I'm not buying another Samsung product

Jemma01

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82097630#Comment_82097630

I feel you, if I had a bad experience I'd rather try somewhere else.

I understand you got a refund except the delivery. The delivery I was charged was only £6. Assuming the same, it's not worth the hassle, esp as it sounds like you were responsible for the failure and the delivery company has a proof. You have been asked few times about what happened with the delivery and you didn't disclose it. You might have had issues in the past, no one is asking about that.

If I had a delivery issue first thing I'd say "I was home waiting all day, no one knocked on the door, I even have a ring doorbell to prove no one approached the door"... But you on the other hand, glossing over it like it's not the core issue of this post.

Exodi

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82097346#Comment_82097346

I think this is right.

I was having a chat about the same topic with my wife at the weekend.

I had been stuck on a live chat for over an hour, trying to resolve a basic issue (one that you would might have reasonably expected customer support staff to be able to remedy in one keystroke), after having finally convinced the AI chatbot to put me through to an agent, being put into a queue to speak to the agent, once connected having to re-explain the issue to the agent, to be told it's a different department and being transferred, to be put into a new queue, to be finally connected and having to re-re-explain the issue. An all-to-familiar scenario in 2026 unfortunately.

We were discussing how we remember it wasn't that long ago (probably less than 10 years) when companies support pages weren't just 'knowledge bases', when you didn't have to scour high and low just to find a phone number or email address, when the live chat was actually a person instead of a chatbot providing the most surface level responses, etc.

The cynical side of me believes it is an exercise of frustration - the prospect of sitting on a live chat for hours to change a subscription, or to complain items were missing from an order, etc is too daunting that some might just not bother.

Realistically, I think it's exactly what you said. Customer service overheads driven right down by replacing local staff with chat bots and overseas call handlers. When I worked for a very large company in the past, I remember that whenever costs needed to be cut, the customer service team was always the first to be looked at.

I think that is kind of the point I was trying to make to Prowla. While he may feel Samsung customer service was bad on this occasion, I certainly wouldn't kid myself into thinking everyone else will be way better - reviews actually suggest the opposite to be true. The reality is probably closer to customer service declining for most companies over the past decade (but consumers benefiting from a better price). Labour (particularly local) is expensive, and ever-increasingly so following recent government policy.

Exodi

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82097630#Comment_82097630

It sounds like there's more to the story with the courier, but understand you may not want to divulge.

It does however appear to be the crux of the issue - and despite what this post suggests they have refunded you for the item, just not the delivery cost. You are not providing the details surrounding the delivery, which I can't help but to infer as at least some level of responsibility for the failed delivery (happy to be told otherwise).

If true, then it's unsurprising that you would spend months hitting your head against a brick wall if they don't believe you are entitled to a refund of the postage. Being "given the run-around" could just be because you won't accept what they are saying. You don't get what you want by virtue of asking.

Our customer service team oftentimes deal with people who just will not take no for an answer, and at some point they will just stop responding to their ongoing communications.

I appreciate I'm making a lot of assumptions here - so again, happy to be corrected.

"As for future product purchases: there are plenty of options in the given market areas" - yes, I pointed the main competitors for mobile, TV's, etc but I think the point I was trying to make has been largely missed/ignored.

saajan_12

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82097322#Comment_82097322

Well yes, but so are the days of paying 2 months salary for a TV. If customers flock to the companies that undercut prices by shedding all these 'extras' then naturally that's the way the industry will go.

prowla

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82097634#Comment_82097634

Samsung have not made any assertions regarding the failure to deliver the item, so there's no mileage in trying to postulate plausible situations and make assumptions there.

Indulging in blaming the customer comes across as gaslighting.

The core issue is Samsung's CS; the failure of their subcontractor to deliver the service is their issue, not mine.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82097683#Comment_82097683

Yes, though it is a small amount, I think their planned frustration strategy is costing them more in CS time.

