Jump to content


Samsung hoover burnt my carpets!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4001 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Basically, a couple of months ago I was running the hoover through the house. When I had finished, it became apparent that there was a burn mark on my carpet. I then retraced my steps as I went back downstairs and noticed that there were marks pretty much in every room that I had hoovered!

 

I looked at the hoover more closely, as in all places where there was a burn mark, it seemed that it happened when the hoover was stationary, where I had got the hose out to do the corners, cobwebs etc. I noticed that the hoover had developed a fault where the brush roller still spun when the hoover was placed in the upright position. The brush roller is supposed to stop when the hoover is upright obviously to avoid such an incident as a burnt carpet.

 

Now, these are fairly small as such, being about an inch to 2 inches squared per mark. However, there are several of these marks in various locations throughout the house. So I contacted Samsung, who sent me a bag (no really, a clear plastic bag!) to post the hoover off to them so that they could investigate the fault and deal with my problems. They have now had my hoover for 5 weeks and I still hadn't got any response, despite 2 phone calls.

 

I finally got a letter today, basically telling me that they are awaiting their engineers report before they will assess the claim further. 5 weeks to tell me that no brainer! On top of that, they are asking for information from me, most of which I have already provided. However, there is one item that they require which is of some concern to me. They want the original invoice for the carpets, which i don't have! The carpets were fitted 6 years ago, so I no longer have the original invoice, nor is the company that fitted the carpets in business any more. They state in the letter that they require all this information before they will consider the case any further.

 

So what I am asking (eventually!), is this really a legal requirement? Can I not just get a few pro rata quotes to show this is a such and such carpet and it will cost X pounds to replace/repair or whatever. It isn't as if I am asking for a refund because I bought a product by mistake, I am asking Samsung to replace/repair carpets that their defective hoover burnt. If anyone with any legal knowledge can get back to me ASAP I would really appreciate it.

 

I will update this post if anything happens in the meantime.

 

P.S. If I request a copy of the engineers report, do they have to provide it or would it be a case of they are not obliged to do so?

 

Kind regards,

Techtalkonline.

Lloyds: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Preliminary Sent

Stayed- Awaiting further developments with new test cases!

Mint C/Card: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Preliminary Sent

Stayed - Awaiting further developments with new test cases!

ENDEAVOUR PPI: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Gone pear shaped! See HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a legal requirement, but not an unreasonable request to support a claim for replacement. Your insurer would do the same. IUn the absence of the original invoice, I'd supply a quotation for replacement, as it is this that is more relevant to the issue at hand.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a legal requirement, but not an unreasonable request to support a claim for replacement. Your insurer would do the same. IUn the absence of the original invoice, I'd supply a quotation for replacement, as it is this that is more relevant to the issue at hand.

 

Hi Buzby,

 

Many thanks for the reply, it was a great help. I understand that it was a reasonable request now as if I did indeed have the original receipt it would help the claim proceed at a smoother pace I guess. The suggestion to provide a quotation is what I was hoping would be all that was needed if the original receipt was not available so I will get on with that and keep my fingers crossed!

 

Thank you again,

Techtalkonline.

Lloyds: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Preliminary Sent

Stayed- Awaiting further developments with new test cases!

Mint C/Card: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Preliminary Sent

Stayed - Awaiting further developments with new test cases!

ENDEAVOUR PPI: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Gone pear shaped! See HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your insurer wouldn't necessarilydemand a receipt. I used to work for an insurer and we would consider other proof of the quality and value of the carpets, such as an independant inspection, photos and quotes. Not everyone keeps receipts for so long and in many cases people haven't bought the carpet themselves anyway if they moved in after it was fitted. As Buzby says, it would help but it's not the only thing you can use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Yeah, I could claim on my insurance as I am covered by all accounts, but obviously I don't want to do that if possible. I would rather Samsung coughed up as it was their hoover that did the damage. Still, it's reassuring to have the insurance as backup if Samsung don't play ball.

 

Kind regards,

Techtalkonline.

Lloyds: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Preliminary Sent

Stayed- Awaiting further developments with new test cases!

Mint C/Card: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Preliminary Sent

Stayed - Awaiting further developments with new test cases!

