- Report: #1013555
Complaint Review: Samsung
Related Reports
Featured Ripoff Reports
Ripoff Reports
Ripoff Report on CBS 19
Ripoff Report on CBS 19 - Global Marketing Alliance
Ripoff Report on ABC 15 - Smart Shopper
Ripoff Report - Girls Gone Wild
Ripoff Report on Fox 11 - Car Repair
Special Features
-
Doctored Reviews is designed to help patients, doctors, and websites understand the problems created by Medical Justice, a company trying to restrict online patient reviews, and to offer some ways that let patients freely talk about their healthcare experiences. -
The government should serve voters, not corporate special interests. Public Citizen works to empower ordinary citizens, reduce the influence of big corporations on government, open the government to public scrutiny, and hold public officials accountable for their misdeeds. -
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE BBB: NOT a government agency as listed in your local phone book. Instead the BBB is a private non-profit / franchise operation. 20/20 exposes the BBB, Hamas Terror Group Gets 'A' Rating - BBB is running a "pay for play" scheme.
| Samsung 85 Challenger Road
Ridgefield, New Jersey United States of America |
|
Samsung Samsung Mobile USA Samsung withheld the truth and lost me as a customer. Ridgefield, New Jersey
*Author of original report: Actually, they did have the photo.
*Consumer Comment: What is this "Truth" Samsung withheld?
Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™
On February 6, 2013, I sent my Samsung Galaxy Note to Samsung's authorized repair facility in Plano, Texas, for a warranty repair.
On February 12, 2013, Samsung reported to me via my online account at its website that my Galaxy Note had been damaged by liquid and was "beyond economic repair." The phone was deemed out-of-warranty.
On February 13, 2013, I called Samsung's customer service line and requested evidence confirming that the phone was damaged by liquid, such as a photograph. The first- and second-level representatives both told me that the written comments by the repair technician were the evidence upon which I would have to rely and that they could not provide me a photograph of the damage. I stated that if I wanted to confirm the damage by disassembling the phone myself that I would void any warranty that was in effect up until I took that action. [continued below]....
On February 12, 2013, Samsung reported to me via my online account at its website that my Galaxy Note had been damaged by liquid and was "beyond economic repair." The phone was deemed out-of-warranty.
On February 13, 2013, I called Samsung's customer service line and requested evidence confirming that the phone was damaged by liquid, such as a photograph. The first- and second-level representatives both told me that the written comments by the repair technician were the evidence upon which I would have to rely and that they could not provide me a photograph of the damage. I stated that if I wanted to confirm the damage by disassembling the phone myself that I would void any warranty that was in effect up until I took that action. [continued below]....
Report Attachments:
.....
I asked the second-level representative for contact information of someone at Samsung's corporate office with whom I could correspond. He provided me the "president's" e-mail (listed at the top of this report). I asked the "president" for independent evidence of the liquid damage, which the "president" provided to me 22 minutes later by reply to my e-mail. My inquiry was in the spirit of Ronald Reagan's "trust-but-verify" principle.
I see the liquid damage in the photo and concur with the repair technician's assessment.
However, Samsung's two separate statements that it would not be possible for me to receive a photo of the damage constitute grounds for my decision to never buy another Samsung product again.
For maintenance of healthy relationships between customers and vendors, I believe that the truth is of utmost importance.
I asked the second-level representative for contact information of someone at Samsung's corporate office with whom I could correspond. He provided me the "president's" e-mail (listed at the top of this report). I asked the "president" for independent evidence of the liquid damage, which the "president" provided to me 22 minutes later by reply to my e-mail. My inquiry was in the spirit of Ronald Reagan's "trust-but-verify" principle.
I see the liquid damage in the photo and concur with the repair technician's assessment.
However, Samsung's two separate statements that it would not be possible for me to receive a photo of the damage constitute grounds for my decision to never buy another Samsung product again.
For maintenance of healthy relationships between customers and vendors, I believe that the truth is of utmost importance.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 02/13/2013 11:07 AM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Samsung/Ridgefield-New-Jersey-07660/Samsung-Samsung-Mobile-USA-Samsung-withheld-the-truth-and-lost-me-as-a-customer-Ridgefiel-1013555. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.
Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.
Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Samsung
Search for additional reports
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:
Search Tips#1 Author of original report
Actually, they did have the photo.
AUTHOR: DaddyOfClaudine - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Actually, Samsung did have the photo, which was taken by the repair technician yesterday when he opened up the phone to diagnose it. The company simply chose to misrepresent the truth about the existence of the photo this morning when I asked the customer service department for evidence of the liquid damage.
The photo was e-mailed to me by the "president" of the company 22 minutes after I e-mailed him or her. The "president" wrote me that the photo "can only be supplied by upper level management as in most cases these pictures are not provided, but are available for extreme circumstances." I interpret that to exemplify Samsung's lack of trust in me to, as Jack Nicholson might say, handle the truth.
Yesterday, per Samsung's update to my web site account, my phone was shipped back to me...although that's not exactly true either: I have confirmed with UPS and Samsung that the label was printed, but that UPS had not yet taken custody of the package as of approximately 11:00 AM Eastern Time today.
The photo was e-mailed to me by the "president" of the company 22 minutes after I e-mailed him or her. The "president" wrote me that the photo "can only be supplied by upper level management as in most cases these pictures are not provided, but are available for extreme circumstances." I interpret that to exemplify Samsung's lack of trust in me to, as Jack Nicholson might say, handle the truth.
Yesterday, per Samsung's update to my web site account, my phone was shipped back to me...although that's not exactly true either: I have confirmed with UPS and Samsung that the label was printed, but that UPS had not yet taken custody of the package as of approximately 11:00 AM Eastern Time today.
Respond to this report!
What's this? #2 Consumer Comment
What is this "Truth" Samsung withheld?
AUTHOR: Ken - (USA)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, February 13, 2013
"Samsung Samsung Mobile USA Samsung withheld the truth "
Looks to me like they told the truth about the damage, but you refused to accept their diagnosis. If you mean they lied about no photo, that's not true, they didn't have one and likely had to disassemble the phone again and get a camera to satisfy your disbelief ot the technicians finding. Moisture damage is absolutely unmistakeable. I was a tech for many years and it is not usually possible to repair and still have any reliability.
No Ripoff here, just stubborn, suspicious you.
No, I DON'T work for Samsung.
Looks to me like they told the truth about the damage, but you refused to accept their diagnosis. If you mean they lied about no photo, that's not true, they didn't have one and likely had to disassemble the phone again and get a camera to satisfy your disbelief ot the technicians finding. Moisture damage is absolutely unmistakeable. I was a tech for many years and it is not usually possible to repair and still have any reliability.
No Ripoff here, just stubborn, suspicious you.
No, I DON'T work for Samsung.
Respond to this report!
What's this? 
