Faulty phone repaired under warranty- Same fault 2 months later

phill106

Got a phone fixed under warranty as stated above. Now the same fault has happened again, phone wont charge. Bringing it into store in the morning, already rang the store to complain.
I asked about getting different replacement phone, as i feel this is a defect with the phone (have seen it on a few forums), but was told this would only happen if the phone had been replaced 3 times!
I checked the warranty card, and saw no mention of this, so can only assume this is store policy, rather then manufacturer.
I also noted in the sale of goods act, that where a repair is offered, it must be permanent. How would i stand in this regard to rights?
thanks

jor el

You seem to have checked you rights already, and your right. The repair should be permanent, and if it isn't then you have the right to seek alternate redress (replace or refund). They will deny this, and you may have to go above them (small claims court) in order to get what's rightfully yours.

The 3 repairs before a replacement is just their policy and has no place in law. It actually contravenes your statutory rights, is illegal, and should not be allowed.

Nody

jor el wrote: »

The 3 repairs before a replacement is just their policy and has no place in law. It actually contravenes your statutory rights, is illegal, and should not be allowed.

Semantics argument but it would depend on what three repairs though; if it was say LCD screen, buttons and speaker that could be argued as three seperate faults that received permanent and working repairs.

jor el

For Vodafone (and possibly others) the 3 faults must be the same. I've been through this process with them before. If you have the same fault re-occur after being repaired, you are entitled to a refund or replacement. You do not have to send for repair again, but Vodafone's policy is in breech of your statutory rights by insisting on further repairs for the same problem.

Sam Vimes

jor el wrote: »

The 3 repairs before a replacement is just their policy and has no place in law. It actually contravenes your statutory rights, is illegal, and should not be allowed.

People keep saying that but if it's illegal, why are so many shops allowed to use it? Why aren't they fined and forced not to do it the same way they would be if they were deliberately mislabelling items?

Nody

Sam Vimes wrote: »

People keep saying that but if it's illegal, why are so many shops allowed to use it? Why aren't they fined and forced not to do it the same way they would be if they were deliberately mislabelling items?

Because the enforcement of customer law is a joke in Ireland? Any such case would be a slam dunk win in SCC but as most cases in SCC it tends to be settled before it goes that far.

Sam Vimes

Nody wrote: »

Because the enforcement of customer law is a joke in Ireland? Any such case would be a slam dunk win in SCC but as most cases in SCC it tends to be settled before it goes that far.

You're telling me that dozens on international corporations have deliberately instituted a policy that they know is illegal and that they make no secret of. I'm not so sure that it would always be a slam dunk in the SCC. Businesses are fined and reprimanded all the time for far less than apparently blatantly illegal policies.

jor el

Sam Vimes wrote: »

People keep saying that but if it's illegal, why are so many shops allowed to use it? Why aren't they fined and forced not to do it the same way they would be if they were deliberately mislabelling items?

Very good question. Basically there's nobody to enforce consumer law, bar the NCA, who are all but powerless. Legislation is already in place, courts have found against shops, and yet they're free to keep ignoring the court order in one case on all future cases.

Similarly, you bring something back after 14 months because it's broken down, and the shop says tough luck, nothing they can do. They should be made aware of their obligations (although you can be sure most already are) and more importantly made to comply. One complaint to the NCA should be all that's needed to have a shop fined, and the fine should be substantial. A few of these, published in national papers, and all the shops would soon fall into line.

Nody

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're telling me that dozens on international corporations have deliberately instituted a policy that they know is illegal and that they make no secret of. I'm not so sure that it would always be a slam dunk in the SCC. Businesses are fined and reprimanded all the time for far less than apparently blatantly illegal policies.

In short yes (see most threads about returns and Apple, Dell, PC World, Currys, DID etc.); you can also look at the Direct Debit issues that is a weekly complaint thread about as well. In short the enforcement of existing legislation is weak if even existing when it comes to penalties or fines for the corporations.

As a consumer you're given two options to pursue corporations to fulfil their legal obligations; use the SCC which will get it fixed in a month or two and cost you at most 15 EUR or hire a solicitor for a couple of hundres and try to do a full blown case out of it spending 3+ months. The first one will never result in fines for the company, the second may but cost you a whole lot more and you may not recover the initial cost. Which one do you think people normally take?

Also worth keeping in mind is that this is purely a Ford calculation (for those that don't know the reference Ford found out that one model of cars where likely to burst into flames if hit from behind due to faulty design. As they had sold around 10 mil of the cars already their bean counters did a calculation on the cost of the numbers. Who would be expected to sue them? How much those would cost if lost per lawsuit? How many they expected to lose etc. and concluded it was cheaper to let people die then do a full recall and fix the problem from a cost point of view) from the store's point of view. They are unlikely to be able to recoupe this cost vs. the manufacturers and have to take the hit themself and since their is no real enforcement why not try to fob people of? Cost vs. savings is clearly in the savings area in not fulfilling legal obligations currently.

phill106

jor el wrote: »

For Vodafone (and possibly others) the 3 faults must be the same. I've been through this process with them before. If you have the same fault re-occur after being repaired, you are entitled to a refund or replacement. You do not have to send for repair again, but Vodafone's policy is in breech of your statutory rights by insisting on further repairs for the same problem.

