Faulty Phone outside of warranty

I have a Iphone 5 with Three that is in a 2 year contract.

I have about 6 months of the contract remaining however the phone has developed a fault and no longer works.

It started rebooting and eventually went into recovery mode. I have tried to recover the phone to no avail, it keeps saying error in Itunes, I have tried various other computers to see if the same issue arises but it still comes up with the recovery error.

I was looking for a authroised repairer on the apple website when I came across this statement by Apple.

Under Irish consumer law, consumers are entitled to a free of charge repair or replacement, discount or refund by the seller, of defective goods or goods which do not conform with the contract of sale. These rights expire six years from delivery of the goods.

https://www.apple.com/ie/legal/statutory-warranty/


Is it the case that I am entitled to a free repair? According to the website I have to contact my supplier, in my case that is Three.ie.

Is this 6 year rule normal with items you purchase? I have never been aware of this before and find it strange because why would people buy extended warranties ?

THanks for any help.

slimjimmc

As I understand it:
Under consumer law you are entitled to a free repair, replacement or refund if a defect occurs within the reasonable lifetime of the product. The lifetime is basically what a reasonable person would expect it to last.
The 6 year is the time limit you have under the Statute of Limitations to take legal action. It is not a 6 year warranty/guarantee and it doesn't guarantee a particular outcome; it just means your case can be heard by a court (e.g Small Claims Court). For example, if a defect occurred in year 5 and neither you nor the seller can settle it among yourselves then you have until year 6 to take the seller to court. If the judge deems the reasonable life of an iPhone is 4 years you may not be entitled to anything as the product has lasted as long as expected.

Depending on the T&Cs an extended warranty may give you specific extra benefits than consumer rights. For example the warranty may guarantee a replacement phone whereas you may not get that under consumer rights. You may also get cover for accidental damage which consumer law does not provide. Often extended warranties are relatively expensive so read the T&Cs and compare against insurance policies to see if you get better value.

dudara

The 6 years refers to how long you have to seek redress.

In your case, I'd start with Three, as they are the retailer. Apple are excellent to deal with when the phone is in warranty, but once outside, they charge for repairs.

P. Breathnach

slimjimmc wrote: »

As I understand it:
Under consumer law you are entitled to a free repair, replacement or refund if a defect occurs within the reasonable lifetime of the product. The lifetime is basically what a reasonable person would expect it to last....

Given the frequency with which large numbers of users "upgrade" their phones, the idea of a reasonable lifetime for a phone is unknown territory for many!

But you have a clincher: the phone hasn't even made it to the end of the two-year contract. That has to be an unarguable minimum lifetime (personally, I'd expect 4-5 years from a phone). Three would look pretty bad if they refused to look after you within the minimum contract period. I am assuming in this discussion that the phone has not been abused.

On your question about extended warranties: I never buy them, as I think they are spectacularly bad value. You often get a little for your money in that (a) there might be an insurance element built in, and (b) if the product fails, it can be easier to get some redress. But those small benefits are inordinately expensive.

blade1

Is eu law two years warranty on goods?

dudara

blade1 wrote: »

Is eu law two years warranty on goods?

That was not enacted in Ireland as our consumer law was deemed to provide stronger protection.

blade1

dudara wrote: »

That was not enacted in Ireland as our consumer law was deemed to provide stronger protection.

And is it?

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Given the frequency with which large numbers of users "upgrade" their phones, the idea of a reasonable lifetime for a phone is unknown territory for many!

I had an issue with the battery on my phone. Lady in shop said oh 2 years is it, time to get a new one really so

Eh... no. 2 years??? come on ...
apparently i can't just replace the battery in it :mad:

Anyway OP I think within contract is definitely within reasonable lifetime, talk to them

timetogo

blade1 wrote: »

And is it?

Look all the way up to post two to see if it is.


Hint: it is.

jahalpin

Apple are the only large mobile phone "manufacturer" not to offer a 2 year warranty on their products

2 years would be a reasonable lifespan for a smartphone due to the nature of the components used.

From the statement on the Apple website, it sounds like the retailer will have to pay for the repair themselves even though the retailer actually made the least margin on the phone

Del2005

jahalpin wrote: »

Apple are the only large mobile phone "manufacturer" not to offer a 2 year warranty on their products

2 years would be a reasonable lifespan for a smartphone due to the nature of the components used.

