HTC One; HTC refusing repair (due to unlocked bootloader)

TouchingVirus

So I unlocked my Bootloader back in January on my HTC One M7, fully aware that if I ended up in brick city I'd be paying for a repair. Thankfully nothing happened and I've been on the Google Play Edition ROM since then. The phone developed a fault with the microphone about a week ago now. I've tried another ROM and a factory reset, several voice recoding applications etc and all of them have the same symptoms - the mic crackles and pops and I cannot be heard. It's pretty clear to me this is a hardware fault and not software related.

I dropped the phone out to Fonfix (MPRC) who relieved me of a €15 walk in standing charge before closing off my repair an hour later stating:

UNIT RETURNED UNREPAIRED.
UNABLE TO REPAIR TAMPERED SOFTWARE

I've poured over various online forums, the warranty and the HTCDev.com site. Nowhere does it state that hardware faults are no longer covered if you have a custom ROM installed. Of course I can accept their decision if my phone was randomly rebooting, deleting messages etc but this is a hardware fault with the microphone. Unlocking the bootloader and loading a custom ROM 3 months ago didn't kill my microphone. Has anybody had any luck getting a warranty repair out of HTC for a hardware issues after unlocking the bootloader?

I phoned HTC support who were as helpful as a kick to the head with the customer service agent offering me no help except to state that unlocking the bootloader absolutely voids the hardware warranty and that the final decision rests with the service centre.

Squeeonline

You could try to plead ignorance. Claim that you were doing a software update. You wouldn't know even what a bootloader is!

TouchingVirus

Being honest I installed the custom ROM to get rid of the purple tint on the camera from the stock ROM. There's no way I'll be able to plead ignorance, and I don't see why I should have to. HTC gives customers the ability to unlock their bootloader and put on custom software with a caveat, they may void their warranty by messing about with stuff they shouldn't. A dead microphone that has worked for 3 months post bootloader unlock is a hardware problem; their problem, and something the warranty should still cover.

patsfan1286

Check if your hboot version can go s-off. If so, you can remove the 'Tampered' text from the bootloader.

jimmycrackcorm

Send it to the HTC repair centre in the UK

TouchingVirus

I'll revert it all to stock as soon as I get it back, but not before I call out to Fonfix tomorrow and speak to an engineer about why they're being shítty about faulty hardware that has nothing to do with the bootloader/custom ROM.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Send it to the HTC repair centre in the UK

I called HTC, the offered me Fonfix out in Sandyford and SBE Global Ireland out in Rathcoole. There was no send it to the UK option

Mantis Toboggan

Same thing happened me with a Moto G.
I warned people last week in a thread about it voiding warranty. Last time il ever mess with a phone.

MuppetCheck

All this kinda defeats the purpose of Android somewhat really, more so when it's a hardware fault.

irishpancake

TouchingVirus wrote: »

I'll revert it all to stock as soon as I get it back, but not before I call out to Fonfix tomorrow and speak to an engineer about why they're being shítty about faulty hardware that has nothing to do with the bootloader/custom ROM.



I called HTC, the offered me Fonfix out in Sandyford and SBE Global Ireland out in Rathcoole. There was no send it to the UK option

This is outrageous.

There is a hardware fault, not caused by any software modification you may have carried out.

This should be covered by the EU Statutory Warranty, regardless of the manufacturers warranty.

This is a two year warranty, covering hardware faults which occur in that period.

It was a European Directive, which has been

I honestly would take an action in the Small Claims Court if the retailer you bought this device from persists in refusing to at least repair the device.

I would contact the retailer, as this is who you have the contract with.

Just take a read here:

www.valueireland.com/2009/06/how-long-is-my-purchase-guaranteed-1-year-2-years/

and here:

www.consumerhelp.ie/faulty-goods

There is a PDF file on that site which you could download and print out for your own assistance.

Manufacturers such as Apple have been prosecuted successfully relating to their warranty terms in the EU.

I don't believe you should have had to pay €15 for that joke service either.

patsfan1286

While I agree with you that it's unlikely that a costom ROM caused the fault, it could happen. In order to flash the ROM you would have had to have flashed a custom recovery. With an unlocked bootloader and custom recovery you have essentially removed all / most manufacturer safeguards. The manufacturer can't be expected to anticipate these scenarios.

