In late April, I purchased a Samsung series 6 dual flex oven for £749 from Marks Electrical, but I could not have it installed until July 22 due to kitchen renovations. Unfortunately, during the first two weeks of cooking, I noticed that my meals were consistently undercooked, especially concerning when dealing with frozen foods, raising safety concerns and ruining dinners.

Upon inspecting the oven with thermometers, I found that when set to 200C, the display falsely indicated that the temperature was rising, chiming to signal readiness, yet the actual temperature hovered around 155C, occasionally reaching only 178C or 182C momentarily. After several calls to Samsung, I received vague suggestions like turning the oven on and closing the door, ultimately leading to a visit from an engineer who insisted there was no fault with the oven.

While researching on Samsung’s community forum, I discovered that others had reported similar issues and received the same response. In an attempt to gather more evidence, I compiled additional data related to the oven’s performance. However, the engineers maintained it fell within legal thresholds. When I inquired about the relevant legal documentation, I received mixed explanations. Samsung claimed the inaccurate readings were part of its eco features, stating they could not make another visit to fix a non-existent problem. One must wonder what justifies a new oven’s performance of 180C when set to 200C.

I reached out to Marks Electrical for assistance, but have yet to receive a response. My primary goal is to have the oven repaired under warranty. It has been suggested that warranty disputes might be addressed through insurance channels, prompting a potential contact with the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Advice from Jill

Indeed, issues involving warranty claims, particularly those purchased at the time of sale, are often eligible for review by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). However, warranties that are included in the package may not have the same protections. Your oven came with a standard two-year warranty, which was upgraded to five years after registering online with Samsung. The FOS advised exhausting all other options prior to invoking their services, leading you to email me towards the end of September, following a long summer of poorly cooked meals.

I contacted Marks Electrical since retailers should initially be approached regarding faulty purchases. Marks subsequently engaged with Samsung, which spoke to the technician who previously assessed your oven while you were away. The technician eventually managed to reach the displayed temperature by operating both the top and bottom ovens simultaneously. However, once you retested upon your return and sent that data to technicians, they reiterated that, due to reaching within 10% of the desired temperature, it would still be classified as ‘no fault’.

This situation is simply absurd. Eventually, after a month of back and forth, Samsung determined they could not fix the oven, concluding there was no fault. They offered you the choice of a full refund or a replacement from Marks, including installation costs. You opted for a Miele oven as a substitute.

Samsung commented, “During the pre-heating phase, the oven’s heating element operates at full capacity, potentially leading to overshoots where internal temperatures exceed the set point temporarily. The unit is designed to notify users when the set temperature is approximated, but minor variations in temperature may occur without impacting overall cooking performance. As a courtesy, we offered the option for a refund or replacement appliance.”

My Tag Heuer Watch Issue

A Tag Heuer watch, gifted in September 2021, cost £1,300 and, naturally, I expect an accurate timepiece. Initially, I noticed it was slightly off by a minute, which I attributed to a potential oversight while changing the date. However, by July 2022, it was two minutes slow again. After adjusting it, I kept monitoring the time, but 19 days later, it was an astonishing 62 minutes slow. After consulting with Goldsmiths in Bristol, I was referred to the Tag Heuer store, which sent the watch off for repairs. It was returned correctly set in August.

Yet by July 2023, the watch had again fallen behind by three minutes. Returning to Goldsmiths resulted in yet another service request. By September, the watch was returned once more but was slow again by March 2024. On a holiday, I noticed it could be either two hours fast or 22 hours slow, adding to the confusion.

Upon contacting Goldsmiths for a replacement due to the watch being unfit for purpose, I provided documented evidence of its inconsistent timekeeping. However, both Goldsmiths and Watches of Switzerland rejected my request, insisting the watch needed to be serviced again despite its previous repairs.

Can you assist with this situation?

Jill’s Response

You reached out to me on May 28, and it took until just recently for Watches of Switzerland and Tag Heuer to acknowledge the issues with your watch. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, following one month of ownership, the retailer must be allowed one chance to repair before opting for a replacement or refund for faulty goods. You had already granted them two opportunities.

I contacted Watches of Switzerland to advocate for your rights. They directed you back to the retailer or suggested wound up sending the watch for service again. I pointed out that you had already done this twice to no avail. The watch continued to lose time, wasting additional weeks. After further communication, a client experience adviser from Watches of Switzerland stated they needed to hold on to the watch as it hadn’t been in their possession for at least eleven months to conduct more thorough testing, despite your ongoing complaints for two consecutive years.

After much reluctance, you were persuaded to return the watch to the Cardiff branch on October 3. This week, the company finally acknowledged: “The watch was examined and found to be gaining time. In light of the previous repair and the timepiece’s age, rather than fixing it, we will install a brand-new movement and perform a full refurbishment, prioritizing this service under warranty.”

It’s regrettable that Watches of Switzerland did not initially recognize your clear photographic evidence, which could have saved everyone significant time and effort.

Wage Issues with Sainsbury’s

I am seeking guidance due to a problem with Sainsbury’s involving my son’s wages. He works there after school and his pay for May was mistakenly sent to an old, deactivated Go Henry account. While Go Henry was helpful and provided verification of the funds being returned to Sainsbury’s, the supermarket claims they cannot find his payment and thus refuse to transmit it to his new account. Go Henry has no additional documentation aside from the bank transaction slip. What steps can we take to resolve this issue?

Jill’s Advice

Your son did not inform Sainsbury’s of his bank change immediately, resulting in £574 being sent to his closed account. On October 10, he contacted Sainsbury’s HR, who suggested waiting for the payment to “ping” back to them, as it was recorded as a bank transfer from Go Henry on June 1.

I advised Sainsbury’s to check with their bank regarding the payment’s status in their suspense account, where uncertain transactions are held. The following day, Sainsbury’s confirmed they had reached out to your son to apologize for his experience and verified that the payment would be credited to his correct account that day. They also outlined steps they would implement to prevent recurrence of this issue.

Insights on Inheritance Tax

Three weeks back, a reader inquired if his children would incur inheritance tax (IHT) upon receiving £100,000 if he passed within seven years. With the couple’s joint estate valued around £700,000, and an additional expected £250,000 inheritance from an elderly relative, Claire Roberts from Moore Kingston Smith clarified that the children would not owe IHT, as the couple’s combined nil-rate bands exceed the estate’s value.

Roberts was accurate, yet several readers suggested an alternative solution should the estate’s value rise beyond the IHT thresholds by the time of the relative’s passing. A deed of variation could be crafted on the mother’s will to ensure the £250,000 allocation goes directly to the children.

Roberts clarified, “A deed of variation lets beneficiaries of a deceased’s estate modify its division to reroute inherited funds to other parties or to secure better tax outcomes. All involved beneficiaries should consent to the amendments and must be over 18. If executed within two years following the death and fulfilling legal criteria, these changes are recognized as being made by the deceased regarding IHT and capital gains tax from time of death, although not retrospectively for income tax.” 

Email [email protected] or write to Question of Money, The Sunday Times, 1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GF. Please send copies of original documents only. Letters should be exclusive to The Sunday Times. Advisory suggestions are provided without legal liability, and responses cannot be guaranteed for all inquiries.