Im not able to get into the store until thursday, so no update as of yet. The network is O2 rather then vodafone. Can you point out where i can print off information about the relevant statute/law regarding the statutory rights being infringed by being forced to accept another repair of exactly the same problem? I like to go armed into such situations whenever possible, and that sounds exactly like the kind of armour piercing ammunition i need!
Thanks

Gummy Panda

Nody wrote: »

Also worth keeping in mind is that this is purely a Ford calculation (for those that don't know the reference Ford found out that one model of cars where likely to burst into flames if hit from behind due to faulty design. As they had sold around 10 mil of the cars already their bean counters did a calculation on the cost of the numbers. Who would be expected to sue them? How much those would cost if lost per lawsuit? How many they expected to lose etc. and concluded it was cheaper to let people die then do a full recall and fix the problem from a cost point of view) from the store's point of view. They are unlikely to be able to recoupe this cost vs. the manufacturers and have to take the hit themself and since their is no real enforcement why not try to fob people of? Cost vs. savings is clearly in the savings area in not fulfilling legal obligations currently.

The good aul Ford Pinto

Sam Vimes

Nody wrote: »

Also worth keeping in mind is that this is purely a Ford calculation (for those that don't know the reference Ford found out that one model of cars where likely to burst into flames if hit from behind due to faulty design. As they had sold around 10 mil of the cars already their bean counters did a calculation on the cost of the numbers. Who would be expected to sue them? How much those would cost if lost per lawsuit? How many they expected to lose etc. and concluded it was cheaper to let people die then do a full recall and fix the problem from a cost point of view)

We've all seen fight club

Blue_Wolf

It's the manufacturers Nokia,Sony,Lg etc who demand that they are repaired 3 times before being replaced. If the manufacturer said right ya replace it without sending it for repair than all phone stores would swap them out as the manufacturer will pay the phone store.

It's not the phone stores fault for this and DEFINATLY not their POLICY.

Don't like it than don't buy a phone period.

I'm not sure and probably will stand corrected but that is Irish law that the repair must be permanent (haven't looked at Britains) If the manufacturer is not based in Ireland perhaps it's possible they can bypass this?!
Just a thought and probably wrong.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

People keep saying that but if it's illegal, why are so many shops allowed to use it? Why aren't they fined and forced not to do it the same way they would be if they were deliberately mislabelling items?

foggy_lad

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

It's the manufacturers Nokia,Sony,Lg etc who demand that they are repaired 3 times before being replaced. If the manufacturer said right ya replace it without sending it for repair than all phone stores would swap them out as the manufacturer will pay the phone store.

It's not the phone stores fault for this and DEFINATLY not their POLICY.

Don't like it than don't buy a phone period.

I'm not sure and probably will stand corrected but that is Irish law that the repair must be permanent (haven't looked at Britains) If the manufacturer is not based in Ireland perhaps it's possible they can bypass this?!
Just a thought and probably wrong.

the manufacturer has NO say in the contract between the retailer/phone store and the customer so therefore them insisting on a three repair policy is nonsence as it can be challenged by the stores.

phill106

Very annoyed now at the winds of fate! While i had tried to charge it at home when the fault occured. didnt work. Tested another phone that i have spare which uses the same charger. that phone charged. That was my proof to myself that it was the phone was broken and not the charger.
Off i go today, full of righteous determination to get my money back. I explain the issue in the store, and i produce the phone and the charger as i explain my issues to the assistant manager...

I'll be dammed if the phone didnt charge in the store when she tried it....

Perhaps its a tempremental fault, i dont know, but i said i would take it home instead, and try it over the next few days, and bring it back in if it happened again.

Sam Vimes

foggy_lad wrote: »

the manufacturer has NO say in the contract between the retailer/phone store and the customer so therefore them insisting on a three repair policy is nonsence as it can be challenged by the stores.

If all of the phone manufacturers insist on 3 repairs then the store has two choices it seems:

1. Take the hit themselves on every refund and replacement. O2 did this for a while but stopped because they were losing too much money.
2. Stop buying phones from manufacturers that have that policy, including Nokia and Sony Ericsson.

What can they do?

Nody

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What can they do?

Charge higher prices to compensate it (honestly, there is no other answer and it would possibly drive home in sales for the manufacturers etc.).

Of course this being Ireland this will then be labled as "Rip Of Ireland" pricing and a clear example of how the stores are making a unjust margin compared to UK :pac:.