For example, as you now have access to the kernel settings, you could overclock the cpu to way over spec. This can fry the whole phone. This would be a hardware fault, but caused by the user, not by any fault of HTC.

OP, its not worth the fight. Just S-Off and start again.

N64

Don't forget that the warranty provided is in addition to your statutory rights. Bring it back to the retailer you bought the device from and let them deal with it. I hate people who justify the manufacturers warranty in this regard. Just imagine if I sent a laptop back to acer because the keyboard broke and they refused to fix it because I installed Ubuntu. It's ridiculous

irishpancake

N64 wrote: »

Don't forget that the warranty provided is in addition to your statutory rights. Bring it back to the retailer you bought the device from and let them deal with it. I hate people who justify the manufacturers warranty in this regard. Just imagine if I sent a laptop back to acer because the keyboard broke and they refused to fix it because I installed Ubuntu. It's ridiculous

Exactly, just as I said above.....

and it is, or could be, worth the fight, depending on the determination of the OP.

The contract of sale is between the seller and the buyer, there are rights and responsibilities on both sides, and the seller can always revert to his supplier to uphold his rights also, but they take the lazy option of invoking a manufacturers warranty and washing their hands of their contract with the buyer.

They should not be allowed to do this, and have not been in other European countries, like Italy, France, Belgium, etc. by the consumers organisations.

They went to court and won.....against Apple!!!

www.cio.com/article/750216/Apple_settles_Belgian_guarantee_dispute

Tea drinker

If the GORGEOUS blonde that used to work on reception there a few years ago is still there, I recommend going back to Fonfix and paying another 15 euro.
Hope that helps :-)

él statutorio

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Send it to the HTC repair centre in the UK

This,

I had a minor issue with dirt stuck on the camera lens internal to the phone housing. I called HTC, they sent me some packaging and it went to the UK. It came back a week later. Simple as that.

Mr E

Reinstall factory ROM, set bootloader to S-ON? Would that work?

http://www.htc1guru.com/guides/lock-bootloader/

irishpancake

Tea drinker wrote: »

If the GORGEOUS blonde that used to work on reception there a few years ago is still there, I recommend going back to Fonfix and paying another 15 euro.
Hope that helps :-)

Male or female?? The Blond??

A fool and his money are easily parted.

I do hope you do not conduct all your business affairs in a similar fashion.

irishpancake

él statutorio wrote: »

This,

I had a minor issue with dirt stuck on the camera lens internal to the phone housing. I called HTC, they sent me some packaging and it went to the UK. It came back a week later. Simple as that.

Not being critical, as you got a result, fair play.

But, why contact the manufacturer in relation to faulty goods you bought from a retailer, presumably?? Unless you bought directly from HTC??

I am just interested, as it seems to me retailers get off Scot free in these cases, whereas they are, in reality, the other party in a contract of sale, and it is them to which consumer law applies.

I am intrigued to know why so many people actually bypass the retailer and rely on warranties from Manufacturers, which are in addition to their rights under existing law.

TouchingVirus

Mr E wrote: »

Reinstall factory ROM, set bootloader to S-ON? Would that work?

http://www.htc1guru.com/guides/lock-bootloader/

This is what I'm doing now, and sending it back to the phone shop I bought it from instead.

Mantis Toboggan

irishpancake wrote: »

Not being critical, as you got a result, fair play.

But, why contact the manufacturer in relation to faulty goods you bought from a retailer, presumably?? Unless you bought directly from HTC??

I am just interested, as it seems to me retailers get off Scot free in these cases, whereas they are, in reality, the other party in a contract of sale, and it is them to which consumer law applies.

I am intrigued to know why so many people actually bypass the retailer and rely on warranties from Manufacturers, which are in addition to their rights under existing law.

Well I suppose it's like if you buy a car with a 7 year warranty, it warranty is with car manufacturer, not the garage you bought it from.

Tea drinker

irishpancake wrote: »

Male or female?? The Blond??

A fool and his money are easily parted.

I do hope you do not conduct all your business affairs in a similar fashion.

You see you never met her so you just don't understand ;-)

About the retailers, it's just the way they do business - Fonfix is a registered repair shop, it makes sense for the retailers to use those skills rather than trying to build up an alternate skill base.

