Completely annoyed with HTC warranty

Beno

I sent in my phone under warranty because it won't boot or even turn on. It was covered under warranty but because I have a I had a scratch on my screen they would not repair it unless the scratch was fixed. This was not covered under warranty. So in order to get my phone back I had to pay £120 to fix something I didn't want to get fixed in order for them to fix the original fault.

Just if your wondering my phone just died suddenly, I had the sat nav turned on, looked up and the phone was dead. Couldn't turn it on, wouldn't even charge . I was gutted to say the least. And now I have to pay £120 to get it fixed I am absolutely sickened. I won't be buying another HTC after this.

Anyone have any experiences with HTC returns?
Anyone know who I could complain to, because I feel abit hard done by.

Stercus Accidit

I'd pursue this, it isn't legal afaik. Maybe ask in the consumer forum.

amcalester

How old is the phone? Regardless of the warranty you would still be entitled to 1 of the 3 R's (repair, replacement or refund) provided the phone didnt stop working due to user misuse.

Who did you pay the €120 to?

Beno

I sent the phone into HTC UK and thats who I paid.

And its about 2 months old

Saadyst

you could have replaced the screen yourself for a fraction of that

Beno

Saadyst wrote: »

you could have replaced the screen yourself for a fraction of that

I know that but they wouldn't have fixed my phone if I didn't

chillin_penguin

What HTC is it, I cant think of any reason why they would have made you get the scratch fixed if it was a software problem

Beno

chillin_penguin wrote: »

What HTC is it, I cant think of any reason why they would have made you get the scratch fixed if it was a software problem

Not sure if it was a software problem, It wouldn't charge, no sign of life.

partyatmygaff

chillin_penguin wrote: »

What HTC is it, I cant think of any reason why they would have made you get the scratch fixed if it was a software problem

Definitely not a software problem but that doesn't explain why HTC refuse to do a repair without replacing the screen.

Like everyone else said on XDA , pursue them and ask them for a reason as to why they need to repair the screen.

youcancallmeal

That sounds bizarre, what difference does it make to HTC if the screen is scratched!? How long is the warranty on HTC phones anyway?

djk1000

Have you already paid? Did you buy it in an Irish shop? If you bought it in Ireland, send it back to the retailer. Fixing it is their problem and you'll have an easier time arguing.

elderlemon

+1 - Your contract of sale is with the retailer and it lasts for 2 years from the date of purchase. Its up to them to replace/fix the phone for you. Also HTC can not insist that a cosmetic fault has to be corrected in order to fix the phone.

djk1000 wrote: »

Have you already paid? Did you buy it in an Irish shop? If you bought it in Ireland, send it back to the retailer. Fixing it is their problem and you'll have an easier time arguing.

mdebets

elderlemon wrote: »

+1 - Your contract of sale is with the retailer and it lasts for 2 years from the date of purchase. Its up to them to replace/fix the phone for you. Also HTC can not insist that a cosmetic fault has to be corrected in order to fix the phone.

That's not fully correct. The warranty with the retailer doesn't last 2 years, but a reasonable amount of time (to be decided by a judge if the retailer and customer don't agree on it).The OP doesn't have a contract with HTC, so they can insist on the cosmetic fault to be corrected , before they fix the other fault.
He should go to the shop where he bought the phone and get them to repair it. They can't insist on the cosmetic fault to be corrected first.

elderlemon

European consumer law which came into effect a couple of years back and Ireland signed up to gives you a minimum 2 year warranty with the seller. In the UK it can be up to 6 years but that's up the court.

Here its 2 years min. Believe me - I've been down this road with a retailer already and won. Its up to the retailer to then work with HTC to get the fix.

mdebets wrote: »

That's not fully correct. The warranty with the retailer doesn't last 2 years, but a reasonable amount of time (to be decided by a judge if the retailer and customer don't agree on it).The OP doesn't have a contract with HTC, so they can insist on the cosmetic fault to be corrected , before they fix the other fault.
He should go to the shop where he bought the phone and get them to repair it. They can't insist on the cosmetic fault to be corrected first.

mdebets

elderlemon wrote: »

European consumer law which came into effect a couple of years back and Ireland signed up to gives you a minimum 2 year warranty with the seller. In the UK it can be up to 6 years but that's up the court.

Here its 2 years min. Believe me - I've been down this road with a retailer already and won. Its up to the retailer to then work with HTC to get the fix.

