Best Samsung Washing Machines

Samsung WA90CG6745BV Dimensions – Potential buyers should be aware that the width dimension as stated by Samsung does not include the water outlet pipe, which for this machine… Read more

protrudes from the side of the machine, not from the back, as in most other washing machines. If you space is limited width-wise, you will need to add another 8cm or thereabouts, to cater for the outlet hose on the side of the machine. As this is a new machine I cannot give a rating to it yet.

If you buy this product, pray that it never breaks down. Dealing with their customer service has been the most frustrating, exhausting, and stressful… Read more

experience I have ever had with a company. They are completely hiding behind a broken system to avoid giving refunds or replacements under Australian Consumer Law.

Before you buy, please be warned about what they will put you through:

The 6-Minute Hang-Up: Trying to get an update on your case is almost impossible. I called their direct manager line dozens of times, and their phone system literally hangs up on you automatically after exactly 6 minutes on hold. You cannot get through.

Fabricated Lies: When I finally bypassed the queue, the case manager flat-out lied to me. They claimed I was "refusing repairs" and that their technicians had special instructions to fix it. I called the actual local service technician myself, and he confirmed that was completely made up—he had already told the company the machine was a write-off and fundamentally unfixable.

Endless Stalling Tactics: They drag you into a loop of automated text messages saying they are running "preliminary assessments" over and over again, months after you first reported the fault. They also claimed my laundromat receipts were "incorrect" just to delay compensating me for my out-of-pocket costs.

My Advice: Save yourself the mental exhaustion. If you are stuck in this loop right now, stop wasting your time calling them. Go straight to NSW Fair Trading and lodge a formal complaint like I had to do. They do not care about helping you until a government body gets involved.

As of writing this review, it has been almost two months since I first lodged the fault, and I am still completely stranded with absolutely zero remediation or resolution. To make matters worse, my forced out-of-pocket expenses for commercial laundromats now exceed $2,000 just to keep my family clothed while they drag this out.

1. Product & Financial Summary - Vendor: Samsung Electronics Australia - Product: Samsung Washing Machine / Dryer Combo - Item Description: Bespoke AI Laundry Combo AI Home 18.5kg + 10kg - Model Number: WD18DB8995BZSA - Purchase Date: 18/11/2024 - Warranty Status: Fully covered under 2-Year Manufacturer's Warranty - Amount Paid: $3,574.35 - Laundry Expenses (To date: 01/09/2026): $2096.70

2. Comprehensive Chronological Timeline of Dispute 10/07/2026 | Initial Fault Lodgement (Ref #5223367729) Event: Claimant reported an operational failure of the unit under full manufacturer's warranty. Mechanics: Samsung offered a repair window of 13/07–17/07. Claimant advised of overseas travel and requested a 20/07 booking instead. The agent explicitly agreed. Dispute Status: Undisputed (Lodgement/Warranty coverage) | Disputed (Samsung's failure to log the agreed date).

13/07/2026 – 17/07/2026 | Period of No Communication Event: Family away overseas; Samsung failed to send any automated booking confirmations or SMS reminders regarding the pending 20/07 appointment. Dispute Status: Undisputed (Total absence of outbound contact from Samsung).

20/07/2026 | Administrative Failure #1 (New Case Ref #4439208111) Event: Claimant stayed home; a total technician no-show occurred. Mechanics: Claimant called Samsung. The representative confirmed the previous agent completely failed to log the 20/07 repair. A new reference was generated, and an urgent booking was made with the authorised service agent (Sydney Appliance) for 22/07. Dispute Status: Undisputed (Scheduling failure and new reference generation).

22/07/2026 | Repair Attempt #1 Event: The Authorised Field Technician attended premises and replaced internal components. Result: Unsuccessful. The appliance remained entirely inoperable. Dispute Status: Undisputed (Physical attendance and subsequent repair failure).

24/07/2026 | Repair Attempt #2 Event: The Authorised Field Technician attended the premises for a second time and replaced further components. Result: Unsuccessful. The machine failed to operate post-repair. Dispute Status: Undisputed (Physical attendance and second repair failure).

28/07/2026 | Repair Attempt #3 (Joint Visit & Catastrophic Failure) Event: Joint inspection conducted by the Authorised Field Technician and an official Samsung Factory Technician. Mechanics: Technicians replaced parts and verbally assured the Claimant the unit was fixed. Later that evening, the machine suffered an immediate catastrophic failure upon use. Escalation: Claimant called Technical Support, who refused to act without written field reports. Claimant texted the Authorised Field Technician, who replied via SMS stating they would formally request a full machine replacement as all repair paths were exhausted. Dispute Status: Undisputed (Joint visit and immediate evening failure).

