• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Gadgets
  • TV and Home Entertainment Technology
Samsung Tv Complaint
<<
<
2 of 3
>>
>
call100
29-09-2014
Originally Posted by Biker Jeff:
“I don't think LCD/LED TV's are anywhere near as reliable as the old CRT TV's used to be. I've had many problems with them over the years.
Its why I now only buy a TV if it comes with 5 yrs warranty..... like you get with John Lewis or Richer sounds. After 5 yrs I'm not bothered how much longer it lasts, because I'm looking to upgrade then anyway.

The trouble with this SOG and items that should last a reasonable time, is that the retailer can put all sorts of hurdles in your way, to the point that its more time & hassle than its worth pursuing it.
If it were me, I would cut my losses and buy another TV, but only one with 5 yrs guarantee.”

I've got two Samsung......First one is coming into it's 9th year of stalwart service without a blink. Second one is into it's 4th year.....When replacing I'll look at Samsung again first based on the reliability I've experienced (Several other Samsung sets in the family with no problems).
As to the OP's set, I would be interested what was going to cost £800 to fix?

Anyhows.....OP Try this
Samsung Electronics UK, Managing Director is Andy Griffiths....
eMail :- griffiths.a@samsung.com
Mythica
29-09-2014
Originally Posted by chenks:
“we're talking about samsung selling a product to an employee under an employee bonus scheme. that is very different to a retail sale.

the point being that SOGA covers certain sales.
even if it did cover this sale, the buyer (and this isn't the OP in this instance) would have to prove inherent manufactured fault as it's now over 2 years old.”

And I did ask were it stated that the SOGA only applies to retail sales, you failed to answer the question.

I did state this earlier on.
chenks
29-09-2014
Originally Posted by call100:
“Anyhows.....OP Try this
Samsung Electronics UK, Managing Director is Andy Griffiths....
eMail :- griffiths.a@samsung.com”

hope he doesn't mention either the employee or the serial number as that will be a great away to get the employee in question in the bad books!
grahamlthompson
29-09-2014
Originally Posted by Mythica:
“And I did ask were it stated that the SOGA only applies to retail sales, you failed to answer the question.

I did state this earlier on.”

The answer obviously is by reading the actual regulation.

However there is a guide to retailers responsibility here

http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/sogaexplained
chenks
29-09-2014
Originally Posted by Mythica:
“And I did ask were it stated that the SOGA only applies to retail sales, you failed to answer the question.

I did state this earlier on.”

yes i asked you where it stated that a sale like this did apply?
you have read the entire SOGA, haven't you?
Mythica
29-09-2014
Originally Posted by grahamlthompson:
“The answer obviously is by reading the actual regulation.

However there is a guide to retailers responsibility here

http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/sogaexplained”

I have. I can't find an answer and that's why I asked.
Mythica
29-09-2014
Originally Posted by chenks:
“yes i asked you where it stated that a sale like this did apply?
you have read the entire SOGA, haven't you?”

Any sale would apply unless otherwise stated? You shouldn't really answer a question with another question. If you don't know, just say you don't know. The legalisation wouldn't list were a sale would apply? It would state were a sale didn't apply, surely?

I've read what I understand and the main parts regarding the main part of the SOGA.
chrisjr
29-09-2014
Originally Posted by Mythica:
“And I did ask were it stated that the SOGA only applies to retail sales, you failed to answer the question.

I did state this earlier on.”

See the last FAQ here

http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/faqs

Quote:
“The Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) provides protection for customers (consumers) - the same rights do not apply to a business buying goods or services from another business.”

It could be argued that a manufacturer selling only to it's own employees is a business to business transaction and so not covered by SoGA.
Mythica
29-09-2014
Originally Posted by chrisjr:
“See the last FAQ here

http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/faqs



It could be argued that a manufacturer selling only to it's own employees is a business to business transaction and so not covered by SoGA.”

I don't think it could. Firstly it says buying goods from one business for another business. For example, a car dealership buying tyres from a manufacturer or even say a local tyre dealer. I feel you have misunderstood the business to business part here.

