Depreciated refund from Samsung

Bepolite

norrie rugger wrote: »

I've been through the SCC for a ps3 and got a full refund after 3 years use btw.

May I ask, was this in default? e.g. did the retailer turn up or even return any of the paperwork. How did you find enforcement or did they just cough up once you had the judgment?

Doom

Simple. ..ask for same current spec equipment as you had...like for like

A company I used to work for were taken to the SCC over a faulty laptop (15 months old I believe) and lost the case. They were ordered to give a depreciated refund rather than a full refund.

Bepolite

Karsini wrote: »

A company I used to work for were taken to the SCC over a faulty laptop (15 months old I believe) and lost the case. They were ordered to give a depreciated refund rather than a full refund.

That's certainly the normal course of events where the company engages with the process, a full refund is normally given where the company won't engage with the process.

massy086

this is one of the easy,st repairs on a tv going.can you tell me op what the repair guy did.and how long was he at the tv???

The rule applied by the Courts generally is that if you can claim then it is only up to the value of the item. So if a 5 year old car is written off, then you can only claim the value of a 5 year old car of the same make, model and mileage. Haven't heard a Judge using terms like full and depreciated value, it's the value of the item pre "incident". Which of course makes sense. So in this instance if the OP succeeds it can only be for the value of a 5 year old Samsung, nothing more. That's a very general rule, there will be exceptions like if an item gives trouble from day 1. But in this case the OP had use of the tv for years and cannot claim for more than its current value. As for comparative values, in cars there is a book value, for other goods I'd just get on Done Deal or EBay.

Bepolite

massy086 wrote: »

this is one of the easy,st repairs on a tv going.can you tell me op what the repair guy did.and how long was he at the tv???

On this note as some seem to be suggesting it can be repaired, there is nothing to stop you getting the repair done and suing the retailer for the cost of the repair btw.

athtrasna

homer911 wrote: »

Jeepers - 2.5k on a TV depreciated to 800 in 4 years. Celtic tiger eat your heart out!

Yeah...we bought when the technology was new..then it became common and cheap.

norrie rugger

TheDriver wrote: »

think the effort to get anywhere (even though us spectators want to see the result of such protracted efforts) will be futile, the depreciated amount will be worth it. IMO 5 years from a TV is fair enough game in this day and age, tech has usually moved on lots since 5 years ago anyways.......

Why could they not offer a like for like replacement??

username123

norrie rugger wrote: »

Why could they not offer a like for like replacement??

What would you suggest as a like for like replacement for a 5 year old tv? Another 5 year old tv?

They may not have such a thing.

norrie rugger

That's their problem. Toshiba upgraded my old 42" TV when it developed a fault, after 3 years.

A T.V. should reasonably last more than 5 years and a SCC judge would accept a like for like replacement (or a modern equivalent)

dudara

It seems like a "like for like" replacement would be a good option to push for. Ask them to replace the TV with one of similar spec and grade. Those types of TVs should be pretty cheap these days.

username123

dudara wrote: »

It seems like a "like for like" replacement would be a good option to push for. Ask them to replace the TV with one of similar spec and grade. Those types of TVs should be pretty cheap these days.

Given what I bolded - then why not take the money and buy one? Its the same difference is it not?

witnessmenow

username123 wrote: »

Given what I bolded - then why not take the money and buy one? Its the same difference is it not?

Because they don't know what the money is. As he said they could offer him 30% of the price he paid or they could offer him 5%

Its absolutely bonkers that you would need to accept a deal before you know the amount.

stimpson

I rang again today. Spent half an hour on the phone and got the runaround - just following the script.

The best they could do was to get finance dept to write to me with depreciation offer - likely to be after Christmas.

I'm thinking the SCC might be worth a lash just for kicks and giggles. I doubt Samsung are going to send anyone, or might come up with a better offer when they get called to appear.

Bepolite

stimpson wrote: »

I rang again today. Spent half an hour on the phone and got the runaround - just following the script.

The best they could do was to get finance dept to write to me with depreciation offer - likely to be after Christmas.

I'm thinking the SCC might be worth a lash just for kicks and giggles. I doubt Samsung are going to send anyone, or might come up with a better offer when they get called to appear.

The problem you have is you've no course of action against Samsung in contract. I suspect the class action in the US was under tort, or perhaps US consumer law allows the manufacturer to be sued, but Irish law does not. Samsung will simply ignore the summons and rightly so. Approach the retailer.

stimpson

Bepolite wrote: »

The problem you have is you've no course of action against Samsung in contract. I suspect the class action in the US was under tort, or perhaps US consumer law allows the manufacturer to be sued, but Irish law does not. Samsung will simply ignore the summons and rightly so. Approach the retailer.

Normally I would agree with you, but Samsung's repair man left the TV completely dead, so I would expect them to be liable to put the TV back to it's pre "repair" state at the very least.

Bepolite

stimpson wrote: »

Normally I would agree with you, but Samsung's repair man left the TV completely dead, so I would expect them to be liable to put the TV back to it's pre "repair" state at the very least.

