Do I have any right to 3R's in this situation

Whiplashy

I was with the Three mobile network in January on bill pay and was eligible for an upgrade, so got a new phone. Got notification in May that they were changing the terms of my contract so I cancelled the contract without penalty, and got to keep the phone. I'm with a different network now. The phones battery life is gone shockingly bad in the last few weeks. Have to charge it about 3 times a day. Have I any comeback considering I only paid 5 bills towards it when it should have been 24? I'm guessing not, but just want to be sure.

L1011

I would find out the repair centre for the phone manufacturer and go there directly, as that's all 3 would do. Its likely to be SBE in Baldonnel who I do not hold in high regard but who do willingly take handsets direct from the customer.

Time

Whiplashy wrote: »

I was with the Three mobile network in January on bill pay and was eligible for an upgrade, so got a new phone. Got notification in May that they were changing the terms of my contract so I cancelled the contract without penalty, and got to keep the phone. I'm with a different network now. The phones battery life is gone shockingly bad in the last few weeks. Have to charge it about 3 times a day. Have I any comeback considering I only paid 5 bills towards it when it should have been 24? I'm guessing not, but just want to be sure.

In short yes, your consumer rights are separate from the contract that you entered into. What type phone is it?

Whiplashy

Time wrote: »

In short yes, your consumer rights are separate from the contract that you entered into. What type phone is it?

It's a HTC. I'm not even sure if I paid anything upfront for it or if the total payment was supposed to be on the bills.

Sonics2k

Whiplashy wrote: »

It's a HTC. I'm not even sure if I paid anything upfront for it or if the total payment was supposed to be on the bills.

Thankfully it's irrelevant. Contract or not, you still have the right to a replacement, repair or refund, but the choice is theirs on which is picked.

Whiplashy

Sonics2k wrote: »

Thankfully it's irrelevant. Contract or not, you still have the right to a replacement, repair or refund, but the choice is theirs on which is picked.

Is it three I should contact or HTC? If it's three I suppose I could try messaging them on here and see what they say. I'd have an answer then at least.

You can get on to HTC Support directly and arrange to have the phone sent for repair (via SBE as mentioned previously) as it will still be under warranty anyway.
However, have you tried doing a factory reset to see if it resolves the rapid battery drain? When you send it for repair, they are going to do this.

Whiplashy

Deleted User wrote: »

You can get on to HTC Support directly and arrange to have the phone sent for repair (via SBE as mentioned previously) as it will still be under warranty anyway.
However, have you tried doing a factory reset to see if it resolves the rapid battery drain? When you send it for repair, they are going to do this.

I don't have any proof of purchase unfortunately. I thought I might have an email from three about the order but nothing's showing up. I'll have to go with contacting three and hope they have something on file. I can see them laughing at me though! I'd leave it into the repair centre myself but I'm too far away. I'll try doing the factory reset before I contact three. Hadn't thought of that. I'm not very good with technology.

jimmycrackcorm

Whiplashy wrote: »

I don't have any proof of purchase unfortunately. I thought I might have an email from three about the order but nothing's showing up. I'll have to go with contacting three and hope they have something on file. I can see them laughing at me though! I'd leave it into the repair centre myself but I'm too far away. I'll try doing the factory reset before I contact three. Hadn't thought of that. I'm not very good with technology.

You should be able to take the phone into a Three shop and get them to send it for repair. Even though you are not on contract, you still have purchased it from them and they will have a record for the imei.

BeardySi

Tried resetting the battery cache? I've had lots of HTC's over the years and found it necessary to do this every few months with a few of them, or battery performance would fall off dramatically.

Former Former

TBH I don't think you're entitled to anything from Three. You chose to cancel your contract, therefore no contract of sales exists and so they don't have any obligations to you.

However, your phone would still be within the manufacturer's warranty so you're probably fine.

davo10

If the phone was a free upgrade and they have the option of the 3rs, then my guess is that as you are no longer their customer, they will opt for the refund, which of course is zero.

Xterminator

refund (of 0) is one of the 3 r's.

Sonics2k

Former Former wrote: »

TBH I don't think you're entitled to anything from Three. You chose to cancel your contract, therefore no contract of sales exists and so they don't have any obligations to you.

However, your phone would still be within the manufacturer's warranty so you're probably fine.

davo10 wrote: »

If the phone was a free upgrade and they have the option of the 3rs, then my guess is that as you are no longer their customer, they will opt for the refund, which of course is zero.

Please ignore both of these OP.

Cancelled contract or not, you still have your legal rights.

As you don't have a receipt, then go into the Three store you purchased it from and get a copy, they can send it off for repair for you, which is the most likely thing they'll do.

Three very rarely, if ever, will provide a loan phone as they are often stolen.

Source: I worked for O2 for 5 years, the law is the law no matter the company or contract.

Former Former

Sonics2k wrote: »

Please ignore both of these OP.

Cancelled contract or not, you still have your legal rights.

As you don't have a receipt, then go into the Three store you purchased it from and get a copy, they can send it off for repair for you, which is the most likely thing they'll do.

Three very rarely, if ever, will provide a loan phone as they are often stolen.

Source: I worked for O2 for 5 years, the law is the law no matter the company or contract.