ENDEAVOUR PPI: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Gone pear shaped! See HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

It shouldn't come to that and insurance would probably question why you hadn't been paid by samsung, I just don't think you need worry about the receipt situation. The company (whether insurance or samsung) will just need some evidence that they aren't replacing cheap carpets with expensive ones and a receipt isn't the only way. I really don't think you'll have any problem with this claim. All the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you got an old bank statement showing the transaction for the carpets?

 

If the carpets are 6 years old, I presume they might try going for a partial refund, suggesting you've already had 6 years of use...

 

I hadn't thought about checking statements, I am sure I might just have them going back that far? Worth a look I guess. I have already asked 2 carpet companies to come and give a quotation, so I will see if Samsung accept that first before I go delving into the deep dark attic!

 

I will post again if I hear anything.

 

Regards,

Techtalkonline.

Lloyds: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Preliminary Sent

Stayed- Awaiting further developments with new test cases!

Mint C/Card: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Preliminary Sent

Stayed - Awaiting further developments with new test cases!

ENDEAVOUR PPI: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Gone pear shaped! See HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the law here but I wouldn't accept any argument that you've had 6 years of use without a fight. After all you weren't planning to replace them yet and now you have to and they've inflicted a cost on you that is unacceptable. The replacement cost is your loss thanks to their negligence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the law here but I wouldn't accept any argument that you've had 6 years of use without a fight.

 

The legal position is that an innocent party is put back into the position they were in prior to the loss/damage. So if the carpet is 6 years old the manufacturers of the hoover are not responsible for the full cost of new carpets (that is betterment), however as a gesture of goodwill they might meet the full cost.

 

If you have a new for old household contents insurance I'd claim through that and let them recover it from the manufacturers, that way you would get a new carpet.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it looks like I will have no alternative but to claim from my house insurance as Samsung have just done the dirty on me!

 

Yesterday afternoon, the Hoover arrived back from Samsung's repair company, Visual FX Service Centre Ltd. The engineers report was attached which stated:

 

"No fault found. The filters and brushes are clear of blockages. Unit returned to customer as requested."

 

This morning I connected all of the attachments, hoses etc back onto the Hoover and gave it a test run on my lounge carpet. Nothing appeared different initially, that is until I had finished the trial run and went to put the Hoover back into the upright popsition. Immediately, I said to my wife, that's different. The Hoover rose up at the front by about an inch, which it had never done before. I looked underneath the hoover as it was upright and still running and sure enough, the brushes are now completely clear of the carpet.

 

So not only did Visual FX obviously find a fault, they have repaired it and now have the nerve to say in their engineers report that no fault was found! I have been stitched up big time.

 

But it gets worse, because a little while later I get a letter from Samsung themselves. In it they state that the engineer found no fault, but as a gesture of goodwill, I can either take the Hoover back to the retailer (Argos) or send it back to them for a refund of the original purchase. They then enclose an acceptance form which states:

 

"I hereby agree to accept the following offer. I understand that this offer is made as a gesture of goodwill without prejudice and as full and final settlement of my claim."

 

Do you know what hurts even more than all of that? The simple fact that they know there is probably NOTHING I can do about it. How the hell can I prove that this hoover was faulty and had burnt my carpet before Samsung got their greasy palms on it? I doubt an independant engineer would be able to prove it now either. I am so angry because I feel so cheated.

 

I can go to the insurance company, but the thought of Samsung getting away with this just leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

 

Avoid Samsung like the plague,

Techtalkonline.

Lloyds: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Preliminary Sent

Stayed- Awaiting further developments with new test cases!

Mint C/Card: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Preliminary Sent

Stayed - Awaiting further developments with new test cases!

ENDEAVOUR PPI: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Gone pear shaped! See HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to defend Samsung but it could be that to examine/inspect your machine they took it apart or accessed it by removing the rollers/brushes and then on rebuild they were fitted higher up without the engineer realising they were previously lower, and that was causing the problem.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to defend Samsung but it could be that to examine/inspect your machine they took it apart or accessed it by removing the rollers/brushes and then on rebuild they were fitted higher up without the engineer realising they were previously lower, and that was causing the problem.