Secondly, in the instance we have here, an employer would still be a consumer even when buying from the company they work for unless it was bought for business use, which it wasn't in this case.
chenks
29-09-2014
Originally Posted by Mythica:
“I don't think it could. Firstly it says buying goods from one business for another business. For example, a car dealership buying tyres from a manufacturer or even say a local tyre dealer. I feel you have misunderstood the business to business part here.

Secondly, in the instance we have here, an employer would still be a consumer even when buying from the company they work for unless it was bought for business use, which it wasn't in this case.”

well you seem to be the SOGA expert here, so let's just leave it at that then.
no matter what anyone tells you, you aren't going to believe it.
Mythica
29-09-2014
Originally Posted by chenks:
“well you seem to be the SOGA expert here, so let's just leave it at that then.
no matter what anyone tells you, you aren't going to believe it.”

Is there any need for that. I'm sorry you couldn't answer my question, but that's not my fault.

I'll believe it when I read it. I don't believe what was just quoted relates to the OP problem.
Nigel Goodwin
29-09-2014
Originally Posted by call100:
“As to the OP's set, I would be interested what was going to cost £800 to fix?”

Almost certainly LCD panel failure, replacing such commonly costs more than a new TV - assuming the panel is even available.
call100
29-09-2014
Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin:
“Almost certainly LCD panel failure, replacing such commonly costs more than a new TV - assuming the panel is even available.”

That's what I was thinking. Although as you say the same panel is unlikely to be available. However, I would assume that any panel of the same size would suffice would it not? Or is it a bit more complicated than that?
Nigel Goodwin
30-09-2014
Originally Posted by call100:
“That's what I was thinking. Although as you say the same panel is unlikely to be available. However, I would assume that any panel of the same size would suffice would it not? Or is it a bit more complicated than that?”

No, all panels are pretty well completely different - 'if' a set has used a number of different panels during production (as happens sometimes), then there will probably be software upgrades for the different panels, different wiring harnesses to connect them, and often different PCB's (particularly Power supply) to feed them.

As a 'best case' scenario, you 'may' have a choice of a couple of different panels, with only a software upgrade required to change it.

But even so, it's unlikely to be cost effective - as a 'rule of thumb' for panel replacement costs take the original price of the set, stick £100 on it - and you won't be too far off (apart from Sharp - where you take the original price of the set, triple it, then stick £100 on it ).
nvingo
30-09-2014
I think the OP needs to consider the price he paid compared to RRP.
If he made a substantial saving (50% or better) then it is apparent no guarantee component was paid, he should write-off the TV and put the money originally saved toward replacement.

However if the saving compared to retail was nearer 20% I think he should be entitled to the same service if he had bought from a retailer with similar discount.
Nigel Goodwin
30-09-2014
Originally Posted by nvingo:
“However if the saving compared to retail was nearer 20% I think he should be entitled to the same service if he had bought from a retailer with similar discount.”

YOU might think so

He's not bought a from a retailer, so he's not entitled to the protection you get from the SOGA which only applies to retailers - even worse he bought it second hand, as he got it from a Samsung employee.
AlanO
30-09-2014
Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin:
“YOU might think so

He's not bought a from a retailer, so he's not entitled to the protection you get from the SOGA which only applies to retailers - even worse he bought it second hand, as he got it from a Samsung employee.”

This is the most relevant part - by his own admission the OP bought the set from Samsung "through an employee" - in other words the sale contract Samsung have is almost certainly with their employee and the OP has effectively bought it from a private individual.

On that basis the SOGA won't apply as it doesn't apply to private sales.

To put it another way - if I bought a new car from a dealer today, sold it to a friend next week and it then broke down week in week out for the next 6 months, my friend wouldn't be able to return to the dealer and try to reject the car - because the contract the dealer had would have been with me, not my friend.

The sale between me and my friend is a private sale.
bobcar
30-09-2014
Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin:
“YOU might think so

He's not bought a from a retailer, so he's not entitled to the protection you get from the SOGA which only applies to retailers - even worse he bought it second hand, as he got it from a Samsung employee.”

Clearly the OP has no major rights as he bought privately however the original purchaser may well have them. The fact they were bought directly from Samsung rather than from a shop is irrelevant however they bought from the company that employed them may make a difference, I suspect it makes none but I certainly would not argue with a consumer lawyer on the point if they say differently. We have not to my knowledge had a consumer lawyer post on this thread yet only people who have some idea of the law but don't know it properly.

