Help Needed with Samsung's Appalling Customer Service Please 🙏🏻

Luminx

I am posting this to ask whether my experience with Samsung raises wider consumer issues regarding the way manufacturers handle complaints involving connected "smart" products, and whether you feel I have any further avenues available to me.

It's a long one so please bare with me.

The issue concerns a Samsung induction hob (NZ64B6058KK) and Samsung angled extractor hood (NK24C9804WB), which I purchased brand new from two different UK retailers in January and February 2026. One of the reasons I chose these products was because Samsung's literature and manuals indicated that they would communicate with one another as part of Samsung's connected ecosystem and - as a true Martin Lewis fan - I researched, shopped around, and found the best possible price for these 2 appliances (this is important later on).

After professional installation by a local electrician who also installed new upgraded circuitry for the electric hob (which I paid for independently), it became clear that the two appliances would not communicate as published in both manuals of each appliance.

I first reported the issue to Samsung on 09 March 2026. After receiving what I considered to be extremely poor customer service and being promised several follow-up calls by various customer service agents from their Philippines office, I was told there was effectively nothing more Samsung could do and they kept pushing me towards the retailers.

This was not a viable solution as it didn't address the concerns that the 2 products were not communicating as advertised (which obviously formed my purchasing decision), the retailers would have only offered replacement or refund, which wouldn't have addressed my installation and inconvenience issues of having to source new appliances with similar quality and functionality at a similar prices, and because the items were bought from 2 separate retailers, it would have complicated the issue further.

So submitted a formal complaint to Samsung's CEO Office on 25 March 2026, and since then, the complaint has been ongoing for nearly five months and has involved:

• A Samsung engineer attending on 2 April 2026, who questioned whether the products actually communicated as Samsung claimed.

• A formal escalation on 28 April 2026.

• Samsung requesting proof of purchase on 18 May 2026.

• The case being referred to Samsung's Product Specialist Team on 29 May 2026.

• A further update on 9 June confirming it remained under specialist review.

• A British Gas sub-contracted engineer visit on 20 July, during which the hob's Bluetooth module was replaced with no improvement.

• A second British Gas engineer visit on 24 July lasting approximately two and a half hours. During this visit, the hood's main PCB was replaced, extensive testing was carried out, and the engineer consulted both Samsung Technical Support and British Gas Technical Support.

The final conclusion was that the two appliances do not communicate with each other as described.

What has frustrated me most is not simply that the products failed to work together, but the way Samsung has dealt with the complaint from the start.

Throughout the process, every department appears to have dealt only with an isolated part of the issue. Engineer visits were only ever authorised for one appliance at a time, despite my complaint always relating to the interaction between both products. Major electronic components have been replaced in both appliances before Samsung eventually accepted that replacement was necessary.

The ongoing case handling since late March was conducted by a guy in the main UK office in Surrey, but following the latest engineer visit, he stated he can't take this further and transferred the case to its "Alternative Resolution Team" (ART) based back in the Philippines. I know from my early experience that the guys in that office are not particularly good. They're all extremely polite, make many promises, but rarely deliver.

However, I discovered that the new adviser handling the resolution in the ART, had not read the engineer reports, was unfamiliar with the history of the complaint and was only authorised to deal with the extractor hood because, that was the last appliance covered by the most recent engineer job. She explained that she was unable to consider the complaint as a whole.

The options offered were either:

• A refund of £399 for the extractor hood only, with Samsung taking the appliance back.

or

• A replacement extractor hood of model NK24C5703TM/UR together with a maximum contribution of £75 towards removal and installation.

I have concerns about both options.

The proposed replacement is not a like-for-like replacement. I specifically purchased an angled glass hood because I did not want another flat canopy/chimney-style extractor, which is what Samsung has now proposed.

More importantly, the original complaint has never been about the extractor hood in isolation. It has always concerned the inability of the hob and hood to communicate as Samsung represented. Samsung has inspected both appliances, replaced components in both, and carried out extensive testing on both. Yet the proposed resolution relates only to the last appliance that the engineers attended.

I also question how a contribution of £75 towards removal and installation can be considered reasonable when I have already paid independently to have the original appliances professionally installed and any replacement will inevitably incur further costs.

My greatest concern is that Samsung's complaint process appears to compartmentalise each appliance separately. As a result, no individual or department has ever taken ownership of my complaint from beginning to end or considered whether the proposed resolution actually addresses the issue originally reported.

In addition, they refuse to take responsibility and any accountability for all the inconvenience, time, stress and frustration this has caused me.

They fail to acknowledge that if they replace the hood, it might be the hob that has the connectivity issues. They fail to acknowledge all the upheaval it will cause to replace these 2 items. They fail to acknowledge that if I accept a refund, it is unlikely that I will be able to put myself in the same position of having two premium "smart connectivity" appliances without having to wait for optimal prices on alternative products, and do they expect me to have no hob and extractor hood during this period?

I appreciate that manufacturers are entitled to repair, replace or refund faulty goods. However, I struggle to see how the current proposal represents a fair resolution to a complaint that has been ongoing for nearly five months, has involved multiple engineer visits, replacement of expensive components, repeated delays and ultimately confirmed the very issue that I first reported in March.

I would be extremely grateful for your opinion on whether Samsung's handling of this complaint appears reasonable, whether there are any further consumer rights I should consider, and whether this highlights a wider issue in the way complaints involving connected smart products are managed.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Aylesbury_Duck

For a start, your consumer rights don't reside with Samsung, they are with the two retailers you purchased the two items from. On that basis, it would seem that what Samsung is offering is either some form of goodwill gesture, or a result of their warranties. What do the waranty terms say Samsung will provide in these situations? If they're complying with them, they need do no more for you.

