carphone warehouse

dangerus06

hi i bought a lg phone here in march that not working propely it drop calls all the time and keep turning it self off went back to store and they told me the warranty for an exchange is 28 days and i over that time .so all they can do is sent it off for repair which will take 2 wks and i can hire a phone from them for 90 euro while my phone been repaired .i taught if its got a man warranty for a year they should exchange it .anything u buy new should not brake down should it .i afraid if they fix it it just keep breaking down .has anyone any ideas what my rights are to get an exchange

krudler

rule 1: never buy anything from carphone warehouse

Which network was it bought on? the standard for most of them is within 30 days its exchange, after that its sent for repair

Welease

dangerus06 wrote: »

.i afraid if they fix it it just keep breaking down .has anyone any ideas what my rights are to get an exchange

Under Irish law, the repair must be permanent..

Your rights are described in http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/Hot_Topics/Our-booklets/NCA-Sale-of-goods.pdf

dangerus06

hi its on 02

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

In general a retailer has to provide either a repair, a refund, or a replacement within a reasonable time frame after the fault has been reported. The decision is up to the retailer as to which option they go for ie you can't demand a refund or replacement if the retailer wants to have the item repaired.

Reasonable time frame is not defined within the law but is generally accepted as 28 days assuming a repair facillity is available within the country.

Carphone Warehouse are quite within their rights to send this for repair and a 2 week turnaround would be deemed reasonable if you were to bring it to the small claims court. Whether or not it's good customer service to want €90.00 for hire is another thing. €90.00 does sound extremely steep though are you sure there is not a refundable deposit within that figure ???

Boggles

dangerus06 wrote: »

hi i bought a lg phone here in march that not working propely it drop calls all the time and keep turning it self off went back to store and they told me the warranty for an exchange is 28 days and i over that time .so all they can do is sent it off for repair which will take 2 wks and i can hire a phone from them for 90 euro while my phone been repaired .i taught if its got a man warranty for a year they should exchange it .anything u buy new should not brake down should it .i afraid if they fix it it just keep breaking down .has anyone any ideas what my rights are to get an exchange

90 euro for 2 weeks?

Is the phone attached to a car? :eek:

Tell them go jump with their rental.

2 weeks is on the verge of an acceptable repair time, if it is an hour over that time, make sure you kick up a fuss though. 90 euro FFS!!!

calex71

If €90 was a refundable deposit on the temp phone id say sure give me one, but damn right cheeky to charge for its use otherwise , sure you could buy a phone for less :mad:

Kensington

To charge you for a rental phone is ridiculous! I know meteor, if you insist they provide you with a loan phone if your one goes in for repair, will give you a bog standard phone for loan. The phone is extremely basic, worth little or nothing, and they use your own phone as security for the loan phone they give you.

Unfortunately though, you've no choice about the two weeks repair thing. And it's not just a Carphone Warehouse thing either, anywhere you buy a phone will subject you to this "policy".

BTW. What LG model is it? Does it have 3G functionality on it? I had an LG Viewty for a few months and it was constantly rebooting itself. Narrowed it down to the phone rebooting itself each time it went out of 3G coverage, back into 2G GSM so switched off 3G in the settings (which I never really used) and it didn't reboot since then.

foggy_lad

Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »

In general a retailer has to provide either a repair, a refund, or a replacement within a reasonable time frame after the fault has been reported. The decision is up to the retailer as to which option they go for ie you can't demand a refund or replacement if the retailer wants to have the item repaired.

the decision is not solely up to the retailer, they can propose sending any item for repair but the consumer does not have to accept that and can ask for replacement or refund.

Boggles

foggy_lad wrote: »

the decision is not solely up to the retailer, they can propose sending any item for repair but the consumer does not have to accept that and can ask for replacement or refund.

He/she can't.

They can ask by all means, but ultimately the retailer is well entitled to send for a repair.

I don't agree with it and IMO it needs to reviewed.

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

foggy_lad wrote: »

the decision is not solely up to the retailer, they can propose sending any item for repair but the consumer does not have to accept that and can ask for replacement or refund.

You're not totally incorrect in what you say because the customer can indeed refuse any offer made but it won't get them very far.