From the statement on the Apple website, it sounds like the retailer will have to pay for the repair themselves even though the retailer actually made the least margin on the phone

2 years for a device that cost several hundred Euro:eek::eek: A phone should last way more than two years, the only thing on a phone that should have issues within 2 years is the battery and then that's down to consumer use. All the other components are made with much longer time frames in mind as they go into devices other than phones that don't get replaced as often.

The Apple website is quoting Irish law, when you buy something your contract is with the company that sold it to you so it's up to the retailer to rectify the issue. If it starts costing the retailer money to rectify issues then they'll just have to stop stocking the product until it's quality control has been improved.

blade1

timetogo wrote: »

Look all the way up to post two to see if it is.


Hint: it is.

Is it though?
Going by that, it's down to the opinion of a judge.
Shur a judge wouldn't be an expert on phones.
At least with the 2 year guarantee, you know where you stand.

beauf

Note Irish law is different but.


http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/mac/eu-law-forces-apple-highlight-two-year-warranty-3348755/

timetogo

blade1 wrote: »

Is it though?
Going by that, it's down to the opinion of a judge.
Shur a judge wouldn't be an expert on phones.
At least with the 2 year guarantee, you know where you stand.

I'd take my chances with the Irish law rather than take a fixed 2 years. I'm sure a judge wouldn't be an expert on phones but they're not total idiots.

Would they even need to be an expert in a phone. Can you think of any consumer electronic device that costs about €600 that you'd think it would be acceptable for it to stop working after 2 years of normal use? I'm sure there must be some but I can't think of any.

With the Irish law you could get 3 or 4 years out of a device and have the replacement / repair cost (or a portion of it) covered by the supplier.

Of course if anybody can post on here that they've been to the small claims court within two years with a device that they didn't damage and the court found in favour of the supplier then all of the above is pointless

blade1

timetogo wrote: »

I'd take my chances with the Irish law rather than take a fixed 2 years. I'm sure a judge wouldn't be an expert on phones but they're not total idiots.

Would they even need to be an expert in a phone. Can you think of any consumer electronic device that costs about €600 that you'd think it would be acceptable for it to stop working after 2 years of normal use? I'm sure there must be some but I can't think of any.

With the Irish law you could get 3 or 4 years out of a device and have the replacement / repair cost (or a portion of it) covered by the supplier.

Of course if anybody can post on here that they've been to the small claims court within two years with a device that they didn't damage and the court found in favour of the supplier then all of the above is pointless

You may be right,I'm a bit sceptical when dealing with those in the law profession (I have my reasons)
But two different judges could give two different rulings and to me then there's a chance of some people losing out.
Say, does a phone that cost €500 get less time than a phone that cost €800?

timetogo

blade1 wrote: »

You may be right,I'm a bit sceptical when dealing with those in the law profession (I have my reasons)
But two different judges could give two different rulings and to me then there's a chance of some people losing out.
Say, does a phone that cost €500 get less time than a phone that cost €800?

Yep, I used to work in the Four Courts. I know the judges are in a world of their own. Really, you have to see some of them walking around with their tip staff like they're a king and ask yourself if you're still on planet Earth.

But I haven't heard of anybody reasonably getting less than 2 years out of a device.

I'm sure a €500 phone could be argued to not last as long as an €800 one. I'd argue that for €800 I would reasonably expect that to last 5 years. For a €50 phone I'd probably argue that 2 years was good enough. That's the trouble with our law though, it's all subjective. I think though that even with it being subjective it's better than just saying 2 years and that's it for everything.

blade1

timetogo wrote: »

Yep, I used to work in the Four Courts. I know the judges are in a world of their own. Really, you have to see some of them walking around with their tip staff like they're a king and ask yourself if you're still on planet Earth.

But I haven't heard of anybody reasonably getting less than 2 years out of a device.

I'm sure a €500 phone could be argued to not last as long as an €800 one. I'd argue that for €800 I would reasonably expect that to last 5 years. For a €50 phone I'd probably argue that 2 years was good enough. That's the trouble with our law though, it's all subjective. I think though that even with it being subjective it's better than just saying 2 years and that's it for everything.