That's different than your original post (2 years vs. 2 years minimum). And I wasn't saying it was less, just not exactly 2 years, but dependent on the object (and I would presume on the price as well).

elderlemon

Its not dependent on price or the object. Its called "your statutory rights" and its 2 years on anything you purchase in the EU. Its between you and the seller and is independent of any other warranty.

mdebets wrote: »

That's different than your original post (2 years vs. 2 years minimum). And I wasn't saying it was less, just not exactly 2 years, but dependent on the object (and I would presume on the price as well).

axer

elderlemon wrote: »

Its not dependent on price or the object. Its called "your statutory rights" and its 2 years on anything you purchase in the EU. Its between you and the seller and is independent of any other warranty.

The EU law is superceded by our much stronger Sale of goods and supply of services act which is only limited by the statuate of limitations.

OP you should have gone back to where you purchased the item as that is who your contract is with. If claiming under a manufacturer warrenty then the terms of the warranty can be enforced - those terms can be anything but the terms supplied in warranty booklet would have to be followed so read those terms if you want to deal with the manufacturer.

floggg

Which EU law are you guys referring to here? Would be interested to know more about it as would be surprised to see the EU mandating a minimum warranty period. Is this, just for phones or other consumer electronics, or off wider effect. I would have thought differences in price, quality, purpose, usage patterns would make that impractable!

I presume, given that its a consumer protection issue, that you are referring to an EU directive? If so, it would only take effect once implemented in ireland by legislation or statutory instrument. Has this been introduced?

As a matter of principle, the EU legislation would supersede the irish legislation under the doctrine of supremacy. However maybe you just meant the irish legislation was of more far reaching effect.

axer

floggg wrote: »

As a matter of principle, the EU legislation would supersede the irish legislation under the doctrine of supremacy. However maybe you just meant the irish legislation was of more far reaching effect.

Yes, Irish Consumer law supersedes the EU Consumer law in use as it covers what is in the EU consumer law plus much more.

floggg

What EU law are you talking about though? I would like to check it out myself.

Wouldn't a two, year "guarantee" period be more extensive than Sale of Good Act, which just stipulates that goods are warranted to be of "merchantable quality" (meaning fit for purpose and as durable as is reasonable to expect taking into account price, use etc)?

axer

floggg wrote: »

Wouldn't a two, year "guarantee" period be more extensive than Sale of Good Act, which just stipulates that goods are warranted to be of "merchantable quality" (meaning fit for purpose and as durable as is reasonable to expect taking into account price, use etc)?

Nope since the Sale of goods act is only limited by the satuate of limitations which is 6 years i believe.

I believe elderlemon is referring to Directive 99/44/EC.

floggg

I think there appears to be a misunderstanding of the nature of the relevant EU Directive (Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees Directive), the implementing legislation (S.I. 11 of 2003) and the Statute of Limitations.

I don't really want to hash it out here (unless somebody think it would be useful), but that legislation doesn't specify any minimum guarantee period. It appears to simply require goods to be in conformity with the contract at the time of delivery.

The Directive allows Member States to impose a limitation period in which claims may be brought (which Ireland hasn't done it seems). What this does is simply regulate how long a consumer has to make a claim where the product is not in conformity with the contract at the time of delivery. It does not mean that there is any minimum period in which it must remain defect free.

I also think you have misunderstood the nature of the Statute of Limitations. Again, its effect on the Sale of goods and Supply of Services Acts is to regulate how long you have to take a claim if a defect occurs. However, there is no minimum period in which the product must be defect free - under the sale of goods act this will be determined on a case by case basis (by reference to price, purpose, expectations) etc.

Bottom line, no minimum guarantee/defect free period.

However, that said if a Desire has malfunctioned already, then you should be entitled to refund, replacement or repair no questions asked (as 4 or 5 months is far too soon for a €500 phone to break)!

axer

floggg wrote: »

The Directive allows Member States to impose a limitation period in which claims may be brought (which Ireland hasn't done it seems). What this does is simply regulate how long a consumer has to make a claim where the product is not in conformity with the contract at the time of delivery. It does not mean that there is any minimum period in which it must remain defect free.

Ireland has the statuate of limitations which affects consumer contracts anyway.

floggg wrote: »

I also think you have misunderstood the nature of the Statute of Limitations. Again, its effect on the Sale of goods and Supply of Services Acts is to regulate how long you have to take a claim if a defect occurs. However, there is no minimum period in which the product must be defect free - under the sale of goods act this will be determined on a case by case basis (by reference to price, purpose, expectations) etc.