The only time a customer can insist on a refund or replacement is if the goods sold were not as described. eg buying a playstation 3 and being told that you could play xbox games on it. ( I know that's a ridiculous thing but that's the area where you can demand your refund or a replacement of the PS3 with a magical console that will play both. In most cases where goods were not as advertised there is not a replacement available and a refund is usually what will be asked for )

If an item breaks down then the retailer has the option of the 3 R's I referred to above and the retailer must provide one of those. Usually this will be dependent on the manufacturers policies. If the shop can send your goods back for full credit they will more than likely replace the item - if their supplier has a policy of repairing meaning the store will not be reimbursed for giving you a refund or replacement then the store will more than likely opt for a repair offer. The retailer cannot offer a credit note or a voucher instead of your refund.

You as a customer can if you wish refuse the offer of a repair and lodge a claim with the small claims court for a refund BUT having refused the repair ( which did fulfill the retailers legal obligations ) you have very little chance of winning your case. You'd need to have had the same item repaired on at least 2 previous occasions so that you could argue that the repair being offered was not permanent which would allow you to claim for a refund.

Bintools

€90 is a lot for a deposit.in fairness they have to ask for a deposit or might not get there phone back butthats way to much.maybe bring the phone back to o2 and see what they say?

Boggles

Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »

You'd need to have had the same item repaired on at least 2 previous occasions so that you could argue that the repair being offered was not permanent which would allow you to claim for a refund.

Doesn't say anywhere that you have to give them at least 2 chances at repair, one is more than enough to move onto the next R or small claims.

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

Boggles wrote: »

Doesn't say anywhere that you have to give them at least 2 chances at repair, one is more than enough to move onto the next R or small claims.

Nor does it define anywhere what exactly a reasonable time frame is to deal with the complaint in the first place. There's a lot of grey area

In practice when a claim is brought to the small claims court having one single repair fail is not normally enough to justify a refund demand when the retailer is offering / has offered a second repair. Assuming the retailer has been pleasant and not messed around it is more than likely the judge will direct the customer to accept the second repair.

If the customer arrives at court showing two failed repairs and states an unwillingness to accept a third then they will more than likely have a full refund ordered.

Boggles

Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »

Nor does it define anywhere what exactly a reasonable time frame is to deal with the complaint in the first place. There's a lot of grey area

In practice when a claim is brought to the small claims court having one single repair fail is not normally enough to justify a refund demand when the retailer is offering / has offered a second repair. Assuming the retailer has been pleasant and not messed around it is more than likely the judge will direct the customer to accept the second repair.

If the customer arrives at court showing two failed repairs and states an unwillingness to accept a third then they will more than likely have a full refund ordered.

Thats part of the problem there is nothing clearly defined.

As for the second repair it depends on the circumstance, if the first repair lasted a reasonable lenght of time, say 8 months, then you would certainly strengthen your case if you went along with the second repair, you certainly don't have to though, your rights remain exactly the same.

If the first repair failed immediately or soon after, and you had to do without the product for another 2-4 weeks that would be deemed unreasonable and the 2 remaining R's would kick in, either voluntarily by the shop or forced by a small claims judge.

It is always up to the seller to put things right, it is all about being reasonable, they certainly do not have carte blanche and numerous tries of which ever solution suits them and not you.

If you have been wronged and have been reasonable, Small Claims will nearly always rule in your favour.

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

I do agree with you and your rights do remain the same but it's also your right to refuse a repair in the first place and head off to the small claims court. It won't get you very far but it is your right to do so.

Similarily you can decide one repair is enough and you could refuse a second repair and take your chances as well. You will have a better chance than the person who refused the repair full stop.

All I am saying is that in practice the small claims court will rule with the retailer offering a second repair in most cases. There is a big difference of course in a repair lasting 8 months and one that lasted 8 hours when it comes to the presenting of the case to the judge and again it comes down to the grey areas and lack of definition within the current law.

When you say "If you have been wronged and have been reasonable, Small Claims will nearly always rule in your favour." you are absolutely correct but again that definition of what is reasonable lands with the judge on the day. He/She may decide that one repair was reasonable and award for you but might decide that refusing the second repair offer was unreasonable and rule with the retailer.

I know I'm coming at this from a retailers point of view so forgive me if that comes across as being biased but for my entire career before being involved with Gamesnash I was a retail manager for a number of different companies so I have quite a bit of experience of the system and consumer rights etc.