 

Mossy

 

Hi,

 

Now that I have calmed down a little I actually agree with this, it is certainly possible that that did indeed happen. The problem remains the same though, proving that a fault was indeed existant before Samsung got their hands on it.

 

It's nice to see completely neutral replies as well as any arguments on both sides, makes these forums on the whole a great place to get the help and assistance we need.

 

Kind regards,

Techtalkonline.

Lloyds: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Preliminary Sent

Stayed- Awaiting further developments with new test cases!

Mint C/Card: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Preliminary Sent

Stayed - Awaiting further developments with new test cases!

ENDEAVOUR PPI: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Gone pear shaped! See HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK,

 

Well, things are not looking good as they have just taken a turn for the worse!

 

I phoned my insurance company (Legal & General) to file a claim after telling them all about the episode with my Samsung Hoover. Very nice lady started the ball rolling by passing the details on to a claims investigator. This morning I get a call back from them asking how many rooms are damaged and they asked for a little bit more information about the whole episode with Samsung etc.

 

This afternoon i get another call, only this time to tell me that as it was 6 carpets affected, they consider it to be 6 seperate claims so will cost me 6x the voluntary excess fees, that's £600 in total! I was gobsmacked to say the least.

 

Is this standard practice? I could do with someone who has the knowledge let me know where I stand with this.

 

Regards,

CogZog.

Lloyds: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Preliminary Sent

Stayed- Awaiting further developments with new test cases!

Mint C/Card: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Preliminary Sent

Stayed - Awaiting further developments with new test cases!

ENDEAVOUR PPI: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Gone pear shaped! See HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is standard practice, but it is a con. You didn't take the policy out on a per-room basis so their response is perverse. What would be next? A burst water tank in the loft only paying for each room's ceiling to be repaired as a separate claim?

 

Call their bluff. Explain that the claim concerns a single cause, and if they cannot see this, you'll complain directly and take this dispute to the Ombudsman

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to say this but it is not a con and there were indeed 6 seperate incidents, so 6 seperate excesses will apply.

 

An incident is something that occurs seperately, so if you were in room 1 and were hoovering and then let the hoover stand upright and it burnt your carpet that is one incident, when you move to room 2 and do the same thing there that is another incident. It is because there is no direct link or correlation between the two incidents that they will be classed as seperate.

 

Buzby's example doesn't apply because the single incident in that example was the burst water tank and therefore any room damaged by it would be covered under one claim, however in your case each carpet was damaged independently, ie you stood the hoover up x amount of times and it did x amount of times worth of damage.

 

If (for example) you had stood the hoover up once and it had started a fire which spread to 5 other rooms then you would only have had 1 excess to pay, hope that makes it clearer to understand.

 

They are not bluffing, nor are they conning you.

 

Mossy

Edited by Mossycat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Afraid not. Providing the 'incident' happened during the same period of carpet cleaning, then it is indeed one 'incident'. If it happened over several days, Room 1 Mon, Room 2 Tuesday etc, then I would agree with this interpretation as it would be unreasonable to continue to use the device to clean carpets whilst it was progressively ruining them.

 

On a 'cleaning day', with the device plugged in and roaming from room to room (possibly never requiring to be unplugged) then it was a single incident. Add to this some homes have the same carpet throuought, using the 'room' as a delineator remains perverse for the reasons already stated.

 

As for challennging them - what is there to lose?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afraid not. Providing the 'incident' happened during the same period of carpet cleaning, then it is indeed one 'incident'. If it happened over several days, Room 1 Mon, Room 2 Tuesday etc, then I would agree with this interpretation as it would be unreasonable to continue to use the device to clean carpets whilst it was progressively ruining them.

 

On a 'cleaning day', with the device plugged in and roaming from room to room (possibly never requiring to be unplugged) then it was a single incident. Add to this some homes have the same carpet throuought, using the 'room' as a delineator remains perverse for the reasons already stated.

 

As for challennging them - what is there to lose?

 

The salient point is that when the hoover was left standing it only damaged one section of one carpet in one room, that was the only damage caused in that one single incident.

 

The policyholder then carried on with the cleaning and moved on to another room, possibly unplugging the hoover, possibly not (depending on length of the cable), but the fact remains that the only damage done when the hoover was left standing was to one carpet. Had the policyholder stopped cleaning at that point then the only damage would have been to one carpet.