No I haven't. I didn't claim anything regarding minimum periods of goods being free from defect. I said "Sale of goods act is only limited by the satuate of limitations which is 6 years i believe".

floggg

axer wrote: »

Ireland has the statuate of limitations which affects consumer contracts anyway.

No I haven't. I didn't claim anything regarding minimum periods of goods being free from defect. I said "Sale of goods act is only limited by the satuate of limitations which is 6 years i believe".

Ok, then maybe I misunderstood you.

The discussion above seemed to be confusing the concept of limitation periods (whether under the Statute of Limitations or specific consumer legislation) with minimum guarantee periods or fault free periods.

At a basic level:

* Sale of Goods and Supply of Service Act determines whether or not you have a cause of action - (e.g. cause of action will arise where a defect occurs in a product within an unreasonably short period of time from its purchase)
*Statute of Limitations determines how long you have to pursue that cause of action only once it has occurred. It has now bearing however on the period in which your product should be fault free.

So for example, under the sale of goods acts, you could expect your €40 toaster to last a year. If it breaks within 6 months, you can seek a refund, repair or replacement. In accordance with the statute of limitations, you have 6 years (theoretically) to pursue that claim.

If however your toaster breaks after 15 months, then it lasted as long as you could reasonably expect, so you have no claim under the sale of goods act. thus, statute of limitations doesn't come into it at all, as there is no claim to begin with.

The reference to a minimum guarantee period is inaccurate, as a guarantee is generally speaking an additional contractual protection offered voluntarily by the manufacturer on top your existing consumer rights under Sale of Goods acts or the EU directive referred to above.

Instead, there a basic legal minimums required for the sale of consumer goods at irish and eu level. The irish legislation seems to offer greater protection, as not being defined by reference to condition at time of delivery only.

This may well be what you were saying all along, I just thought the discussion above was a bit confused and misleading.

axer

floggg wrote: »

This may well be what you were saying all along, I just thought the discussion above was a bit confused and misleading.

Pretty much. The EU Directive is effectively irrelevant to us as our own legislation is more powerful. It was to give somewhat of a basic level of consumer rights across europe as some countries have poor consumer rights compared to others.

elderlemon

The UK is six years (sale of goods) as they have not signed up to the European directive. The Irish sale of goods and services act 1980 does NOT specify any time limit and its basically up to the purchaser to ensure prompt action in the event of a problem.

The European directive applies here and gives a minimum protection of 2 years from the date of purchase. This is nothing to do with manufacturer warranty - its between you and the seller and applies to anything purchased anywhere in the EU.

If you want more into contact the consumer association - www.consumerassociation.ie

floggg wrote: »

Ok, then maybe I misunderstood you.

The discussion above seemed to be confusing the concept of limitation periods (whether under the Statute of Limitations or specific consumer legislation) with minimum guarantee periods or fault free periods.

At a basic level:

* Sale of Goods and Supply of Service Act determines whether or not you have a cause of action - (e.g. cause of action will arise where a defect occurs in a product within an unreasonably short period of time from its purchase)
*Statute of Limitations determines how long you have to pursue that cause of action only once it has occurred. It has now bearing however on the period in which your product should be fault free.

So for example, under the sale of goods acts, you could expect your €40 toaster to last a year. If it breaks within 6 months, you can seek a refund, repair or replacement. In accordance with the statute of limitations, you have 6 years (theoretically) to pursue that claim.

If however your toaster breaks after 15 months, then it lasted as long as you could reasonably expect, so you have no claim under the sale of goods act. thus, statute of limitations doesn't come into it at all, as there is no claim to begin with.

The reference to a minimum guarantee period is inaccurate, as a guarantee is generally speaking an additional contractual protection offered voluntarily by the manufacturer on top your existing consumer rights under Sale of Goods acts or the EU directive referred to above.

Instead, there a basic legal minimums required for the sale of consumer goods at irish and eu level. The irish legislation seems to offer greater protection, as not being defined by reference to condition at time of delivery only.

This may well be what you were saying all along, I just thought the discussion above was a bit confused and misleading.

stezie

I have just had a bad experience with a HTC.

Left it back to the phone shop becuse part of the touch screen wasnt recognising input. They sent it to Mobile phone repair shop in dublin, they sent it back to shop saying no fault found.. was already upset. So sent it back. Meteor sent it back to Mobile phone repair shop, they sent it to HTC...