Also this particular debate isn't taking into account the pros and cons of letting an issue escalate that far. My opinion was generally to try as best as I could to avoid pissing the customer off that much that they went to court because you would never get them shopping with you again. Sometimes it makes better business sense to take the hit yourself knowing that the profit you will make from that customers repeat visits over the next few years will more than make up for it.

Boggles

Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »

All I am saying is that in practice the small claims court will rule with the retailer offering a second repair in most cases.

The repair has to be permanent.

You have given the retailer an opportunity to right the wrong, you don't have to give them multiple opportunities at their own behest.

The law is clear enough on this, it doesn't say: the repair has to be permanent, unless it breaks again and we will give them another shot at it.

If the repair fails, you are entitled to another course of remedy which is replace or refund.

There is no 2 or 3 strikes law anywhere.

tony1kenobi

DoHaless wrote: »

Ive read the walkthrough which tells me to move around so the cursor will show up. Ive been at it for quite some time now and I just cannot get that cursor to show over/around the screen and broken wood at the warehouse. Is this an actual problem i.e. a patch to fix it or should I keep trying for another half hour or so? Please help, Id really appreciate some advice

I would advise you to not sniff glue when you are on the internet.

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

Boggles wrote: »

The repair has to be permanent.

You have given the retailer an opportunity to right the wrong, you don't have to give them multiple opportunities at their own behest.

The law is clear enough on this, it doesn't say: the repair has to be permanent, unless it breaks again and we will give them another shot at it.

If the repair fails, you are entitled to another course of remedy which is replace or refund.

There is no 2 or 3 strikes law anywhere.

Just to be clear I'm not saying that I agree with blanket second chances to repair an item.

I'm just saying that when it goes to court judgement for a full refund is a lot more likely if you have had 2 repairs or more. Only having one repair attempt ( be it morally or ethically right or not ) in a lot of cases will not get you the refund you're after if the retailer is there explaining that they sent it off for repair in good faith etc especially if the retailer is an agent for a third party manufacturer who was responsible for the repair.

The retailer will argue that it's broken again but they have not had a chance to see if the same part or problem occurred again, if it was misuse by the customer, was it deliberately broken a second time to force a refund because the customer did not allow them the opportunity to properly examine the goods.

That's just the way the court system is. It is in practice deemed reasonable for the retailer to be allowed a second go at the item for all those above reasons.

foggy_lad

Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »

Nor does it define anywhere what exactly a reasonable time frame is to deal with the complaint in the first place. There's a lot of grey area

In practice when a claim is brought to the small claims court having one single repair fail is not normally enough to justify a refund demand when the retailer is offering / has offered a second repair. Assuming the retailer has been pleasant and not messed around it is more than likely the judge will direct the customer to accept the second repair.

If the customer arrives at court showing two failed repairs and states an unwillingness to accept a third then they will more than likely have a full refund ordered.

Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »

Just to be clear I'm not saying that I agree with blanket second chances to repair an item.

I'm just saying that when it goes to court judgement for a full refund is a lot more likely if you have had 2 repairs or more. Only having one repair attempt ( be it morally or ethically right or not ) in a lot of cases will not get you the refund you're after if the retailer is there explaining that they sent it off for repair in good faith etc especially if the retailer is an agent for a third party manufacturer who was responsible for the repair.

The retailer will argue that it's broken again but they have not had a chance to see if the same part or problem occurred again, if it was misuse by the customer, was it deliberately broken a second time to force a refund because the customer did not allow them the opportunity to properly examine the goods.

That's just the way the court system is. It is in practice deemed reasonable for the retailer to be allowed a second go at the item for all those above reasons.

can any retailer give an unbiased opinion on the sale of good act and consumers statutory rights? it seems you think retailers should be given more than one chance to fix faulty goods and are saying thet failing to do this will impact on any SCC result but if a court clerk deems it unreasonable for a brand new item to be repaired due to the reduction in value of a repaired product then the result will go in the consumers favour!

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

foggy_lad wrote: »

can any retailer give an unbiased opinion on the sale of good act and consumers statutory rights? it seems you think retailers should be given more than one chance to fix faulty goods and are saying thet failing to do this will impact on any SCC result but if a court clerk deems it unreasonable for a brand new item to be repaired due to the reduction in value of a repaired product then the result will go in the consumers favour!