See, the thing is,let's take iphone for example.
The difference in price with iPhones is due to the amount of space on them.
Why should a 128gig iphone get more warranty time than a 16gig iPhone?

timetogo

blade1 wrote: »

See, the thing is,let's take iphone for example.
The difference in price with iPhones is due to the amount of space on them.
Why should a 128gig iphone get more warranty time than a 16gig iPhone?

Because it's more expensive. I know there's little technical difference (and I know that an extra 112Gb should really only cost an extra €50 but that's another days argument).

In one of your first posts you said you'd prefer to have 2 years warranty.

What price would you say would be acceptable to fail at 2 years? Whether it's €300 or €800 I'd still say 2 years is too little.
My point is that for most devices in Ireland we'd get more than 2 years with the current system. I wouldn't argue about a cheap €50 phone. For something like that the 1 year warranty wouldn't be argued about.

blade1

The longer the better!
I have a tv that I paid €1450 2 years ago.
How long do you reckon I can expect that to be covered?

timetogo

blade1 wrote: »

The longer the better!
I have a tv that I paid €1450 2 years ago.
How long do you reckon I can expect that to be covered?

No idea. Probably more than 2 years though.

blade1

timetogo wrote: »

No idea. Probably more than 2 years though.

The tv is actually exactly 2 years old today!

How does it work though?

If you go back to the shop and tell them you bought item over 2 years ago and now it's broke.

Does the shop decide,ok you paid x amount so yeah they'll replace it.

Or do they say "no way, you have it over 2 years,we'll see you in court?"

theteal

blade1 wrote: »

The tv is actually exactly 2 years old today!

How does it work though?

If you go back to the shop and tell them you bought item over 2 years ago and now it's broke.

Does the shop decide,ok you paid x amount so yeah they'll replace it.

Or do they say "no way, you have it over 2 years,we'll see you in court?"

They'll tell you where to go. They'll hope you drop it and never hear from you again. They may reconsider when the receive notice of SCC proceedings. When you go to court, just prove that the item wasn't mistreated and the judge will deem in your favour (but he/she will deduct the for the 2 years use you've got from it)

blade1

theteal wrote: »

They'll tell you where to go. They'll hope you drop it and never hear from you again. They may reconsider when the receive notice of SCC proceedings. When you go to court, just prove that the item wasn't mistreated and the judge will deem in your favour (but he/she will deduct the for the 2 years use you've got from it)

And for items that cost more than the scc limit?
Would people risk going to court?
What kind of cost would they be facing if the judge ruled against them?

timetogo

blade1 wrote: »

And for items that cost more than the scc limit?
Would people risk going to court?
What kind of cost would they be facing if the judge ruled against them?

For Question 1 - Whats the SCC limit? I can't see a mention of a limit to the amount you can claim against on their site. (http://www.courts.ie/courts.ie/library3.nsf/pagecurrent/781D7D5227918A618025715C004CAEF3?opendocument&l=en&p=110)

For Question 3 - The cost of the of the application, €25.

You should have an idea about question 3 before you apply. E.g. if you've used your €1500 TV for 3 years and it hasn't been abused then you would have a reasonable idea that you're not really gambling with your €25. And if you're dealing with a decent retailer they shouldn't push you down the small claims route for a reasonable request. For example if I have to take a retailer to the SCC and I win I'll tell everybody that the retailer made me do that.

dudara

blade1 wrote: »

The tv is actually exactly 2 years old today!

How does it work though?

If you go back to the shop and tell them you bought item over 2 years ago and now it's broke.

Does the shop decide,ok you paid x amount so yeah they'll replace it.

Or do they say "no way, you have it over 2 years,we'll see you in court?"

The shop would likely want to determine if the breakage is due to user error/misuse rather than something intrinsic to the device. The longer something lasts, the more likely that breakage will be due to use/misuse and less likely that it will be due to defects.

All these factors have to be balanced against each other when a device fails.

blade1

1, I think it's €2000 but I'm not sure.
And 2, how do you abuse a tv?
On second thoughts, I don't want to know!:pac:

timetogo

blade1 wrote: »

1, I think it's €2000 but I'm not sure.
And 2, how do you abuse a tv?
On second thoughts, I don't want to know!:pac:

If it's €2000 I'd imagine it'd be mentioned on the site.