29/07/2026 | Case Escalation to Management Event: Claimant followed up with Samsung Technical Support. Mechanics: Frontline staff confirmed receipt of the service agent’s replacement report. File was handed to a dedicated Case Manager with a stated 3-business-day processing window. Dispute Status: Undisputed (Receipt of service agent report by Samsung).

31/07/2026 | Assignment of Case Manager Event: Claimant received an automated text from the Primary Case Manager stating a preliminary assessment was underway. Dispute Status: Undisputed (Assignment of a case manager to the file).

03/08/2026 | Phone System Failures & First Written Notice Event: Claimant attempted to call the Primary Case Manager via the direct line provided (+61 02 7234 4336). Mechanics: The Samsung phone network automatically disconnected/dropped the call after exactly 6 minutes on hold. Claimant bypassed this blockade by emailing bg.voc@samsung.com and wg.voc@samsung.com to formally demand a refund or replacement. Dispute Status: Undisputed (Emails sent) | Disputed (Operational integrity of Samsung's escalation queue).

04/08/2026 – 05/08/2026 | Total Communication Blackout Event: Claimant spent two consecutive days attempting to call the direct number; every single call dropped at the 6-minute mark. Emails remained unanswered. Dispute Status: Disputed (Samsung's failure to maintain accessible statutory dispute channels).

06/08/2026 | Misdirection & Authorised Agent Intervention Event: Claimant bypassed the queue and reached the Primary Case Manager. Mechanics: The Primary Case Manager flatly rejected a refund/replacement, falsely claiming a "Head Samsung Technician" deemed it repairable. The manager promised a specialized Samsung Factory Tech would visit but instead sent an SMS re-booking the third-party service agent. Concession: The manager verbally agreed to review accumulated laundromat receipts for reimbursement. Agent Reaction: Claimant called the service agent. Later, the Service Coordinator called the Claimant back, stating a fourth repair was completely futile, the machine was unfixable, and they would bypass the case manager to submit another formal replacement demand. Dispute Status: Undisputed (Reimbursement offer and service agent call) | CRITICALLY DISPUTED (The manager's misrepresentation regarding sending a factory tech vs. third-party agent).

10/08/2026 – 11/08/2026 | Administrative Failure #2 (No-Show) & Silence Event: Claimant stayed home for the booking; no technician arrived. Claimant waited the next full business day for an update from the Primary Case Manager regarding the replacement report. Absolute silence from Samsung. Dispute Status: Undisputed (Physical technician no-show and Samsung's total silence).

12/08/2026 | The False Claim Fabricated & Exposed Event: Claimant bypassed the case manager by calling Technical Support directly. The tech agent agreed the unit needed replacement and argued with the Primary Case Manager on a split line on Claimant's behalf. The Confrontation: The Primary Case Manager called Claimant back, stating a refund was denied because Claimant was "refusing repairs." Claimant fiercely refuted this, citing the 10/08 no-show. The manager claimed the service agent paperwork stated Claimant refused service and asserted a "Head Technician" sent highly specific new instructions. Fact-Check: Claimant immediately called the service agent. The Authorised Field Technician explicitly confirmed no specific instructions or new parts existed, exposing Samsung’s claims of "special instructions" as a total fabrication to delay a refund. Dispute Status: CRITICALLY DISPUTED (Samsung's false assertion that Claimant refused repairs, directly refuted by their own authorised agent).

14/08/2026 | Formal External Escalation & Executive Notice Event: Driven by Samsung's bad-faith handling, Claimant formally lodged a consumer dispute case with NSW Fair Trading. Mechanics: Concurrently issued a comprehensive written escalation to the Samsung Customer Satisfaction Team detailing ACL breaches. Dispute Status: Undisputed (Lodgement of regulatory complaint and dispatch of executive notice).

19/08/2026 | Systemic Delay Loop & Queue Drops Event: Claimant received an SMS from a Samsung Case Manager stating they were starting a "preliminary assessment." Mechanics: This marks an administrative reset (ignoring that the initial assessment was finished on 31/07). Claimant tried to call for clarification multiple times; all calls were automatically cut off by the network at the 6-minute mark. Dispute Status: Undisputed (SMS received) | Disputed (The validity of restarting an assessment 40 days into a claim).