I've done my best to give you an unbiased opinion and even went as far as to say .....

I know I'm coming at this from a retailers point of view so forgive me if that comes across as being biased but for my entire career before being involved with Gamesnash I was a retail manager for a number of different companies so I have quite a bit of experience of the system and consumer rights etc.

I also clearly state within my posts that you quote yourself ..

Just to be clear I'm not saying that I agree with blanket second chances to repair an item.

And to be very clear again I don't advocate that retailers should have a god given right to a second chance at repairing an item. I am however saying that in practice the small claims court are likely to allow a retailer a second attempt at repairing the problem if that retailer shows up and puts forward the arguments I mentioned.

Of course I am a retailer and therefore I am more likely to have an insight into how a retailer approaches these things but I am posting my personal experience and knowledge and not posting as a spokesperson for Irish retailers

I am drawing from years of experience within the retail industry, experience of legal and consumer law training and experience of working for companies who were in some cases taken to the small claims court and won on the exact grounds I have specified. Having this experience I am saying that in practice your position as a consumer at the small claims court is not very good if you have refused the offer of a repair and not that solid either if you have refused a second repair. Your position becomes a whole lot better if you have accepted a second repair and have refused a third repair because it leaves a retailer with no wriggle room.

As I also said most retailers will try and avoid going to the small claims court either way because in most cases it doesn't make financial sense to do so but if a dispute does escalate and it is going to go all the way to the court then the court decides what is or isn't reasonable on a case by case basis.

dangerus06

t.hanks everyone for your help i going to let them repair it on the condition if its breaks down again i want a replacement .i not paying to hire a phone i borrow one.and i will never shop there again and tell everyone i know not to either so thanks again everyone for your help:)

foggy_lad

Gamesnash.ie (Pat) wrote: »

I've done my best to give you an unbiased opinion and even went as far as to say .....

I also clearly state within my posts that you quote yourself ..

And to be very clear again I don't advocate that retailers should have a god given right to a second chance at repairing an item. I am however saying that in practice the small claims court are likely to allow a retailer a second attempt at repairing the problem if that retailer shows up and puts forward the arguments I mentioned.

Of course I am a retailer and therefore I am more likely to have an insight into how a retailer approaches these things but I am posting my personal experience and knowledge and not posting as a spokesperson for Irish retailers

I am drawing from years of experience within the retail industry, experience of legal and consumer law training and experience of working for companies who were in some cases taken to the small claims court and won on the exact grounds I have specified. Having this experience I am saying that in practice your position as a consumer at the small claims court is not very good if you have refused the offer of a repair and not that solid either if you have refused a second repair. Your position becomes a whole lot better if you have accepted a second repair and have refused a third repair because it leaves a retailer with no wriggle room.

As I also said most retailers will try and avoid going to the small claims court either way because in most cases it doesn't make financial sense to do so but if a dispute does escalate and it is going to go all the way to the court then the court decides what is or isn't reasonable on a case by case basis.

all i am saying is that if any consumer spends their hard earned cash on any product especially expensive electrical items they should be fit for purpose and requiring repair more than once in the lifetime of these items would be seen by most people as unreasonable and would take from the value of the items by virtue of them not being reliable or durable.

it is good to see from a retailers perspective how retailers treat and look at customers with genuine issues, but also disappointing to see they would try to make the customers think the small claims court would almost certainly side with the retailer even when a customer has been very reasonable in accepting a botched repair or repair that was not permenant or refused to accept continuing repairs when other problems arose with their product.

Blue_Wolf

If the standard is 30days than whats wrong with buying from Carphone warehouse?

krudler wrote: »

rule 1: never buy anything from carphone warehouse

Which network was it bought on? the standard for most of them is within 30 days its exchange, after that its sent for repair

Blue_Wolf

Ya but both parties have to agree on this so if Meteor,vodafone,carphone or O2 don't agree than it forces the customer to agree to send it away, otherwise they are left with a faulty phone. By law if it's faulty after that than you are entitled to ask for the other 2 options

foggy_lad wrote: »

the decision is not solely up to the retailer, they can propose sending any item for repair but the consumer does not have to accept that and can ask for replacement or refund.