El staturio, we have same sort of support on the HTC phones with work, but's shipped to Fonfix afaik. Saves you the 15 yo yo walk in charge.
But you miss the other benefits :pac:

irishpancake

Buddy Holly wrote: »

Well I suppose it's like if you buy a car with a 7 year warranty, it warranty is with car manufacturer, not the garage you bought it from.

??

I'm afraid you have it backwards Buddy.

Your contract, which is legally binding on both parties, is with the retailer you buy from.

Do you doubt this?

Have you any knowledge of consumer law at all?

You are basically saying that there are no obligations whatsoever on one party to a contract.

See this:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/motoring/advice_on_buying_a_new_car_in_ireland.html

Information

Generally when you buy a new car in Ireland you buy directly from a dealer or a garage. You will have a consumer contract with this dealer or garage. Under this contract you have the right to buy a car that is of merchantable quality, as described and fit for its purpose. This means that if there is a fault with the car after you have bought it, the business with whom you have the contract (i.e. the car dealer or garage) must put things right by either repairing the fault or replacing the car. In an extreme situation they may also refund you the cost of the car.

These rules apply only to someone buying a car for their own personal use from someone whose normal business it is to sell cars. If you buy a commercial vehicle (a van, a truck or a tractor) you may not have the same rights as when you buy a car for personal use.

There are additional costs associated with buying a car which you should be aware of before you buy. When budgeting for a car you should take into account that you will need to pay for motor insurance, motor tax, repairs and servicing as well as petrol/diesel. A car with a small engine will cost less to tax, insure and run so keep these factors in mind when you are buying.

You may also want to look at this article, UK, but not radically different in relation to the rights and obligations of both parties to a contract of sale.

www.carbuyer.co.uk/tips-and-advice/your-new-car-rights

Having a manufacturers warranty is useful, and you can take certain comfort from it, but it is in addition to your rights under law, your Statutory Rights.

BdaraB

I don't understand why you don't get that unlocking your bootloader would void your warranty, on the HTC bootloader unlocking page it even says

"It is our responsibility to caution you that not all claims resulting or caused by or from the unlocking of the bootloader may be covered under warranty."

in bold and later
"Our devices have been designed with our hardware and software specifications in mind and unlocking the bootloader will change the software and may cause unexpected side effects. It is impossible for HTC to ensure the proper functioning of your device after this. In the worst case scenario, it is possible that your device may be physically damaged due to overheating or the behavior of your device might be altered including, but not limited to, hearing aid compatibility (HAC) and specific absorption rate (SAR) values."

On top of that pretty much every forum thread about installing a different rom starts with "This will void your warranty". It's a well-known fact in the android modding community that any change you make to the software from simply rooting to changing roms and overclocking will mean you will be without a warranty. To keep the car metaphor going it’s similar to chipping your car, you are changing how the machine works from how it was sold and how the manufacturer expected it to be used. Even if you did only install a different HTC rom they have no guarantee that you did that and that you didn’t change anything like the clock speed that can really damage your phone.
With this in mind I would try and remove the mention of tampering with S-Off from the bootloader and try submitting it for repair again. If it works consider yourself lucky and read the warnings next time.

irishpancake

BdaraB wrote: »

I don't understand why you don't get that unlocking your bootloader would void your warranty, on the HTC bootloader unlocking page it even says

"It is our responsibility to caution you that not all claims resulting or caused by or from the unlocking of the bootloader may be covered under warranty."

in bold and later
"Our devices have been designed with our hardware and software specifications in mind and unlocking the bootloader will change the software and may cause unexpected side effects. It is impossible for HTC to ensure the proper functioning of your device after this. In the worst case scenario, it is possible that your device may be physically damaged due to overheating or the behavior of your device might be altered including, but not limited to, hearing aid compatibility (HAC) and specific absorption rate (SAR) values."

On top of that pretty much every forum thread about installing a different rom starts with "This will void your warranty". It's a well-known fact in the android modding community that any change you make to the software from simply rooting to changing roms and overclocking will mean you will be without a warranty. To keep the car metaphor going it’s similar to chipping your car, you are changing how the machine works from how it was sold and how the manufacturer expected it to be used. Even if you did only install a different HTC rom they have no guarantee that you did that and that you didn’t change anything like the clock speed that can really damage your phone.
With this in mind I would try and remove the mention of tampering with S-Off from the bootloader and try submitting it for repair again. If it works consider yourself lucky and read the warnings next time.