21/08/2026 | Administrative Obstruction & Re-transmission Event: The Primary Case Manager called the Claimant and claimed the laundry receipts provided were "incorrect." Mechanics: Claimant corrected the manager, directing them to the 14/08 escalation email. To bypass internal system errors, Claimant manually re-sent the files directly to the manager's corporate email. The manager verbally confirmed receipt on the line and promised a resolution "within a couple of days." Dispute Status: Undisputed (Call occurring and email delivery confirmed) | Disputed (Samsung's claim that documentation was incorrect, viewed as a stalling tactic).

25/08/2026 | Broken Promise & Third "Assessment" Text Event: The Primary Case Manager failed to call back within the promised window. Instead, Claimant received an automated text stating a "preliminary assessment has completed" and they are seeking internal info. Mechanics: This is the third time Samsung has claimed to run a preliminary assessment (31/07, 19/08, 25/08). Claimant tried to call the Customer Satisfaction Team multiple times; all calls systematically disconnected at exactly 6 minutes on hold. Dispute Status: CRITICALLY DISPUTED (Samsung's administrative loop used to intentionally block statutory resolution under the ACL).

26/08/2026 – 28/08/2026 | Multi-Day Communication Blockade Event: Claimant made multiple consecutive phone call attempts across both days to break the deadlock. Result: Every single call was held on the line and systematically disconnected by the Samsung network at exactly the 6-minute mark, completely blocking the consumer from reaching a representative. Dispute Status: CRITICALLY DISPUTED (The automated dropping of calls represents an active operational barrier to resolution).

31/08/2026 | Queue Breach & Contradictory Internal Stalling Event: Claimant successfully broke past the 6-minute blockade and spoke directly with a case manager identified as the Secondary Case Manager. Mechanics: This manager stated no remedy was available because the Primary Case Manager was still "seeking further information internally." This directly contradicts the 21/08 confirmation that the manager had everything required. The representative refused to settle the file but promised to instruct the Primary Case Manager to call the Claimant back. Dispute Status: Undisputed (Call with secondary manager occurring) | CRITICALLY DISPUTED (The legitimacy of ongoing delays, violating "reasonable time" remedy clauses under the ACL).

01/09/2026 | Breach of Final Call back Undertaking & Continued Evasion Event: The promised call back was not initiated. Claimant called Customer Satisfaction late in the afternoon and reached an alternative, unnamed Case Manager. Mechanics: The representative stated the Primary Case Manager was entirely "unavailable" and that no remediation options could be advised because "further information is being collected." Outcome: Case remains entirely deadlocked by Samsung's circular administrative loops, despite them holding full technical reports since 28/07 and correct receipts since 21/08. Dispute Status: Undisputed (Call with alternative manager occurring) | CRITICALLY DISPUTED (Samsung's continued assertion that information is missing, constituting a failure to provide a remedy within a reasonable timeframe).

We bought the Samsung WD90T554DBW almost 2 years ago and it’s already been repaired 3 times – pump failure, door leak, and suspension issue. Now it's… Read more

making a loud noise again. Samsung sent a technician, and it’s going in for its 4th repair (drum this time). While the support team has been consistently excellent – professional and helpful – the washer itself is incredibly unreliable. For a premium model, I expected much better quality. Based on our experience, I wouldn’t recommend this washer.

DO NOT BUY! Terrible product! I purchased a Samsung washing machine (Model: WA12A8376GW/SA, Serial No: OJW85DDX900073W) approximately 21 months ago.… Read more

As the product remains within the warranty period, I was totally surprised when it suddenly stopped working three weeks ago and would no longer drain the water.

Following my service request, a technician attended my home on 12 August to inspect the unit. The technician advised that there is a hairpin and attributed the fault to this. However, I observed the inspection and did not see any object removed during the process. It was only after I briefly stepped away to collect a rug to dry water on the floor that the technician produced the hairpin and advised that it was the cause of the problem. Seriously, just when I turned by back!

How can a small object such as a hairpin could allegedly render the machine inoperable. There was nothing when I was reading all the specs of it before buying, that made me aware that such a minor item could cause a complete failure of the appliance. Had this limitation been clear in the specs, I would not have purchased it. In my view, a household washing machine should be designed to reasonably withstand occasional small items inadvertently entering the system. My LG prior to this Samsung 13 years lasted me with no dramas, not one bit. This Samsung 21mos and just as small as an alleged hairpin.

Now, I been going to the landromat for 3 weeks now paying $11/load and Samsung turns around and void my warranty.