Faulty Phone outside of warranty

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.

my3cents

TheDoc wrote: »

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.

You didn't answer the question, "Did you use the Small Claims Court?"

TheDoc

timetogo wrote: »

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?

No sister stopped before the small claims court. She received a similar email to the OP, although the e-mail actually referenced a specific portion of her contract. So it was then pretty clear the agreement was for the service to the SIM for X months at Y price. The iphone itself was a subsidised incentive and all issues were left to the manafacturer.

In the end it was sorted in an unofficial repair shop for decent enough price, so a big deal wasnt really needed in the end.

I was under the impression all Apple products went directly back to themselves when issues arose anyway? Has that changed? Dyson, Microsoft and Apple were three big retailers taht requested all reported faults and issues be sent directly to them.

That changed in the last five years?

timetogo

TheDoc wrote: »

I was under the impression all Apple products went directly back to themselves when issues arose anyway? Has that changed? Dyson, Microsoft and Apple were three big retailers taht requested all reported faults and issues be sent directly to them.

That changed in the last five years?

No, hasn't changed. That's what the manufacturers want. You can do that if you want. But in Ireland your contract is with the seller, not the manufacturer.
So the manufacturers can ask for whatever they want but the law supports you only with the retailer. If you're in warranty and there's no dispute then it may be handier to use the manufacturers method. If you're not in warranty and relying on Sale Of Goods Act then the manufacture can tell you to take a hike. The retailer can't, but obviously in the case of Three they'll tell you to take a hike too

The reason I asked about you going to the SCC was because what you're saying is unusual and would seem at odds the Sale of Goods Act. If you'd been to the SCC it would be handy to know what they said (I'd imagine they're the experts). Your contract can say whatever it wants. If it's against the law it's hardly enforceable but very handy to show to the buyer to say "well this is what you signed so these are your rights".

If the OP goes down this route hopefully he'll post here what the SCC says.

TheDoc

my3cents wrote: »

You didn't answer the question, "Did you use the Small Claims Court?"

Answered above, no, the contract was pretty clear in the end as to what the story was.

And I'm not advocating all contracts are the same, or this scenario is identical to every other one. I'm just outlining that it hasn't been mentioned here from what I can see, bar the e-mail from Three the OP shared. And that it might be worth checking the initial contract

I also asked a question relating to was this going to be argued on the "expected and reasonable lifespan of a product". I hear and see that banded around a lot, and while I've heard and read about a few cases where the consumer has been succesfull in the arugement, I've seen many cases where they are not. Myself included.

timetogo

TheDoc wrote: »

I've seen many cases where they are not. Myself included.

Ah but you're not included. You gave in. If the retailer and the buyer disagree then either one gives in or you go to a third party (the court). You didn't go all the way. And that's probably fine. If you're arguing about a repair that is not much more than the SCC fee then why bother with the hassle and the court.

If the expense was much more (as I think it is here) then it's worth trying out the court.

TheDoc

timetogo wrote: »

The reason I asked about you going to the SCC was because what you're saying is unusual and would seem at odds the Sale of Goods Act. If you'd been to the SCC it would be handy to know what they said (I'd imagine they're the experts). Your contract can say whatever it wants. If it's against the law it's hardly enforceable but very handy to show to the buyer to say "well this is what you signed so these are your rights".

If the OP goes down this route hopefully he'll post here what the SCC says.

Probably comes down to understanding of what was "actually sold". In my sisters case, she had "bought" a 24 month service of A,B,C from a mobile carrier. For purchasing this service, she was provided with an iphone as like "incentive".

Discussing it at the time I guess it kinda made sense. Everyone goes in obviously buying an iphone and having to sign up to a contract, but when we looked at how it was being advertised, it then kinda made sense how various mobile retailers were offering a certain package, and as an incentive, a subsidized iphone.

Another real life example is Broadband. There are some instances where a BB provider abstains ownership from the hardware. The contract will clearly state your purchasing a service from the provider supplied to the entry point in your home. IE were the cable comes out of your wall. But they abstain all ownership from the hardware used.