They gave me a different call ref last time to cover the escalation; the cynic in me might suspect that they've done that to massage their call resolution stats.

As for other companies, well, yes.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82097779#Comment_82097779

Yes the 62 billion dollars they made in 3 months must mean times are tough. I know that didn’t come from selling TVs but not really the point.

You must be going back a fair bit for a TV to cost 2 months salary, they didn’t pump them out in the millions back then, nor did they get paid for the adverting on them like they do now, and indeed they used to be better made.

OP just do a chargeback with the bank, 14 days for VISA and 30 for Mastercard from the delivery due date, why waste your life due to a company like this?

Murphybear

If anyone is thinking of replacing their tv the following may be of interest. We have done a lot of research as we are thinking of replacing our ancient LG tv to get some more modern features.

we subscribe to Which and found the following. Most of their top TVs are LG, ahead of big brands Samsung and `Sony. Somewhere on here someone said LG were expensive but they are cheaper than brands like Sony and Samsung.

We found the same in a big branch of John Lewis

dnpark38

LG is what I bought from Richer Sounds marvellous but not cheap over £2000 for 77".

Buy as big as you can afford I think well worth it for quality using Internet streaming via a Manhattan Aero Freely box.

Albermarle

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82099061#Comment_82099061

We have a LG main TV ( 49 inch big enough for us) UHDLED. The picture is very good, nice colour balance etc and still not a bad picture in SD. However the EPG ( where it lists what programmes are on each channel) has alwasy been sluggish to load and react. Apparently it is a known LG problem.

We also have a cheap Chinese TCL . The picture is not quite as good, especially in SD, but the Roku operating system is significantly better than the LG one ( which is maybe better for their brand new ones than it used to be?)

Exodi

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82099061#Comment_82099061

LG does indeed make some of the best OLED's on the market, but they are still expensive.

Sony are more expensive, yes, but Sony is probably the most expensive mainstream maker of TV's. Samsung on the other-hand I'd disagree, everything I've seen, checking retailers, etc generally has Samsung as slightly cheaper like-for-like (though technically Samsung sell more expensive items, e.g. they sell a 115" TV, whereas LG sell up to 100"). The fact we are even comparing LG with two of the highest priced mainstream manufacturers (one of which it's debatable whether they are more expensive) should serve as evidence that LG is expensive. That's not to suggest they're bad value.

In comparison, you have countless options that are cheaper than LG - TCL, Hisense, Philips, Panasonic, Bush, JVC, Logik, etc.

I think it's pretty irrefutable they are expensive, but again that's not a criticism as they make some of the best OLED's on the market.

Albermarle

We also have a cheap Chinese TCL . The picture is not quite as good, especially in SD, but the Roku operating system is significantly better than the LG one ( which is maybe better for their brand new ones than it used to be?)

It's funny you say that, we got a TCL 4k 65 inch Mini-LED TV for ~£600 and I've been incredibly impressed. The picture quality was very good, but perhaps my favourite thing of all was that it runs Google TV OS. It is just heaps and bounds better than the typical OS's - in fact I was so enamoured by it, we replaced our main living room TV for a TCL running Google TV OS.

One lightbulb moment I had was that we spend all of our time obsessing about 4k resolution, peak brightness, colour gamut, etc when buying a TV - all to then watch 480p/720p/1080p content. None of our subscriptions offer 4k streaming by default, unless you pay for a separate 4k package, so the picture quality, particularly resolution, isn't as important as we give it credit for. Likewise we do not set our TV to 100% brightness.

I will concede however as the owner of an OLED laptop, I would like an OLED screen as it is a world of difference in high contrast scenes, but sacrificing Google TV OS combined with paying double the price for the same screen size is absolutely not worth it to me.

Unfortunately TCL haven't sold OLED panels in the past, however I understand this is set to change in the not-to-distant future - I imagine I'll be one of their first customers.