If you want a remedy under the Consumer Rights Act, you need to be dealing with the two retailers.

Alderbank

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6677768/help-needed-with-samsungs-appalling-customer-service-please

Welcome to the forum.

As @Aylesbury_Duck says, you have 2 separate contracts of sale, 1 with each retailer for the respective appliance you bought.

You say, 'Samsung's literature and manuals indicated that they would communicate with one another as part of Samsung's connected ecosystem'. What are the actual words they published? That will be important.

If you can produce evidence that either or both of the appliances did not, at the point of sale, contain fully functioning hardware and software required to deliver that communication function as described then you might have grounds for a claim against the retailer of that appliance. In each case if the retailer accepted your claim, you would have the right under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to require the retailer to replace or repair the appliance you had bought from them and if they could not repair or replace you would acquire the right to a refund.

However they might refuse any claim on the grounds that the appliance as originally supplied cannot be examined because you have allowed British Gas to take them apart, remove the relevant components and substitute other parts instead.

Edited to add:

Are you sure your issue is not related to the SmartThings 0.59.9 version release earlier this year?

Luminx

@Alderbank you can go online and look at the user manuals which clearly state what the user can expect when these items are paired with compatible products.

Both are from Samsung's "Auto Connectivity" range and are compa

Luminx

@Alderbank you can go online on Samsung's own website and see what "Smart" features should be expected from the respective manuals of each product.

Both appliances are part of Samsung’s "Auto Connectivity" integrated range and therefore certain extra features (as published in the respective manuals) should be achievable when the two are paired.

Despite Samsung's repeated disjointed attempts to repair the products under warranty using their 3rd party partner - British Gas, they have failed to get the 2 products to communicate as published, and literally NONE of the smart features expected from the hood when paired with the hob, are achievable. But despite this, at no point have Samsung ever stated the 2 appliances are incompatible. They can't say that because both appliances are sold under the "Auto Connectivity" banner.

@Aylesbury_Duck if I take this up with the retailers, they might offer a refund, but also they might not, because the items perform as stand alone devices as purchased from each respective retailer.

And even if I did receive a full refund, then what? I'm left with no hob and no hood, and monetary amounts that would now only purchase much lesser quality products than the premium products what I currently have (if they worked as published). Why should I be at a loss because I took the time to research and wait for a good deal on both items? Additionally, I'd need to fork out extra for reinstallation, certainly for the hood, as it took 2 professionals, (and me also lending a hand) to install the hood.

Imo. I have still have a case against Samsung under CRA 2015 Sect 9,10 & 11, and they are liable for misrepresentation of their products' functionality as part of their integrated "Auto Connectivity" product branding.

They have failed to provide an adequate remedy after the defect became apparent.

They have offered terrible non-customer focused service from the moment I tried to inform them of the issue.

And now I'm left with 2 "standard" appliances that I purchased on the premise that they were premium, "smart appliances" and worked together in tandem and also of a style and specification that I was happy with.

Samsung have an obligation under contract law, (which they have clearly breached), to restore me to the position I would have been in had compliant goods been supplied in accordance with their published integrated functionality.

A refund of only one appliance, or a replacement that removes key features or requires me to incur additional installation costs, does not place me in the position I would have been in had the original representations at point of sale been true.

So unless they come back to me with a much better solution soon, I will be pursuing damages not limited to the products themselves, through the small claims court.

Jumblebumble

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82087938#Comment_82087938

The interesting question here is what are you going to do when Samsung tell the court that the contract to which you suggest that they are breaching doesn't exist and the only contract you have is with the retailers each of which is likely to say it is the other ones equipment that doesn't work?

Aylesbury_Duck

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82087938#Comment_82087938

You are at liberty to sue whichever party you wish to, but I think you're incorrect when you say that Samsung is in breach of the CRA and contract law. As I understand it, you have no consumer rights with Samsung, and nor do you have a contract with them, other than any Samsung warranty that came with the products.

I suspect you may end up wasting the filing fee and many months pursuing Samsung, when your contractual rights lie with the two retailers.

Good luck with your strategy, let us know how you get on.

PHK

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82088431#Comment_82088431

You are right , but Luminx raises an interesting case where a consumer falls through current consumer law.

In some other jurisdictions, such as Australia, the manufacturer and retailer are jointly liable. You can exercise your rights against either.

There have been calls for strengthening of consumer law, but unfortunately they never seem to get publicity.

Aylesbury_Duck

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82088629#Comment_82088629

Does it fall through current consumer law? Given the circumstances, with the knock-on costs of a solution such as removing and refitting two appliances, why couldn't OP pursue individual action against both retailers, with each being responsible for the costs arising from their own appliance's failure to conform to the description provided at the point of sale? OP appears to have plenty of evidence that neither works as it should, with each having had components replaced. That should provide reasonable evidence of an inherent fault in both, I would think.

The fundamental problem I see with either course of action (suing Samsung or the two retailers) is that it's possible that there isn't a solution OP would be happy with. Based on the extensive testing carried out, is it reasonable to assume that these appliances will never communicate with each other as intended, and that may remain the case even if brand new replacements of exactly the same, or higher, specification are provided by the offending retailers? If that is the case, then the only fair outcome would be to return the OP to the position they were in before either were purchased, ie. a full refund of purchase prices and all costs incurred from installation, removal and making good.