samsung confirming it was faulty!

The courier they use are awful too (APC Direct). It was "misrouted" on my original delivery date. I went on holiday the next day so had to wait two weeks for it to be redelivered. Got a phone call while on holiday saying they were outside my flat. Then they failed to turn up on the rearranged date. When it was finally delivered they used one man despite me telling both the retailer and courier that it would need two men.

Can see this dragging on and on.

bris

It will drag on and on if they keep insisting the piece missing from the hole is not in the box. This would be grounds for them to dismiss courier damage.


Samsung are a huge company, it's not their way to deny genuine warranty claims.

NickR164

I have no issue with Samsung. They have been brilliant.

[Deleted User]

NickR164 wrote: »

I have no issue with Samsung. They have been brilliant.

If you haven't had a replacement yet, how can they be "brilliant"?

If the TV had been returned to Samsung themselves with apparent physical damage (but none of the broken part/ pieces actually in the packaging) their response would doubtless be exactly the same.

You may state that it left your home in perfect physical order, but if the retailer remains adamant you will indeed have difficulty..

In addition, your complaint about the courier's late delivery is entirely different to your current woes.

NickR164

Brilliant in that they responded quickly to my original issue by getting an engineer to call me and going through the individual pictures I sent him before confirming that it was a fault and giving me a reference number to give to the retailer to arrange a replacement. I've no doubt they would also give the same response if they found the same damage so hypothetically that would put me in the same predicament - it's left my house in perfect physical condition. It's arrived at the store damaged according to them.

I agree the problems I had with the courier initially are entirely different.

kuohu

On Google Reviews (link here - 'view all reviews' on right hand side of results) there's a similar story about a purchase from Reliant which develops fault, and then experiences 'damage in transit' with no damage to the box. That particular customer got a Section 75 refund from their credit card, maybe an option for the OP?

Reviewer
3 months ago

Well what can I say about Reliant....here goes. TV delivered on 05/01/2016, TV develops fault on the 13/01/2016, Reliant ask for the opportunity to repair TV and pick it up on 18/01/2016. Reliant couldn't find the fault after 9 days in their possession and ask if I would be willing to take the TV back. They also told me that my 30 days after delivery are getting close and that it will be Samsung's problem after that. I start recording phone calls with Reliant after that statement.

TV returned to me on 27/01/2016 and upon unboxing it the TV has a dent on the side. I contacted Reliant and they asked for photos. 29/01/2016 Reliant contact me to tell me there is nothing they can do as I signed for TV.

At this point I contacted Trading Standards to start the ball rolling on the legal route. 02/02/2016 TV shows signs of the fault originally sent to Reliant with.

Eventually after 3 letters, countless emails and phone calls I received all my money back from the finance company on the 25/04/2016. This was only because I had part funded the purchase with credit from Barclays and they intervened on my behalf.

There are laws in place to protect consumers from retailers who just refuse their responsibilities. There is the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Distance Selling Regulation, Also if you have funded the purchase with credit from a Finance Company you can apply for a Section 75 where the finance company takes the money back and then refunds you. I discovered that statements made by Reliant were incorrect e.g. the retailer is responsible for at least 6 months after purchase and this responsibility doesn’t pass back to manufacturer after 30 days and also when you sign for a package you do not sign your rights away.

Please don't make the mistake i did and chase the cheaper price . I never want to hear the name Reliant Direct again .

---

Response from the owner
3 months ago

As a service call was not acceptable to the customer, we wanted to confirm a fault with the TV, NOT to repair the set, but with a view to exchanging the television.

The set was thoroughly tested for 9 days and no fault could be found. The TV was returned to the customer at no charge. We were not aware that phone calls had been recorded.

The photos provided showed damage to the TV but no damage to the box. The proof of delivery was signed, so accepting goods in good condition. The damage was deemed to have been caused out of the box. Our local Trading Standards office, was informed who were happy with our position.

During the period Reliant kept Barclays up to date. And it was eventually agreed that Reliant would exchange the TV for a new one, but Barclays instead refunded the customer. Reliant are still waiting to be given access to collect the Television.

[Deleted User]

kuohu wrote: »

there's a similar story about a purchase from Reliant which develops fault, and then experiences 'damage in transit' with no damage to the box. That particular customer got a Section 75 refund from their credit card, maybe an option for the OP?

That's the exact opposite of the Op's situation, though. The goods have been received in a damaged condition by the retailer, but in your example the customer received a damaged set.

bod1467

Nope ... the customer in this case received a set with a fault; on return to the retailer the set had physical damage. Sounds the same (or similar enough) to me.

NickR164

Thanks for the link. It is a reversal of my situation but still interesting.

One thing that is bothering me is regardless of the damage, the manager is claiming that the picture is perfect with no issues. I supplied them with numerous photos in various light conditions showing the problem which they admit they can see in an e-mail.

A very small part of me (that is grasping at straws) wonders if the courier has sent a different TV back by mistake. When they picked it up it had no labels on, they didn't put any on and just loaded it into a van. I know this because I helped. Anyway I've asked the manager to check the serial number which would put that theory to bed. When he did it on the phone earlier he read it back from my order sheet.