 

The confusion here maybe because the insurers have explained it 'per room' or the OP has understood it to mean that. It wouldn't matter if it was all done in one big room, the fact remains that it was 6 seperate incidents, at 6 seperate times of the day (it doesn't matter if the timescales are minutes or hours or days, the fact is they happened at different times) therefore an excess will apply to each one.

 

There is no harm at all in challenging this, but don't build the OP's hopes up by telling them that the FOS will somehow make the insurers pay up, the fact is they won't.

 

Let me try explaining it like this, you throw a party and a few guests are smokers, at 6 different points in the room 6 people drop or stub out cigarettes into the carpet, that is 6 different incidents.

 

However, if we now say that in another room at the same party a guest drops a cigarette onto the sofa (burns it) then it falls to the floor (burns the carpet) and someone tries to stub it out and it burns the carpet in two more places then that is one incident (because they were all linked). BUT IF a guest had then picked up the cigarette and used it (ie had a puff) then put it down on the carpet it would be two incidents. (It's called a consequential chain of events)

 

Mossy

Edited by Mossycat
Link to post
Share on other sites

but don't build the OP's hopes up by telling them that the FOS will somehow make the insurers pay up, the fact is they won't.

 

Really? You must tell my mother, who got Age Concern to pay out in similar circumstances, rendering a FOS referral unnecessary. 4 'incidents' and 4 excess were reduced (or cnsolidatd) into a single fee of £50.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? You must tell my mother, who got Age Concern to pay out in similar circumstances, rendering a FOS referral unnecessary. 4 'incidents' and 4 excess were reduced (or cnsolidatd) into a single fee of £50.

 

Similar is NOT the same as identical.

 

It could well be that your mothers insurers made a payment for any number or reasons (goodwill etc), and not because it was not seperate incidents.

 

I don't know the circumstances of your mothers claim, but I do know the OP's (as described).

 

I also note that once again you have given advice that is factually incorrect and then changed your argument (originally you were saying that the argument of per room was perverse and now you are saying it is acceptable if it occurred over different days). The fact is you have very little idea about insurance yet you feel qualified to give advice (bad advice) about it.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. Argue with yourself if you must - donl' inflict it on others. The argument remains both logical and factual. I'n not aware of the OP stating the adverse effects were cumulative over days, but it makes sense to highlight this (as you raised it).

 

So by all means believe what you like, it confirms to be you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Indeed, even when I point out a similar situation it isn't 'similar' enough for your liking.

 

What a shame!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this standard practice? I could do with someone who has the knowledge let me know where I stand with this.

 

 

The OP asked for someone who has knowledge of this to let them know where they stand on this. I'm speaking with over 25 years experience of claims handling, what's your experience exactly?

 

Oh dear. Argue with yourself if you must - donl' inflict it on others. The argument remains both logical and factual. I'n not aware of the OP stating the adverse effects were cumulative over days, but it makes sense to highlight this (as you raised it).

 

 

You are (once again) talking complete bollocks, your argument is not logical and certainly not factual. You are suggesting that any damage done on a 'cleaning day' is one incident, well why not make it a 'cleaning week' or a 'cleaning month' then?

 

The fact is that if damage is not caused at the same time, then it is a seperate incident unless you can show that it was a chain of consequential events, in which case the time intervals are not relevent.

 

In the OP's case they hoovered, did some damage to a carpet, hoovered some more and did some more damage. The damage caused by each seperate standing of the hoover was not consequential upon an earlier event therefore they are seperate.

 

You are trying to suggest that if the damage had been caused on different days then it would be seperate incidents, ok lets run with that then. The OP hoovers in room 1 on day 1 and causes damage, then on day 2 hoovers in room 2 and causes more damage, and again on days 3 4 5 and 6. Each day a different room, each day a different carpet is damaged.

 

Why is that different to hoovering all 6 rooms in the same day and causing damage at 6 different places at 6 different times then?

 

You have no argument!

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear,

 

not very helpful to me all the bickering as I now have 2 conflicting responses and I have no idea where I stand on this. Is it even worth contacting the fos since they have been practically useless according to reports published on this forum. I feel so shafted here!

