Posted 1 day ago
Samsung Jet 75 vacuum cleaner turbo action head broken
Hello. I purchased a Samsung Jet 75 vacuum cleaner from Crampton & Moore last July, one of the deals posted here. Recently the turbo brush head has broken; the internal bit holding the head itself and the pipe which connects to the main vacuum pipe has just given in.
Long story short; Samsung, along with Emsted, the repairing agent, have concluded that this is not under manufacturer's warranty and there has been a case of mis-use. There is no physical damage nor major scratches to the head itself, so I have no idea how they reached such conclusion. In fact, the head unit is in almost perfect condition for 9 months of use.
Previously I have seen many bad reviews of these turbo brush heads with photos showing similar damage (failure) on Samsung's website. For some reason, I can no longer find these - not sure if this is a coincidence.
What options do I have other than a Section 75 claim? Does anyone similar experience with these brush heads failing? TIA
Long story short; Samsung, along with Emsted, the repairing agent, have concluded that this is not under manufacturer's warranty and there has been a case of mis-use. There is no physical damage nor major scratches to the head itself, so I have no idea how they reached such conclusion. In fact, the head unit is in almost perfect condition for 9 months of use.
Previously I have seen many bad reviews of these turbo brush heads with photos showing similar damage (failure) on Samsung's website. For some reason, I can no longer find these - not sure if this is a coincidence.
What options do I have other than a Section 75 claim? Does anyone similar experience with these brush heads failing? TIA
Community Updates
9 Comments
sorted byIf wanting to definitively stitch-up both
Scamdungthe retailer and the credit provider you need to obtain your own credible professional report indicating unsatisfactory durability / premature failure.If the report supports that concept the report cost will be recoverable from the evasive & arrogant retailer / credit provider and you will be able to enforce pro-rata repair / replacement costs. (edited)
Based on what I've read for other similar issues, I feel it's like fighting a losing battle against Samsung already. As much as I believe in the consumer rights of having an item that is "of satisfactory quality" and "fit for purpose", I feel it is almost impossible for a third party (or whoever decides in a Section 75 claim) to see my side of the case without any firm evidence. From the photos, it's visible to me the plastic on the hinge point failed due to the (lack of) thickness and how heavy the head is. But this is my feeling and tangible to me, where as someone remote reading Samsung's output will no have the same view.
Check the other non-UK Samdung regions.
Example below from ie region pulling info from ch region:
samsung.com/ie/…90/
Find more & could possibly be used as contributory ammo for suggestion of poor design verging manu defect.
A credible report may be something as simple as a repair quotation authored by an entity able to show indisputable extended expertise/experience in their field related to the busted product.
Samdung repair support makes a big deal about "Which? Trusted Traders" accreditation at
samsung.com/uk/…es/
so it may be prudent to consider comparable Trusted Trader orgs offering "domestic appliance repair" via the Which TT search at
trustedtraders.which.co.uk/
Or your local repair tech person / organisation that ideally ticks the majority of these boxes:
operates from formal business premises
has a landline tel number
can cite professional & vocational qualifications
cites membership of industry association(s)
openly states a reasonable duration of trading
provides quotations / repair documents via formal letterheaded medium that includes the preceding items,
and obvsly one that is flexible enough to appreciate the necessity to include specific phrasing in its report related to the bustedness issue, such as similar to
Consider that your author is competing in credibility to an
so it's not a difficult bar to beat
Likely cost for a visual inspection of busted vac part plus throwing text onto paper / into message should be no more than 30mins labour, or whatever min-charge policy is operated by the organisation.
Presumably cheaper if you go to the org rather than the org come to you,
although some orgs may be comfortable authoring from images / vid.
Shouldn't be too difficult to obtain an indication of cost prior to committing to an assessment,
then C&M can be forewarned of this cost prior to proceeding.
Sometimes just making the trader aware of this cost can encourage all but the most arrogant of traders decide to assist without report.
Assuming report finds in your favour and C&M accepts say 5 yrs reasonable expected product longevity,
the resolution pro-rata offer should be circa minimum 85% of resolution cost,
plus report cost.