After 2 weeks still no sign of phone.. Alot of phone calls later of my tracing down where the phone was, I rang HTC, and they said that the screen was frozen, required new battery and was water damaged and they were waiting from a response for their quotaion to fix... I only had an issue with the touch screen not working in a certain area!!!

SO! 5 weeks later I rang the manager of the meteor shop, demanded that something be done aboout the phone today.. He tried to give me the number for Mobile phone repair shop and HTC... I had enough.. So basically, I said "Listen as seller of the phone you are responsible for this phone, and under the Consumer law, I am entitled to a repair, refund or replacement" he rang me back in 30 mins and said there will be a brand new phone in the shop with new warranty waiting for me next day..

Basically, demand the phone back unrepaired from HTC, and leave it into the place you bought it, and state the Consumer law and get a replacement!

elderlemon

Bingo. This is what everyone should do and everyone should understand their rights and realize that its the sellers responsibility to get you a replacement - not the manufacturer.

We should make this a sticky.

stezie wrote: »

I have just had a bad experience with a HTC.

Left it back to the phone shop becuse part of the touch screen wasnt recognising input. They sent it to Mobile phone repair shop in dublin, they sent it back to shop saying no fault found.. was already upset. So sent it back. Meteor sent it back to Mobile phone repair shop, they sent it to HTC...

After 2 weeks still no sign of phone.. Alot of phone calls later of my tracing down where the phone was, I rang HTC, and they said that the screen was frozen, required new battery and was water damaged and they were waiting from a response for their quotaion to fix... I only had an issue with the touch screen not working in a certain area!!!

SO! 5 weeks later I rang the manager of the meteor shop, demanded that something be done aboout the phone today.. He tried to give me the number for Mobile phone repair shop and HTC... I had enough.. So basically, I said "Listen as seller of the phone you are responsible for this phone, and under the Consumer law, I am entitled to a repair, refund or replacement" he rang me back in 30 mins and said there will be a brand new phone in the shop with new warranty waiting for me next day..

Basically, demand the phone back unrepaired from HTC, and leave it into the place you bought it, and state the Consumer law and get a replacement!

floggg

elderlemon wrote: »

The UK is six years (sale of goods) as they have not signed up to the European directive. The Irish sale of goods and services act 1980 does NOT specify any time limit and its basically up to the purchaser to ensure prompt action in the event of a problem.

The European directive applies here and gives a minimum protection of 2 years from the date of purchase. This is nothing to do with manufacturer warranty - its between you and the seller and applies to anything purchased anywhere in the EU.

If you want more into contact the consumer association - www.consumerassociation.ie

Could you maybe explain what you mean by your references to 2 and 6 years, just so we aren't at cross purposes. I'm not sure whether you are referring to limitation periods our something different.

As I said, there doesn't appear to be any minimum protection period in the directive, rather there is a limitation period which is an entirely different thing. In any event the irish implementing statutory instrument doesn't adopt that derogation.

As for the uk, the have implemented the directive, per uk s.i. 3045 of 2002 (though I didn't read them). With directives, its not a matter of signing up. There not optional. They must bee implemented or else the member state will face enforcement action from the commission.

floggg

stezie wrote: »

I have just had a bad experience with a HTC.

Left it back to the phone shop becuse part of the touch screen wasnt recognising input. They sent it to Mobile phone repair shop in dublin, they sent it back to shop saying no fault found.. was already upset. So sent it back. Meteor sent it back to Mobile phone repair shop, they sent it to HTC...

After 2 weeks still no sign of phone.. Alot of phone calls later of my tracing down where the phone was, I rang HTC, and they said that the screen was frozen, required new battery and was water damaged and they were waiting from a response for their quotaion to fix... I only had an issue with the touch screen not working in a certain area!!!

SO! 5 weeks later I rang the manager of the meteor shop, demanded that something be done aboout the phone today.. He tried to give me the number for Mobile phone repair shop and HTC... I had enough.. So basically, I said "Listen as seller of the phone you are responsible for this phone, and under the Consumer law, I am entitled to a repair, refund or replacement" he rang me back in 30 mins and said there will be a brand new phone in the shop with new warranty waiting for me next day..

Basically, demand the phone back unrepaired from HTC, and leave it into the place you bought it, and state the Consumer law and get a replacement!

The ability to argue my way into an instant refund from a shop manager is the main why I refuse to buy anything of value or prone to breakdown from the interweb!