30 day broken phone thing

Tim Robbins

Hi,
Bought mobile phone. Broke. Brough back on day 32. Meant the phone was sent off for repair as it was after 30 days. Shop took 2.5 weeks to fix it.

Broken again. The recharge on it isn't working.

As far as I remember there is some law that means that if it breaks twice, I can get my money back. Can anyone advise?

Thanks.

Tom Dunne

Moved from Mobiles/PDA.

I think it's more suited to this forum.

Let me know if there are any issues with this.

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

Tim Robbins

Captain Morgan wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

O2. I asked could I see the three break rule policy in writing. They wouldn't provide it.

foggy_lad

Tim Robbins wrote: »

O2. I asked could I see the three break rule policy in writing. They wouldn't provide it.

consumer law is what you should be going by here not o2 or any phone companies policies, the phone has been repaired once so you are reasonably entitled to ask for a new replacement or a refund!

also they will not have any three break rule in writing as it would seek to deprive customers of their statutory rights the same as signs stating No Refunds in shops!

Sam Vimes

They make no secret of the 3 repair rule so I would be very surprised if you couldn't get it written down somewhere, unless every phone shop in the country is run by cartoonish super villains. That post belongs in the conspiracy theories forum foggy

Tim Robbins

foggy_lad wrote: »

consumer law is what you should be going by here not o2 or any phone companies policies, the phone has been repaired once so you are reasonably entitled to ask for a new replacement or a refund!

I asked and I was refused.
I told him I didn't think they were being reasonable as it had come to the stage, I wished I never bought it and was considering going to the small claims court.

He still insisted I couldn't get my money back or exchange.

Sam Vimes

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I asked and I was refused.
I told him I didn't think they were being reasonable as it had come to the stage, I wished I never bought it and was considering going to the small claims court.

He still insisted I couldn't get my money back or exchange.

That's what they have to say because they don't have the power to overrule the policy. You were probably the fifth person that morning complaining about it. They may not have the policy written down but that doesn't translate to a deliberate attempt to fool customers as foggy is suggesting. They just don't have it written down

Why do you need it written down? I can confirm that it definitely is their policy and they won't deny it.

The policy is crap but unfortunately you have to go to greater lengths, eg small claims court to get around it. If the store gives you a replacement when they're not allowed then they take the hit, not the people who actually made the policy and make them enforce it. Call head office and see if you can get any satisfaction from them but remember that you're far from the first person in this situation

foggy_lad

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's what they have to say because they don't have the power to overrule the policy. You were probably the fifth person that morning complaining about it. They may not have the policy written down but that doesn't translate to a deliberate attempt to fool customers as foggy is suggesting. They just don't have it written down

Why do you need it written down? I can confirm that it definitely is their policy and they won't deny it.

The policy is crap but unfortunately you have to go to greater lengths, eg small claims court to get around it. If the store gives you a replacement when they're not allowed then they take the hit, not the people who actually made the policy and make them enforce it. Call head office and see if you can get any satisfaction from them but remember that you're far from the first person in this situation

if they put a sign up stating no refunds there would be riots yet they can deny statutory rights this way and some people fall for it as it is their "policy" so it must be right as it sounds official??

I asked and I was refused.
I told him I didn't think they were being reasonable as it had come to the stage, I wished I never bought it and was considering going to the small claims court.

the only thing to do is start small claims cort proceedings. let a court decide what is reasonable! but you could try writing a letter to the store first giving them a final opportunity to remedy the issue as this will only benefit and show you as reasonable when it comes to court

Musha

Why do we have this hassle with electronic goods, If you bought a suit for a wedding and tried it on 1 mth later and found it to have a rip somewhere, Would you expect to return it and not get a replacement or would you be happy for it to be sent away for 2 1/2 weeks to be repaired only to come back with a rip in a different place only to be sent off again?

jor el

Was the original problem the same as the current one? If it was, then that repair should be permanent. If this is a different problem, then the original repair worked, and you may not be entitled to a replacement or refund, yet.

Gillo

Musha wrote: »

Why do we have this hassle with electronic goods, If you bought a suit for a wedding and tried it on 1 mth later and found it to have a rip somewhere, Would you expect to return it and not get a replacement or would you be happy for it to be sent away for 2 1/2 weeks to be repaired only to come back with a rip in a different place only to be sent off again?

Firstly, there's a massive difference between clothes and electronic goods, why not add food into the equation, buy a carton of milk and bring it back a month later because it's got a bit "chewy".
I've had tried returning something to Arnott's and was completely refused a refund five week's after the date of purchase despite the obvious fault.

Sam Vimes

foggy_lad wrote: »

if they put a sign up stating no refunds there would be riots yet they can deny statutory rights this way and some people fall for it as it is their "policy" so it must be right as it sounds official??

