Samsung ignore consumer rights

caprikid1

You can see from the cracking and the spidering of the other cracks that this is highly likely a thumb press. If you look carefully you can see the edge of the screen surround in the full picture, its in the corner.

screech_78

Also seen this regularly and it is almost certainly impact damage. 

Jenkins86

Thank you for the comments. Just to clear up a few things. Firstly my husband has installed many tv’s and knows not to grab them by the screen - we were there when he did it. Secondly the photo of the TV on the sofa is how it looks now, you can’t see any damage to the naked eye hence why we didn’t realise the damage when we received it. 

If you read the full post, I notified them in July, well within the 6 months consumer duty protects. I definitely wouldn’t be trying to claim if I believed we had damaged it, we didn’t. Consumer duty states - 

• Within 6 months:
  The burden of proof is still on the retailer.
  That means they must prove the item wasn’t faulty or damaged at the time you received it.
  They can’t just say “you must have damaged it” — they need evidence (e.g., delivery inspection reports, photos from dispatch, etc.).

Samsung by law can’t just say ‘oh it must have been you’. That is what consumer duty protects against. I am within timescales, have not damaged the TV and entitled to a replacement. If someone could point me in the right direction I’d appreciate it. 

Ayr_Rage

I wouldn't say this is by any means the norm with Samsung.

You should've checked it was working when you received it.

It may have been knocked whilst tucked away in the corner of the room.

It may have been pressed when lifting it to install despite your assertions that it wasn't.

It appears to be accidental damage somewhere along the line and not an inherent manufacturing fault that has appeared in the first 6 months.

I would say a claim on your home insurance is the way forward if you have cover unless Samsung do a miraculous 180.

There is an "Email CEO" option on their website under Support.

Okell

Jenkins86 said:

... Consumer duty states - 

• Within 6 months:
  The burden of proof is still on the retailer.
  That means they must prove the item wasn’t faulty or damaged at the time you received it.
  They can’t just say “you must have damaged it” — they need evidence (e.g., delivery inspection reports, photos from dispatch, etc.).

Samsung by law can’t just say ‘oh it must have been you’. That is what consumer duty protects against... 

Can I ask if the bullet point wording is a paraphrase in your own words, or have you got it from somewhere else?

Also I'm not sure where you've got the phrase "consumer duty" from - it should be the Consumer Rights Act 2015

(I'm curious to know if you've got the wording from somewhere that might be mis-stating the law.  It's reasonbly correct but I've never before seen it expressed how you've expressed it)

Grumpy_chap

Jenkins86 said:

• Within 6 months:
  The burden of proof is still on the retailer.
  That means they must prove the item wasn’t faulty or damaged at the time you received it.
  They can’t just say “you must have damaged it” — they need evidence (e.g., delivery inspection reports, photos from dispatch, etc.).

The whole thing around burden of proof must have some exclusion in the case of external damage. 

If not, in the extreme, I could buy a car, drive it around for a few months and then shove it off a cliff after 24 weeks and claim my refund as damaged / faulty.

In the case of the OP' TV, given the supplier is not present when the item is received, the supplier has to rely on the "delivery inspection report" undertaken by the customer.  Is there something in the terms requiring goods to be inspected on receipt and any damage present at delivery to be notified within a timeframe?  

Ayr_Rage

@Grumpy_chap the OP stated

"As my mother was having the room redecorated we knew it would be a good few weeks before we actually needed to put the TV up but we weren’t idiots (or so we thought) we inspected the tv, made sure there was no damage before tucking it away on the corner of the dining room"

Therefore we must assume, as they aren't idiots, there was no damage to the packaging or any visible mark on the screen at that time.

What they didn't do was turn it on to check it worked.

Okell

Grumpy_chap said:

Jenkins86 said:

• Within 6 months:
  The burden of proof is still on the retailer.
  That means they must prove the item wasn’t faulty or damaged at the time you received it.
  They can’t just say “you must have damaged it” — they need evidence (e.g., delivery inspection reports, photos from dispatch, etc.).

The whole thing around burden of proof must have some exclusion in the case of external damage. 

If not, in the extreme, I could buy a car, drive it around for a few months and then shove it off a cliff after 24 weeks and claim my refund as damaged / faulty... 

I'd suggest that in the case of your car, all the dealer would need to do to satisfy s19(15)(a) and/or (b) of the legislation is to say "That's obviously accident damage and not a case of the car not conforming to contract at purchase".

If your car got to court all a judge would need to do is to consider the nature of the damage or failure and to decide whether, on the balance of probability, what the dealer said was more likely to be true than not.

In the case of this Samsung TV I think the OP might be relying too much on the proposition that Samsung can't just say "you must have damaged it" without further evidence.

Of course they can just say that and - depending on the extent and nature of the damage - a judge might well agree with Samsung, on the balance of probability, that it's more likely than not that the damage occurred post-delivery.

Although s19(14) imposes a reverse burden of proof on the trader for failures within 6 months, the standard of proof is only "more likely than not"

sheramber

Would it make any difference if  Samsung took the TV back to test and replied that it was user damage.? 

Jenkins86

Ayr_Rage said:

@Grumpy_chap the OP stated

"As my mother was having the room redecorated we knew it would be a good few weeks before we actually needed to put the TV up but we weren’t idiots (or so we thought) we inspected the tv, made sure there was no damage before tucking it away on the corner of the dining room"

Therefore we must assume, as they aren't idiots, there was no damage to the packaging or any visible mark on the screen at that time.

What they didn't do was turn it on to check it worked.

I am starting to feel that we might have been idiots by not switching it on. Definitely not a mistake we will make again, although I do still think that the blame would have been placed on us regardless. In terms of the packaging, it was all ok, no dents or anything. The TV still looks perfect before it is switched on - the photo of it on the sofa is the tv when it is off. No marks, no anything.