Yes you can sue them for damage to the TV but really this is going to be a bit of a waste of time. It isn't a court you're dealing with but a registrar trying to prevent it going to the district court. I'd venture the reg is probably going to look at you a bit funny when you have other avenues.

Your dime of course.

RangeR

Bepolite wrote: »

The problem you have is you've no course of action against Samsung in contract. I suspect the class action in the US was under tort, or perhaps US consumer law allows the manufacturer to be sued, but Irish law does not. Samsung will simply ignore the summons and rightly so. Approach the retailer.

OP has a consumer contract with the retailer, yes.

However, Samsung broke his/her TV. They are 100% liable to put the TV back into the condition it was in before they touched it. That or similar recompense [TV of similar spec and price].

Samsung Broke the TV. Unfortunately, even if you go the SCC route, it won't be this side of 2013. At this point, you may want to get yourself a TV to span the holiday. When Sammy fix your TV, you will have two.

• You are going to have to right a formal letter of complaint to Sammy detailing that they [or their agent] broke your TV to a point where it is totally un-unuseable.
• Give them 10 business days to reply.
• Only then will the SCC entertain a case.

stimpson

RangeR wrote: »

OP has a consumer contract with the retailer, yes.

However, Samsung broke his/her TV. They are 100% liable to put the TV back into the condition it was in before they touched it. That or similar recompense [TV of similar spec and price].

Samsung Broke the TV. Unfortunately, even if you go the SCC route, it won't be this side of 2013. At this point, you may want to get yourself a TV to span the holiday. When Sammy fix your TV, you will have two.

• You are going to have to right a formal letter of complaint to Sammy detailing that they [or their agent] broke your TV to a point where it is totally un-unuseable.
• Give them 10 business days to reply.
• Only then will the SCC entertain a case.

Thanks RangeR. Your direct Debit thread has been providing me with much entertainment over the past few months - I hope I can provide you with some more in return

I actually bought a new telly over the weekend - a Samsung as I thought I was going to get a refund after talking to them last week.

Bepolite

RangeR wrote: »

OP has a consumer contract with the retailer, yes.

However, Samsung broke his/her TV. They are 100% liable to put the TV back into the condition it was in before they touched it.

Correct - has the OP asked for this? Probably the first thing the registrar is going to ask the OP.

RangeR wrote: »

That or similar recompense [TV of similar spec and price].

Wrong - he will be entitled to damages roughly equivalent to 20% of the value of the TV would be my guess. Once the OP has a judgment against Samsung, I have no idea if they have an office in Ireland and I doubt the sheriff does either. Fair enough he might actually be able to do it but this is a ridiculously complicated way in going about it. The only possible posative point to this stragey is the hope that samsung don;t engage with the process, and then sudeely start engaging once a judgement has been obtained.

RangeR wrote: »

Samsung Broke the TV. Unfortunately, even if you go the SCC route, it won't be this side of 2013. At this point, you may want to get yourself a TV to span the holiday. When Sammy fix your TV, you will have two.

Or he could have engaged with the retailer from the start, at this point he would have had to the option to get a third party repair, probably done in a day or so and the recouped the cost from the retailer.

RangeR wrote: »

• You are going to have to right a formal letter of complaint to Sammy detailing that they [or their agent] broke your TV to a point where it is totally un-unuseable.
• Give them 10 business days to reply.
• Only then will the SCC entertain a case.

At which point they will probably send the guy back out to plug a cable back in which will leave it doing what it did. OP will then have to start with the retailer.

OP I know I'm not telling you what you want to hear as you obviously don't want to get on to the retailer for some reason but you are over complicating this by pursuing Samsung. A class action, like the one in the states works becuase a qualified lawyers expenses are defrayed across a number of parties and the claim goes to a court that can award an amount that makes the legal department take notice. That's simply not going to happen in the District Court in Ireland.

Of course do what you feel is best.

athtrasna

stimpson wrote: »

I actually bought a new telly over the weekend - a Samsung as I thought I was going to get a refund after talking to them last week.

So this is why you didn't ask them to replace it?

RangeR

Bepolite wrote: »

Wrong - he will be entitled to damages roughly equivalent to 20% of the value of the TV would be my guess. Once the OP has a judgment against Samsung, I have no idea if they have an office in Ireland and I doubt the sheriff does either. Fair enough he might actually be able to do it but this is a ridiculously complicated way in going about it. The only possible posative point to this stragey is the hope that samsung don;t engage with the process, and then sudeely start engaging once a judgement has been obtained.

How can you say I'm wrong? That's a very strong word of fact.... when you are "guessing" that the op will only get 20% value? And you have "no idea if Sammy have offices in Ireland"... I can tell you that they do, by the way. How can you doubt if the Sherrif doesn't know if they have offices. Of course they will know. They only have to ask the CRO or the Revenue.

At this point, the Consumer Contract irrelevant. It would have been the best route to take, but the op chose not to. It is what it is.

