Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Why a Samsung/Dixons warrantymay be worthless


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2906 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

 

Having recently had a warranty voided by Samsung and Dixons PLC, after one the 2 Netbooks we purchased for my grandchildren was severely damaged either in transit to Samsung's repair centre, or by their UK contracted repairers (Digicare) I thought I ought to let other potential Dixons Group customers know of the risks they may be running when they purchase a Samsung product - the following risks may also apply to other major retailers, such as Tesco and Asda, who have told me they use the same service in the same way.

 

 

This is the information I sent to the Office of Fair Trading for investigation.

 

 

Letter to the OFT

 

 

Dear Sirs,

I am well aware that you do not investigate individual complaints against traders and therefore it does not ask you to investigate an individual single issue but a potentially widespread consumer issue that may be tantamount to fraud, within a major sector of the UK consumer (home electronics) market.

Though the potential fraud may extend to several major retailers this request for investigation specifically concerns Samsung and its UK trading partner Dixons Group who together, with the potential collusion of Samsung’s contracted Couriers and their UK contracted repairers Digicare may have constructed a mechanism whereby they may be easily able to ‘ring fence’ themselves against their Warranty obligations, by effectively creating a barrier between consumers and their statutory rights under the 1979 Sale Of Goods Act (SOGA).

 

The following is the so simple as to be almost elegant method they may be widely using to deprive what the Internet indicates may be a great many consumers of equitable treatment under SOGA 1979.

 

1) When a Samsung product fails to perform you are required to take it into the retailer under its Warranty.

 

2) When the fault is confirmed, instead of taking receipt of the goods for repair and receipting you for their condition, The Dixons’ Group retailer issues you with Samsung telephone number, tells you that you have to contact Samsung direct and then sends you home with the product.

 

3) When the consumer contacts Samsung and after they have gone through some basic checks to confirm the product is faulty they arrange for a Courier to pick up the product, from the consumer’s home address.

 

4) The courier picks up the product, without providing the consumer with a receipt stating the overall condition of the product and takes it to another party, in the form of Samsung’s UK contracted repairers (Digicare).

 

5) Because the consumer is neither warned of the potential need for, or granted any receipted evidence concerning the fault by the Courier the ‘repairers (Digicare) are then in a ‘bulletproof’ position to claim the fault is due to ‘misuse’ by the consumer, thereby voiding the Warranty.

 

6) Because the consumer is neither warned of the potential need for, or granted any receipted evidence concerning the condition of the product, by Dixons Group or the Courier, the ‘repairers (Digicare) are then in a ‘bulletproof’ position to claim any damage to the product that may be or has been caused by either the Courier during transit or by Digicare in their premises was caused by the consumer prior to collection, thereby voiding the Warranty

 

7) When the consumer quite rightly attempts to seek a lawful solution Samsung will support the Courier’s and Digicare’s claims, and Dixons’ will support Samsung’s support of the Couriers and Digicare’s claims, thereby voiding the consumer’s Warranty.

 

8) At this point, in the case of a faulty product, the consumer’s only options are either to pay for the repair or to have the faulty goods returned without repair, for a fee of £26.00

 

9) In the case of a product that may have been extensively damaged during transit or repair the consumer’s only options are to either pay for a repair, that may amount to more than the initial cost of the product, or have the damaged goods returned for a fee of £26.00

 

10)‘Trading Standards’ will advise you that Dixons (PC World) are responsible for the damage under The Sale Of Goods Act 1979 (SOGA).

 

11)After lengthy delays Dixons (PC World will inform you that Samsung has deemed your Warranty void, on the basis that it has to believe its repairers claim that either you misused the product, or the item was found to be damaged on receipt and, as such, their Warranty is void.

 

12) If you pursue the matter the Courier, Digicare, Samsung and Dixons Group will continue to support each other to the point where ‘Trading Standards’ will eventually tell you that due to the way the item was conveyed to Digicare (from the consumer’s home) the damage has become a civil issue and you will have to determine liability via a Judge, through the small claims court.

 

13) This potential collusion between the retailer (Dixons Group), the Couriers, Digicare and Samsung makes it virtually impossible to ‘pin down’ the responsible party and even if a small claims court judgement rules in your favour, it may be virtually impossible to collect the debt if they decline to pay.

 

14) If the item cost less than £600.00 the consumer cannot even upgrade their legal action to the high court, which does have the power to enforce collection of damages, through its court appointed officer.

 

Thus you can very easily see the Warranty process has been so obfuscated by the involved parties as to turn it into a lottery.

I would therefore reiterate my request that the OFT investigate the issue, with a view to compelling the forenamed parties to create and engage in a Warranty process that is manifestly transparent, equitable to all parties and free from all possibility of unfair manipulation

 

Yours faithfully etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...