 

To make matters worse, we are in private rented accomodation and all of the carpets throughout are the same. They will want the carpets replaced at a cost to myself and I am out of work due to having to care for my partner who has an undiagnosed neurological disorder. Basically, we are skint.

 

The hoover was made by Samsung which burnt my carpet. They looked at the hoover, sent it back fixed and denied there was a fault. Legal & General are saying each burn is a seperate incident so I can't afford to go down that route as £600 is way out of my reach.

 

The hoover definately caused the marks and it appears that it is the last 4 sets of bristles as these line up witht he scorch marks in the carpet. But how could I prove it was that hoover? It's a pity that it isn't possible to prove it like a fingerprint test. What I mean is similar to a typewriter or gun barrel on a bullet etc.

 

Just to clarify how it all happened. As I hoovered from one room to the next, whenever I saw dust on skirting or cobwebs on the ceiling etc. I stood the hoover upright to use the extending hose. Normally I would do this before hoovering the carpet, but this was just a failrly quick going over on this occasion. Because the hoover was upright, I didn't notice it was causing these marks. As I finished each section or room, I just picked up the hoover and continued in the next room etc until I had finished. It was only when I was going back downstairs past where I had been, I saw the marks on the carpets. At first I didn't even realise what the marks were as it looked like a brown mud print of a trainer or similar, at least that was my first impression. Obviously, when I felt the marks which were hard like melted plastic, it was then obvious what had happened.

 

I am speaking with L&G tomorrow apparently, so I will update if there are any further developments.

 

Kind regards,

Techtalkonline.

Lloyds: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Preliminary Sent

Stayed- Awaiting further developments with new test cases!

Mint C/Card: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Preliminary Sent

Stayed - Awaiting further developments with new test cases!

ENDEAVOUR PPI: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Gone pear shaped! See HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if what I said wasn't what you wanted to hear, but I was answering your question from an insurers point of view. They are correct that an excess will apply to each carpet burn because they were seperate incidents, whilst I appreciate they were all caused in the same stint of hoovering, there is no direct link between the damages, ie the damage caused in the first occurence did not then cause any further damage, so each incident is independent of each other and an excess will apply to each.

 

By all means argue it out with your insurer and certainly threaten the FOS as well as withdrawing any future business, but if they stick to their guns you don't have an argument. The best you can hope for is a change of heart or a goodwill gesture from them (and I really hope you get one).

 

Best of luck

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I contacted my home insurers, Legal & General, about claiming for the damage to the carpets a second time and they are adament that it is indeed seperate claims. Anyway, a helpful lady did offer a (possible?) solution. She said that the landlord is responsible for the carpets and that because they are a part of the property, in the sense that I can't take them with me when I move, I am not liable to have them replaced for the damage. The landlord will have insurance of their own for these eventualities and so she advised me to check with my contract first or even contact the landlord or letting agents direct.

 

Is this feasable? The reason I ask is because I have checked the contract and can see no mention of carpet repsonsibility anywhere. Therefore, it seems that I am still responsible and my insurers asked for proof if this is the case and I wished to continue my claim.

 

On a second point, I think I have found a more agreeable solution to the multiple claims = multiple voluntary excess payments. The lounge carpet is very large as it is one complete piece through to the dining area. If I make just the one claim on the lounge and If the whole carpet is replaced, I could then use the good part of the lounge carpet to replace the other carpets as these are fairly small. I have measured what I would need and think I can just about make it work. I am guessing that provided these are cut and fitted properly, it is a workable solution. :)

 

Oh and as for Samsung, on a completely different issue, I sent them my Omnia II mobile phone back for repair 3 weeks ago now. After 2 weeks, I hadn't got it back so I called them. Initially they denied having received the phone but as luck would have it I actually posted the phone recorded delivery, instead of using the free post offer that Samsung give, which is standard 1st Class post! So after I gave them the details and a signature as proof of delivery, they soon changed their tune and admitted that they had indeed lost it! Here we go again. :evil:

Lloyds: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Preliminary Sent

Stayed- Awaiting further developments with new test cases!

Mint C/Card: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Preliminary Sent

Stayed - Awaiting further developments with new test cases!

ENDEAVOUR PPI: Started

SAR Sent & Received

Gone pear shaped! See HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...