It being second hand makes no difference whatsoever other than that expectations have to be reasonable, the key point for OP is private sale.
skinj
30-09-2014
One thing that hasn't been mentioned & is a possibility is that the TV was originally supplied to the employee free of charge, at which point the employee sold the TV on to a friend at a below retail price.
This is quite common in the electrical industry as the manufacturers use free products, earned through service or commission schemes, as a way to boost morale/sales amongst staff. A lot of the employees don't actually need the items they can claim back so actively order & sell them on for cash to supplement their wages. I know that some of the manufacturers do honour the 12 month warranties on the products they supply, don't know if this is through goodwill or requirement. Would have no idea if there was any other responsibilities placed on the manufacturer by law beyond the 12 months at all.
Nigel Goodwin
01-10-2014
Originally Posted by bobcar:
“ The fact they were bought directly from Samsung rather than from a shop is irrelevant.”

Sorry, but you are completely incorrect - no retail sale, no SOGA - in fact buying as trade (which is what the employee would have done) gives you no rights at all.

Unless of course Samsung operate a retail division?, and it was bought via that - but that's almost certainly NOT the case, as employee sales wouldn't be done via any possible retail arm.
bobcar
01-10-2014
Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin:
“Sorry, but you are completely incorrect - no retail sale, no SOGA - in fact buying as trade (which is what the employee would have done) gives you no rights at all.

Unless of course Samsung operate a retail division?, and it was bought via that - but that's almost certainly NOT the case, as employee sales wouldn't be done via any possible retail arm.”

So you have direct experience of this? Unless you do then you are guessing, just because you post with confidence on this doesn't make you correct since we know from past experience you are always confident even when completely wrong.

We don't know that the original purchase was made as trade. I don't know what the truth is in this case and would be happy to accept what someone who knows what they are talking about says on the matter and has some details of the original purchase, I won't accept what you say just be cause you say it.
Nigel Goodwin
01-10-2014
Originally Posted by bobcar:
“So you have direct experience of this? Unless you do then you are guessing, just because you post with confidence on this doesn't make you correct since we know from past experience you are always confident even when completely wrong.

We don't know that the original purchase was made as trade. I don't know what the truth is in this case and would be happy to accept what someone who knows what they are talking about says on the matter and has some details of the original purchase, I won't accept what you say just be cause you say it.”

Believe what you like

But I suggest you talk to Trading Standards if you're having problems understanding what's been discussed here?.

As for 'guessing', I'm probably the only one here who can make educated 'guesses' as I'm in the business, and have direct experience of almost exactly the same situation as that under discussion.
Mythica
01-10-2014
Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin:
“YOU might think so

He's not bought a from a retailer, so he's not entitled to the protection you get from the SOGA which only applies to retailers - even worse he bought it second hand, as he got it from a Samsung employee.”

He might not have but you don't know whether the OPs 'friend' did or didn't. Regardless, I'm still waiting for you to show me why it wouldn't be covered under the SOGA just because an employee has received some discount.
Mythica
01-10-2014
Originally Posted by AlanO:
“This is the most relevant part - by his own admission the OP bought the set from Samsung "through an employee" - in other words the sale contract Samsung have is almost certainly with their employee and the OP has effectively bought it from a private individual.

On that basis the SOGA won't apply as it doesn't apply to private sales.

To put it another way - if I bought a new car from a dealer today, sold it to a friend next week and it then broke down week in week out for the next 6 months, my friend wouldn't be able to return to the dealer and try to reject the car - because the contract the dealer had would have been with me, not my friend.

The sale between me and my friend is a private sale.”

I think we call all assume in this instance that the TV would be given back to the friend to avoid any of this.
Nigel Goodwin
01-10-2014
Originally Posted by Mythica:
“He might not have but you don't know whether the OPs 'friend' did or didn't. Regardless, I'm still waiting for you to show me why it wouldn't be covered under the SOGA just because an employee has received some discount.”

As has been pointed out continuously throughout this thread - SOGA applies to retailers - the employee hasn't 'received some discount', he's bought it from a entirely non-retail source, so SOGA doesn't apply to the sale.
<<
<
2 of 3
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map