How does any of what you say invalidate your Statutory Warranty in EU countries??

The manufacturers will need to demonstrate just how this software modification has caused the hardware fault the OP reported.

Are manufacturers allowed a get out of gaol card which indemnifies them from every fault which may develop in the device due to the simple unlocking or rooting procedure??

I am not saying faults cannot be caused by users, and if this is the case, then there is no protection under the EU Statutory Warranty......

but I defy you to demonstrate just how the fault referred to by the OP could possibly be the result of user action such as unlocking the boot loader.

The contract is between the retailer and purchaser anyway.

There is European Directive, which has been transcribed into law in most EU countries, which gives consumers rights over and above those given in the US or Asia, which are the markets the warnings are aimed at.

It is superior to rights given in a Manufacturers Warranty, which is only an addition to your Statutory Rights.

To quote and what manufacturers publish on web sites as definitive law is extremely short sighted......I mean, they would say these things, wouldn't they??

Putting stuff in bold writing does not make it any more true or legal.

viclemronny

irishpancake wrote: »

How does any of what you say invalidate your Statutory Warranty in EU countries??

The manufacturers will need to demonstrate just how this software modification has caused the hardware fault the OP reported.

Are manufacturers allowed a get out of gaol card which indemnifies them from every fault which may develop in the device due to the simple unlocking or rooting procedure??

I am not saying faults cannot be caused by users, and if this is the case, then there is no protection under the EU Statutory Warranty......

but I defy you to demonstrate just how the fault referred to by the OP could possibly be the result of user action such as unlocking the boot loader.

The contract is between the retailer and purchaser anyway.

There is European Directive, which has been transcribed into law in most EU countries, which gives consumers rights over and above those given in the US or Asia, which are the markets the warnings are aimed at.

It is superior to rights given in a Manufacturers Warranty, which is only an addition to your Statutory Rights.

To quote and what manufacturers publish on web sites as definitive law is extremely short sighted......I mean, they would say these things, wouldn't they??

Putting stuff in bold writing does not make it any more true or legal.

The EU Directive is a minimum harmonization directive, which means that a Member State can decide to introduce or retain more far reaching legislation, which Ireland has done so the EU directive will be of no use if you take this to the small claims court.

The Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Acts 1893-1980 should cover you as they state that goods must be of merchantable quality. Part of this is that they must be reasonably durable. You are correct in saying that the manufacturer's warranty is not relevant at all. Though it may be useful in arguing the reasonable durability expectations of the device (see below).

If you get to small claims court, you'll have to demonstrate that the malfunctioning mic was not your fault and that it is reasonable that it should be working still.

The latter is easy enough to argue owing to a) price and b) the fact that phones are routinely sold on a two year contract and should be durable for at least that long. Whether or not you bought it on a 2 year contract is irrelevant as that is acting as an indication of minimum reasonable durability here.

On the former point of the malfunctioning mic not being your fault, it'll be harder to argue. This is not because you're not correct but because it's easier to say that you tampered with it than it is to say that a software fault didn't cause this hardware fault, etc.

What is important to remember is that the retailer must prove that you caused the fault as opposed to you proving you didn't. This is easier for them if there obvious indications it was dropped, for example.

Speak to the manager of the store you bought it in and ask him to organize a repair, replacement or refund. If he says no, write to the store manager and head office, explaining the situation and asking for a remedy. Let each know that you have contacted the other. Inform them that you will be taking a case with the Small Claims Court if a satisfactory remedy is not provided. Send the letters by registered post, or at least the head office one. This shows that you are starting a paper trail and may be enough to scare them into sorting it.

If you do not get a remedy within, say 2 weeks, contact the Small Claims Court. They will give you a date about a month away. If the retailer does not show up you win. If they do, then you both argue your case in front of a judge, without legal representation (so it's nice and cheap) and he picks a winner. It's €25 to take a case in the Small Claims Court.

So, in all likelihood, the process will take about 6 weeks. The repair of a mic is about €95 from that phone mending shop (the one beside fm mobiles) on George's Street, in Dublin.

What course of action you want to pursue is up to you. Hope this was of help and that you get your phone sorted.