If they put up a sign saying no refunds that would definitely be illegal but every major phone shop in the country follows this policy, even o2 are apparently going back to it. You'd think they would have checked with someone before implementing a 100% illegal policy? It's not like they make a secret of it so you'd think some sort of fines would result from denying people's statutory rights?

foggy_lad

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If they put up a sign saying no refunds that would definitely be illegal but every major phone shop in the country follows this policy, even o2 are apparently going back to it. You'd think they would have checked with someone before implementing a 100% illegal policy? It's not like they make a secret of it so you'd think some sort of fines would result from denying people's statutory rights?

because they say it then it must be true??
unlike with unions in CIE and the ESB etc years ago something can not be made law through "custom and practice" however much the phone stores and operators would like!

the sale of gods act has been quoted on boards too often before in relation to consumers statutory rights and in threads you have contributed to, you really should have paid attention:)

any repair must be permenant and even when the repair is offered the consumer can refuse and ask for a replacement or refund,

if a phone is almost new then a repair is going to take so much from its value that it would not be reasonable to expect anyone to accept a repair and a replacement would be an acceptable option

or if like with some handsets(w910i) the issue is with software then all the repairs/reflashing of software is not going to fix it and a refund or replacement with a model of similar value to the original would be reasonable.

krudler

Under this Act the purchaser of goods has a number of rights - the main ones are

* Goods must be of merchantable quality – goods should be of reasonable quality taking into account what they are meant to do, their durability and their price
* Goods must be fit for their purpose – they must do what they are reasonably expected to do
* Goods must be as described - the buyer must not be mislead into buying something by the description of goods or services given orally by a salesperson or an advertisement.

When you buy goods in a sale you have the same rights as when you pay full price for the goods.

If you have a contract with a supplier of services you can expect that:

* The supplier has the necessary skill to provide the service
* The service will be provided with proper care and diligence
* The materials used will be sound and that goods supplied with the service will be of merchantable quality

You can read more about your rights when you buy a service here.
If things go wrong

If you have a problem with an item that you have bought it is always the seller who should put things right. As a general rule, the seller can either repair or replace the item. Alternatively, they can refund the costs of the item or service to the consumer.

Taken from the Irish consumer law site, afaik its up to the retailer as to whether its a refund, repair or replace, and all mobile companies have the 3 repair rule

drunkmonkey

krudler wrote: »

Taken from the Irish consumer law site, afaik its up to the retailer as to whether its a refund, repair or replace, and all mobile companies have the 3 repair rule

In a perfect world it would be up to the retailer to replace the phone, but if they hand the customer a new phone they will be at the loss of the full cost of the phone or even more depending on their business model. Nobody will compensate the retailer so the retailers not going to replace the phone.

Then we've the network, they've paid over the rrp for the phone, they've taken a hit on the price to get the phone on the shelves at an attractive price. Again they don't want to be sending out a new phone in place of a broken one and taking another hit.

then we come to the the repair companys:mad:, I don't know how their business model works but I presume the more repairs carried out the more money they make, and I think here lies the problelm. 3 x repairs = 3 times the profit. No point exchanging an obviously fault product on the first go, let's try and fix it 3 times and do you know what? lets exchange it with a handet we've already repaired 3 times and exchanged. The retailer & network operator are left with 2 pissed off customers while the repair company has made 6 invoicable repairs.

Well that's my take on the major cause of the problem, as for nokia & co, they really should be taken to task over this anti consumer stance.

jor el

krudler wrote: »

afaik its up to the retailer as to whether its a refund, repair or replace,

No, they're simply given the 3 as a choice, but they don't get to choose, but neither does the buyer. They need to come to an agreement, and if none can be found, then a judge can make the decision. If a repair is offered, you can refuse, but refusing a reasonable offer of repair would not look good if it did come to court. Refusing a 2nd or 3rd repair for the same fault would not be unreasonable.

drunkmonkey

can you send your phone directly to the manufacturer for repair?

Sam Vimes

foggy_lad wrote: »

because they say it then it must be true??

I think that approach is better than assuming that if they say it it must be a lie and it must be a scam tbh

The one thing I've learned about consumer law is that it's not black and white and another thing I've learned is that, while people have won in the small claims court, every phone shop in the country is allowed to continue employing this policy, which says to me that it's not as cut and dried as you're saying

Sam Vimes

drunkmonkey wrote: »

as for nokia & co, they really should be taken to task over this anti consumer stance.

They really should. I'm sure it is legal but it just pisses everyone off. They have to pay the repair company for each repair anyway and there can't be that much difference between paying for three repairs and just giving a replacement

jor el

drunkmonkey wrote: »

can you send your phone directly to the manufacturer for repair?

You can, if you wish. You can also go back to the retailer afterward too, if you're not satisfied with the manufacturer's response/service.

drunkmonkey

jor el wrote: »

You can, if you wish. You can also go back to the retailer afterward too, if you're not satisfied with the manufacturer's response/service.

What can the retailer do, the retailer will not take the hit, nobody will reimburse them for exchanging the handset... I will not exchange a handset after 28days, I leave that decision to the repair company, there is no other choice for the retailer.

Tim Robbins

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What can the retailer do, the retailer will not take the hit, nobody will reimburse them for exchanging the handset... I will not exchange a handset after 28days, I leave that decision to the repair company, there is no other choice for the retailer.

Hi,
I just got my phone back and was told that coffee was split on it and is not covered under warranty.

I have no recollection of any coffee being split on it, and I am adamant this didn't happen.

There are no coffee stains on the exterior of the phone.

It took out a photo of the interior circuit of the phone and showed a coffee stain. No marking anywhere else on phone.

He said - tough luck. They won't fix it.

I'm disguisted. But feel helpless.

drunkmonkey

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I have no recollection of any coffee being split on it, and I am adamant this didn't happen.

There are no coffee stains on the exterior of the phone.

Tough break Tim, i'm surprised they said it was coffee their usually not as descriptive. Liquid damage is usually the reason.

the question now is, who spilt the coffee on your phone and cleaned it up afterward.

There's a lot to be said for the Nokia 5140i, I know one guy who takes it swimming regularly and it still won't give up the ghost.