You'd assume it's the norm since most BB providers advertise some form of "free router" or something like that. But in some cases there is no liability for the hardware. As mental as that sounds.

Plenty of case examples over on the Nets and Comms forums about it. So in some ways I wouldn't totally rule that practice out when it comes to mobile phone carriers/networks.

TheDoc

timetogo wrote: »

Ah but you're not included. You gave in. If the retailer and the buyer disagree then either one gives in or you go to a third party (the court). You didn't go all the way. And that's probably fine. If you're arguing about a repair that is not much more than the SCC fee then why bother with the hassle and the court.

If the expense was much more (as I think it is here) then it's worth trying out the court.

Sorry to clarify when I said myself included it was in relation of going through a legal process in our courts to seek address for an item I felt had "died" before my reasonable expectation of use/life.

my3cents

TheDoc wrote: »

Probably comes down to understanding of what was "actually sold". In my sisters case, she had "bought" a 24 month service of A,B,C from a mobile carrier. For purchasing this service, she was provided with an iphone as like "incentive".

Discussing it at the time I guess it kinda made sense. Everyone goes in obviously buying an iphone and having to sign up to a contract, but when we looked at how it was being advertised, it then kinda made sense how various mobile retailers were offering a certain package, and as an incentive, a subsidized iphone.

Another real life example is Broadband. There are some instances where a BB provider abstains ownership from the hardware. The contract will clearly state your purchasing a service from the provider supplied to the entry point in your home. IE were the cable comes out of your wall. But they abstain all ownership from the hardware used.

You'd assume it's the norm since most BB providers advertise some form of "free router" or something like that. But in some cases there is no liability for the hardware. As mental as that sounds.

Plenty of case examples over on the Nets and Comms forums about it. So in some ways I wouldn't totally rule that practice out when it comes to mobile phone carriers/networks.

Shame you didn't understand it then. It would have been well worth the €25 to get an education from the SCC.

TheDoc

my3cents wrote: »

Shame you didn't understand it then. It would have been well worth the €25 to get an education from the SCC.

Actually had a lengthy response but don't want to stoop to dickish posts like yours. Suffice to say don't need to pay 25 euro to understand a contract

Update

Well had another response from Three, not getting anywhere with them in all honesty. THey seem to be sticking to their guns.

Ive now requested their correct Irish address to serve documents on from the SCC.

From THree

As explained earlier, the sellers warranty is not applicable in your case. The link mentioned in your email confirms this. Once you access the link, scroll down and read the content mentioned under ‘Summary of Irish Consumer Law’. The information in our last email is retrieved from the link provided in your email.

As advised earlier, the repairs will be chargeable as the phone is out of Apple warranty and the sellers warranty does not apply in your case.



From the link I supplied them

Summary of Irish Consumer Law

Your consumer rights under Irish consumer law operate alongside, and in addition to, your rights under the Apple One-Year Limited Warranty and the optional AppleCare Protection Plan.

Under Irish consumer law, consumers may choose to have defective goods or goods which do not conform with the contract sale either repaired or replaced free of charge. If a repair or replacement is impossible or would impose unreasonable expense on the seller, the consumer may then choose either to have the price reduced or to withdraw from the contract by returning the product in exchange for a full refund. A consumer is also entitled to withdraw from the contract by returning the product in exchange for a full refund if the consumer rejects the goods within a reasonable period of time. The primary responsibility is on the seller, which would be Apple if the goods were purchased from the Apple Online Store. If the goods were purchased from a third party reseller of Apple products, the primary responsibility to provide a remedy will lie with the reseller. These rights expire six years from delivery of the goods and a claim may be made subject to the defect being present at the time of purchase.

Under Irish consumer law, any defect or non-conformity of goods with the contract which becomes apparent within 6 months of delivery are presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. After the expiry of this 6 month period, the burden to prove that the defect or non-conformity of goods with the contract existed on delivery generally shifts to the consumer.[/B]