Personally, if the phone is unusable for calls and handsfree is driving you nuts, you may want to consider the €95 repair. You could of course get the repair and go through the SCC process to claim the money back but you may be unsuccessful and will have to factor into account the possible day off work.

Best of luck.

irishpancake

viclemronny wrote: »

The EU Directive is a minimum harmonization directive, which means that a Member State can decide to introduce or retain more far reaching legislation, which Ireland has done so the EU directive will be of no use if you take this to the small claims court.

The Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Acts 1893-1980 should cover you as they state that goods must be of merchantable quality. Part of this is that they must be reasonably durable. You are correct in saying that the manufacturer's warranty is not relevant at all. Though it may be useful in arguing the reasonable durability expectations of the device (see below).

If you get to small claims court, you'll have to demonstrate that the malfunctioning mic was not your fault and that it is reasonable that it should be working still.

The latter is easy enough to argue owing to a) price and b) the fact that phones are routinely sold on a two year contract and should be durable for at least that long. Whether or not you bought it on a 2 year contract is irrelevant as that is acting as an indication of minimum reasonable durability here.

On the former point of the malfunctioning mic not being your fault, it'll be harder to argue. This is not because you're not correct but because it's easier to say that you tampered with it than it is to say that a software fault didn't cause this hardware fault, etc.

What is important to remember is that the retailer must prove that you caused the fault as opposed to you proving you didn't. This is easier for them if there obvious indications it was dropped, for example.

Speak to the manager of the store you bought it in and ask him to organize a repair, replacement or refund. If he says no, write to the store manager and head office, explaining the situation and asking for a remedy. Let each know that you have contacted the other. Inform them that you will be taking a case with the Small Claims Court if a satisfactory remedy is not provided. Send the letters by registered post, or at least the head office one. This shows that you are starting a paper trail and may be enough to scare them into sorting it.

If you do not get a remedy within, say 2 weeks, contact the Small Claims Court. They will give you a date about a month away. If the retailer does not show up you win. If they do, then you both argue your case in front of a judge, without legal representation (so it's nice and cheap) and he picks a winner. It's €25 to take a case in the Small Claims Court.

So, in all likelihood, the process will take about 6 weeks. The repair of a mic is about €95 from that phone mending shop (the one beside fm mobiles) on George's Street, in Dublin.

What course of action you want to pursue is up to you. Hope this was of help and that you get your phone sorted.

Personally, if the phone is unusable for calls and handsfree is driving you nuts, you may want to consider the €95 repair. You could of course get the repair and go through the SCC process to claim the money back but you may be unsuccessful and will have to factor into account the possible day off work.

Best of luck.

Pretty good stuff, congrats.

I of course disagree with your concluding point, [re suck it up and pay €95], it would not be my approach, but it is tendered as advice based on personal considerations.

I did also point out that the directive had been transcribed into Irish Law, so one would not be relying on an EU Directive in any Court proceedings.

See this:

www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/si/0011.html

I, MARY HARNEY, Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 (No. 27 of 1972), and for the purpose of giving effect to Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 19991 , on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, hereby make the following regulations:

Citation.

1. These Regulations may be cited as the European Communities (Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees) Regulations 2003.

Interpretation.

2. (1) In these Regulations —

Provisions purporting to exclude consumer’s rights.

10. Any contractual terms or agreements concluded with the seller before the lack of conformity is brought to the seller’s attention which purport directly or indirectly to waive or restrict the rights resulting from these Regulations shall not be binding on the consumer.

Jurisdiction of court to order repair or replacement.

11. For the purposes of those provisions of these Regulations providing for the remedies of repair or replacement, there is, by virtue of this Regulation, vested in each court established by the Courts (Establishment and Constitution) Act 1961 jurisdiction to order the repair or replacement of consumer goods.

Also:

3. (1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), these Regulations are in addition to, and not in substitution for, any other enactment relating to the sale of goods or the terms of contracts concluded with consumers, and in particular —

(a) the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Acts 1893 and 1980,

and

(b) the European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1995 ( S.I. No. 27 of 1995 ).

(2) In particular, Regulation 4 is in addition to, and not in substitution for, a provision of any other enactment that provides that a consumer shall not be deprived, by virtue of a choice of the kind mentioned in that Regulation, of the protection afforded by any enactment.