If you have a toddler its easy to see a TV get some abuse. I'm not sure where your mind was :pac:

Edit: you seem to be right. It mentions €2K here
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/courts_system/small_claims_court.html

El Inho

The warranty is your warranty and thats that.

Apple and Sony are the only major mobiles with a one year warranty.

If you're buying into them on contract take insurance. Other than that, the second year is no man's land.

timetogo

El Inho wrote: »

The warranty is your warranty and thats that.

Apple and Sony are the only major mobiles with a one year warranty.

If you're buying into them on contract take insurance. Other than that, the second year is no man's land.

Good god can you read the rest of the thread. Even the second post explains Irish consumer law.

The warranty is a warranty and that's not that. Consumer law in Ireland beats a manufacturers warranty nearly every time.
And in my opinion you only ever need insurance for accidental damage or loss / theft which are not the scenarios asked about in the OP.

blade1

Oh no!!!:pac::pac:

timetogo

blade1 wrote: »

Oh no!!!:pac::pac:

Tis time to give up :pac:

jimmynokia

timetogo wrote: »

If it's €2000 I'd imagine it'd be mentioned on the site.

If you have a toddler its easy to see a TV get some abuse. I'm not sure where your mind was :pac:

Edit: you seem to be right. It mentions €2K here
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/courts_system/small_claims_court.html

My TV has been mounted high on my wall for years,no way a toddler can get near it. :eek:

jahalpin

El Inho wrote: »

The warranty is your warranty and thats that.

Apple and Sony are the only major mobiles with a one year warranty.

If you're buying into them on contract take insurance. Other than that, the second year is no man's land.

Sony provide a 2 year warranty on phones, so Apple are the only manufacturer that offer a 1 year warranty.

Greenmachine

One of the mobile phone operator refused a repair on a phone of mine under warranty apparently because a sticker was damaged. Supplied photos on the repairers website did not show any damage anywhere on the phone. I think they are chancing their arm half the time.

Del2005

Greenmachine wrote: »

One of the mobile phone operator refused a repair on a phone of mine under warranty apparently because a sticker was damaged. Supplied photos on the repairers website did not show any damage anywhere on the phone. I think they are chancing their arm half the time.

I'd hazard a guess it was the moisture sensor sticker that got damaged. Once that's turned at all they won't look at it and it doesn't need to be immersed in water to turn.

UPDATE

Thought Id give you all an update!

Took my Phone into a Three shop yesterday, at first they tried to BS me and say the phone was out of warranty, tough luck its my loss.

I argued the consumer law point but they were not having it, I then took out the Apple print out that mentioned the consumer law They then changed their tune and said I should contact Apple. Again I pointed out that as the seller they were the ones I returned the phone to.

Eventually they agreed to send the phone off but they wanted a €50 deposit, I refused. They then said any repair costs would be added to my bill, which I also disagreed too.

In the end they sent my phone off in a packet labeled for Belgium, I doubt its going to be straight forward and I expect further problems!

I did end up with a loan phone, no deposit and phone has been sent somewhere, but it took a long argument and for me to produce a print out. In total I spent around 1 hour in the shop.

I will let you know what happens next !

foggy_lad

One hour for a return for repair that should have taken no more than maybe 10-15 minutes if the staff and store were any good.

Well here is the latest!

got an email from a company called sbe ireland, in their email was a report saying phone software faulty and screening. (Whatever that is!)

Anyhow they want €250 for the pleasure to fix, and are awaiting my instructions.

looks like ill be having an argument with three!

anyone care to suggest what my next course of action should be? I dont really want to call their customer service as it will most likely be a call centre in India.

thanks

timetogo

I'd ask them to return the phone with an explanation of why this is not covered under your statutory rights as a consumer. When you get the phone and letter, as long as the letter doesn't say the damage / fault is your fault then apply to the small claims court.

Document everything. Dates and names of people you were dealing with and what each one said.

On the plus side (for me, not for you) I'm pretty sure I won't ever be using Three if this is an example of how they treat customers.
Obviously the guy you were dealing with last week ignored you totally and just sent the phone off for a standard repair.

Yet again a further update!