Samsung broke the TV. That's not in dispute. They must put it back to the way it was, at the very least. If they can't put it back to the way it was before the repair guy touched it, they must recompense some other way. Otherwise it's criminal damage.

It's no longer a case of Supply of Goods blah blah. Sammy fooked up and needs to step up.

Bepolite

RangeR wrote: »

How can you say I'm wrong?

Very easily when you're wrong. You're suggesting that the court will order that the TV is put back to the way it was or a replacement is given. Thats simply wrong. They will award damages to the value of a TV that stays on for 30 minutes.

RangeR wrote: »

That's a very strong word of fact.... when you are "guessing" that the op will only get 20% value? And you have "no idea if Sammy have offices in Ireland"... I can tell you that they do, by the way. How can you doubt if the Sherrif doesn't know if they have offices. Of course they will know. They only have to ask the CRO or the Revenue.

Fair point this was poorly put across. What I can tell you is if the sheriff turns up and this is a few employees and some computers and no mobile goods to seize he's not going to enforce by removing semi-worthless office equipment. I know this though helping people with enforcement proceedings.

RangeR wrote: »

At this point, the Consumer Contract irrelevant. It would have been the best route to take, but the op chose not to. It is what it is.

Wrong Again. It doesn't matter that the TV is now more broken than it was before, it's an authorised repair attempt. If the retailer wants the TV back, in the condition it was before samsung 'repaired it' that's their business.

RangeR wrote: »

Samsung broke the TV. That's not in dispute. They must put it back to the way it was, at the very least. If they can't put it back to the way it was before the repair guy touched it, they must recompense some other way.

As I've said this will be damages.

RangeR wrote: »

Otherwise it's criminal damage.

Now you're the one engaging in hyperbole, it absolutely is not for one of a dozen or so reasons. Not least the mens rea requirements.

RangeR wrote: »

Sammy fooked up and needs to step up.

No one is disagreeing with this, the route you are suggesting is premature and overly complicated. If it's what the OP wants hear then thats fine do it. But you're teasing the OP with visions of a new TV when all he is going to get is a refund similar to the one they are offering (probably - given the daft way they are going about telling him about it).

EDIT: all this is getting very heated, it's not my intention to wind you up you're obviously just trying to help out the OP, as am I, I think we just disagree on the best course of action. Fair enough, if we all had all the answers then there wouldn't be a need for multiple posts, there's frequently more than one right answer anyway.

Bepolite

To add one scenario is that Samsung relent before it goes to the registrar and replace it because the OP has gone through with taking them to court. To be fair that is a possibility and shouldn't go unsaid. I think it unlikely given how far this has gone but others may disagree.

P. Breathnach

We are talking here about some notional difference in value between a five year old television that works for half an hour and then stops and one that saves some time by stopping immediately. Haw much value might a mediator or arbitrator put on that? What mediator or arbitrator would give time to considering such a claim?

The best thing for OP to do is push for a fair depreciated value.

goldenhoarde

A couple of years ago I bust a camera I had got as a gift.

It cost 500 and insurance was bought with it.

Ended up getting 300 euro back and was able to buy a camera for 200 euros that was way better than the original. The refund should be able to cover a replacement tv of similar grade and spec. Its par for technology as it moves on so fast!

BTW as they most likely record the calls don't agree to take the refund but that you will consider their offer once they make but that you are not accepting it until you have seen it. Price an equivalent TV and don't take any offer less than that.

if they offer say 200 ask for 400 and you might get ~300

Fey!

Can the retailer actually be taken on about the problem at this stage, as the retailer was bypassed when the customer went directly to Samsung, and the repair guy sent out had nothing to do with the retailer.

If the customer had gone to the retailer and the retailer sent out a repair guy (maybe even the same one Samsung sent out), then the retailer would may still have some liability. However, now some guy the retailer doesn't know from Adam has had the TV open, which in the retailers eyes would void the warranty from them, even if it was within 12 months of purchase.

OP: I had an issue with a Samsung last year which I brought to a local repair shop (O'Connors in Galway). They replaced a board for €90. Your partial refund from Samsung may cover the cost of going a similar route (if you can get them to give you an amount, you can get a quaote from a repair shop and you'll know for sure).

weisses

Bepolite wrote: »

Or he could have engaged with the retailer from the start, at this point he would have had to the option to get a third party repair, probably done in a day or so and the recouped the cost from the retailer.

So the retailer would just pay for repairs for a 5 year old TV ?

Bepolite

weisses wrote: »

So the retailer would just pay for repairs for a 5 year old TV ?

No you'd go through a process first.

Approach retailer, ask for a remedy. Retailer is likely to say no, or they could take too long to do it.

Write to them giving them 10 days to remedy (Optional step but best for paper work purposes) mark it Formal Complaint for the craic as it seems to be convention.

After ten days, get the repair done yourself, then submit the small claims paperwork for a refund of the repair value. It's very unlikely anyone is going to argue with the cost of a repair if it's reasonable. If it's over 5 years but less than 6 you might get it back, if it's over six it's unlikely, under 5 years almost certainly going to get something.