Contacted the Phone repair centre today to get clarification on what the actual fault was. Had to send off various emails trying to get clarification from the repair centre and even had a call from the Three shop asking if I wanted to pay the €250!

Eventually an email from the repair centre explained that they dont actually do any real inspections!

When a device comes in the technician screens the phone for physical damage, unauthorized repair, warranty date and liquid damage if the unit passes these checks the device is exchanged in warranty if the unit fails any of these checks a quotation is raised and no further checks take place and if you decide to go ahead with the quotation we request the exchange from Apple.

They have also stated they want €15 to return the phone to me unrepairable, or after 90 days the phone will be destroyed.

So im now wondering what my next step should be, Do I pay the €15 and get the phone back or do I demand apple pay the €15!

Can anyone also explain if the onus is on Apple to show that the phone is faulty through me or is the phone is genuinely faulty and falls under the consumer rights.

Or do i have to prove the phone is faulty by design and conduct a independent repair report?

Thanks again for any help.

timetogo

Can you ask them which one the phone failed on?

"physical damage, unauthorized repair, warranty date and liquid damage"

They'll probably say warranty date.

If they did, I'd pay the €15 and add it to the cost of the Small Claims Court claim.

If they've done no inspection and want you to pay €250 I'd say you could point that out in the SCC.

They're really making this into a saga.

timetogo

timetogo wrote: »

Can you ask them which one the phone failed on?

"physical damage, unauthorized repair, warranty date and liquid damage"

They'll probably say warranty date.

If they did, I'd pay the €15 and add it to the cost of the Small Claims Court claim.

If they've done no inspection and want you to pay €250 I'd say you could point that out in the SCC.

They're really making this into a saga.

Thanks for you help,

Can i ask,

Once I get the phone back would I need a independent report to provide evidence the phone is faulty or could I just go to the small claims court and let the judge decide?

What would the normal procedure be.

Thanks again.

timetogo

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks for you help,

Can i ask,

Once I get the phone back would I need a independent report to provide evidence the phone is faulty or could I just go to the small claims court and let the judge decide?

What would the normal procedure be.

Thanks again.

No idea. But if Three / Apple have done nothing to investigate what caused the problem with the phone I'd imagine they'd be asked why they wanted to charge €250.

The small claims court is cheap. I think €15 or €25. So no harm documenting everything up and submitting it. The worst that could happen is that the court doesn't find in your favour and you lose €25.

Once you have the phone back and if they admit they won't repair it because it's outside of warranty they can hardly argue any different when they're in court (if they go to court).

my3cents

Definitely pay to get the phone back then start Small Claims Court proceedings and don't forget to claim the €15 back. All three have done is proved your case for you. You might want to raise an official complaint with three because to get the best results from the SCC you need to have exhausted all other avenues.

Easiest thing to do is put it all the info in an email to three in which you including what you expect three to do about it and email it to customer.services.ie@3mail.com and CC comreg consumerline@comreg.ie using the subject line Formal Compliant. Comreg will probably get back and say they can't help you in this case but including them on the email proves it was sent so three can't ignore it or can ignore it at their peril. Give three ten working days to respond then get on to the SCC. It might help to mention in your Formal Complaint that your next step is the SCC if you don't get a satisfactory response that is in compliance with Irish Consumer Law.

Read also threes code of practice re: complaints http://www.three.ie/pdf/3%20Code%20of%20Practice.pdf

Mervyn Skidmore

Small Claims cost €25 and you can't claim for the cost of bringing the claim.

Update

In my latest reply from Three I received this response!



I tried to call you, but haven’t been able to reach you.

(LOL! Phone dont work dear!)

If you’re referring to the sellers warranty under the European law, I’d like to confirm that the seller is liable for the proper performance of your purchase for a period of at least 2 years. However, this is only applicable if the device is defective within six month of purchase and if the defect is reported. This is because if the defect is reported and confirmed within six months, it is assumed that the lack of conformity already existed at the time of purchase. In your case, the issue was due to a software upgrade which confirms that the lack conformity did not exist at the time of purchase and so the seller’s warranty is not applicable.

The burden to prove that the defect (including latent defects) existed on delivery generally shifts to the consumer after the expiry of a period of 6 months from date of delivery under S.I. No. 11/2003 - European Communities (Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees) Regulations 2003 (as taken from Apple website).

With reference to the minimum term, please know that the service that Three provides is to the SIM card. The warranty on the handset is supplied by the manufacturer of the device and Three merely acts as a mediator to process their warranty claims. As the handset is out of warranty, repairs will be charged.




.
I have replied and directed them to the Apple website that clearly states Irish law and advises to return the phone to the seller of the phone.

Lets see what there latest reply is!

timetogo

Well, that's pretty good for you. Handy to have them commit this to writing. Another letter for the file for the small claims court.
I'd imagine a question to ask in the court is why they're talking about European Law when we use the Irish Sale Of Goods Act.

I don't know how to argue about a software update. Are they saying an Apple update broke it? What are they saying you should have done? Not update? Is that official Three policy ☺

On their own site they tell customers to update their phones.
http://www.three.ie/explore/4G/software-update/
A simple question during the court is to ask do they recommend updating IPhones when they know it can break phones. They're hardly going to say yes to that.

TheDoc

Can I ask have you (and this might seem obvious) reviewed the contract you signed when you first took up the offer?

From other mobile carriers, there is normally indication that the service they are providing you is to the simcard, and not the phone itself. They arn't far wrong when they say the handset is subject to the manufacturer. Remembering that Apple have a policy with all re-sellers that repairs and replacements be sent directly to them ( similar with Dyson and Microsoft).

I'm a bit confused with the previous references to consumer law you keep referencing. Are you arguing this on the basis that it has not last a reasonably expected lifetime?

As someone who has gone down this road, while it might seem like "common sense" it can be an extremely difficult process. Both myself and a few people I know have gone down this route, and come back empty handed. While on the surface it's a simple arguement based on "well I paid X euro for a phone and I expect it to last Y years" there is a hefty amount of questioning that can be made that turns the whole thing into a little more then black and white.

I havn't read it clearly in the thread yet, but I think you might be best checking your contract to see what exactly the terms where between you and Three. I'm under the belief that the terms of contract are the service being provided to the sim, and the handset provided ( in this case an iphone) does not form part of service of the contract.

Just worth double checking.

theteal

TheDoc wrote: »

I havn't read it clearly in the thread yet, but I think you might be best checking your contract to see what exactly the terms where between you and Three. I'm under the belief that the terms of contract are the service being provided to the sim, and the handset provided ( in this case an iphone) does not form part of service of the contract.

Just worth double checking.

The contract of sale is between the retailer and purchaser of the device i.e. 3 and the OP. For the OP to exercise his consumer rights in this case, he deals with 3. Nothing to do with policies, warranties etc. It's just the law of the land.

timetogo

TheDoc wrote: »

From other mobile carriers, there is normally indication that the service they are providing you is to the simcard, and not the phone itself. They arn't far wrong when they say the handset is subject to the manufacturer.

A contract can't override your statutory rights. Or can it. You can't make contracts that contravene the law. I'm assuming that there. I'm not a legal expert. It would sound mental if you could though.
I can't see how Three could sell you a phone & SIM and say they'll only support the SIM.

You said you went down this road yourself. Did you use the Small Claims Court?

TheDoc

theteal wrote: »

The contract of sale is between the retailer and purchaser of the device i.e. 3 and the OP. For the OP to exercise his consumer rights in this case, he deals with 3. Nothing to do with policies, warranties etc. It's just the law of the land.

I'm just saying it's worth the OP checking, as I havn't seen it mentioned here. Plenty of contract plans from mobile phone carriers clearly state the contract of sale is for provision of service to a SIM card, not the phone.

I'm not being difficult, just saying it's worth the OP checking. My sister's iPhone died within her contract with O2 I believe, but was outside of the phones actual warranty. Reviewing the contract, it was very clearly defined the terms of contract was for service for the SIM card, and not the phone.

If the OP walked into the shop and bought a pay as you go phone, then yeah your spot on. But it's worth noting how the terms of sale are worded in contracts for when you buy iphones. Typically your actually buying the 18/24/36 month service to a SIM card, not an actual phone.

Anyway just a recommendation to the OP as I said my sister had the same issue and it didn't end the way we initially assumed it would.