They will more than likely send it off because the phone would still be under manufacturer's warranty and therefore no cost issue for them.

If it was the network who was taking the hit, it would be a different story.

The law is the law. If you choose to cancel a purchase contract, as the OP did, then you can't rely on that contract to enforce your rights.

davo10

Sonics2k wrote: »

Please ignore both of these OP.

Cancelled contract or not, you still have your legal rights.

As you don't have a receipt, then go into the Three store you purchased it from and get a copy, they can send it off for repair for you, which is the most likely thing they'll do.

Three very rarely, if ever, will provide a loan phone as they are often stolen.

Source: I worked for O2 for 5 years, the law is the law no matter the company or contract.

That is certainly an interesting post.

If the ops receipt says €0.00 for the phone, are you saying only two rather than three of the R's apply? I'd certainly like to see the link to the SOGaS Act which says that.

A claim to the SCC would also be enlightening, the op would be paying €25 and looking for a refund on a zero priced item.

But you know best cause you worked with O2 for 5 years and the law is indeed the law.

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

That is certainly an interesting post.

If the ops receipt says €0.00 for the phone, are you saying only two rather than three of the R's apply? I'd certainly like to see the link to the SOGaS Act which says that.

A claim to the SCC would also be enlightening, the op would be paying €25 and looking for a refund on a zero priced item.

But you know best cause you worked with O2 for 5 years and the law is indeed the law.

Threes receipts show the PAYG/unsubsidised cost of the phone, and then the amount removed for taking out a contract - up to the entire cost of the phone.

They insist this means the phone is free (and is why they ended up giving away piles of phones when they tried their stroke with the roaming) but SCC judgements do not generally agree.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

Threes receipts show the PAYG/unsubsidised cost of the phone, and then the amount removed for taking out a contract - up to the entire cost of the phone.

They insist this means the phone is free (and is why they ended up giving away piles of phones when they tried their stroke with the roaming) but SCC judgements do not generally agree.

I can see how much that would be a fact during a contract, the two go hand in hand and the price of the service contract includes the price of the phone. In the ops case he/she ended the contract after 4 months, hardly a timeframe whereby he could claim he/she "paid" for the phone so effectively he had the service for 4 months and got the phone for free.

I certainly would not claim to be an expert on the SCC but my understanding is you can't by an item for €50 and then claim it cost you €500 in the SCC. If you paid zero for an item, can you make a profit on it in the SCC? If you buy a phone on sale for €100 can you seek an award for the full €300 price?

Which judgements award costs higher than the consumer paid for an item?

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

I can see how much that would be a fact during a contract, the two go hand in hand and the price of the service contract includes the price of the phone. In the ops case he/she ended the contract after 4 months, hardly a timeframe whereby he could claim he/she "paid" for the phone so effectively he had the service for 4 months and got the phone for free.

I certainly would not claim to be an expert on the SCC but my understanding is you can't by an item for €50 and then claim it cost you €500 in the SCC. If you paid zero for an item, can you make a profit on it in the SCC? If you buy a phone on sale for €100 can you seek an award for the full €300 price?

Which judgements award costs higher than the consumer paid for an item?

Definitely a very awkward question, which is likely to vary judge by judge. Can see no reason to not be able to claim 5/24ths at the very least.

This is why I suggested going straight to the repairer, who will use the manufacturer warranty.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

Definitely a very awkward question, which is likely to vary judge by judge. Can see no reason to not be able to claim 5/24ths at the very least.

This is why I suggested going straight to the repairer, who will use the manufacturer warranty.

But the 5/24 paid would also have included call/text/SMS services used by op. If the judge owns a mobile phone, he/she would have a pretty acute insight into this, I think the op was lucky when they told him/her to keep the phone after such a short period, this suggests it isn't worth much.

If you profit from the SCC above what you actually paid, it'd be a great way to make a handy living.

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

But the 5/24 paid would also have included call/text/SMS services used by op. If the judge owns a mobile phone, he/she would have a pretty acute insight into this, I think the op was lucky when they told him/her to keep the phone after such a short period, this suggests it isn't worth much.

If you profit from the SCC above what you actually paid, it'd be a great way to make a handy living.

Its 5/24ths of the term that had the phone provided for "free" regardless of what usage of the call bundle there is.

Three handed over €800+ phones that were single figure days in to 24 month contracts when that price change was announced - lengthy thread on it here. I got a ~€350 phone about two thirds of the way through; small fry compared to what others were getting. Their claims that the phone is free backfired entirely.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

Its 5/24ths of the term that had the phone provided for "free" regardless of what usage of the call bundle there is.

Three handed over €800+ phones that were single figure days in to 24 month contracts when that price change was announced - lengthy thread on it here. I got a ~€350 phone about two thirds of the way through; small fry compared to what others were getting. Their claims that the phone is free backfired entirely.

Were you still in contract? Can you link to your SCC case?

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

Were you still in contract? Can you link to your SCC case?

I was. It wasn't an SCC decision - Three decided to change contract terms and let everyone keep their phones. There's a huge thread on the Bargain Alerts forum on it. People with iPhone 6+'s basically new from the box and 23 months 30 days left walked with them for free. One of the biggest corporate cockups ever - and it has hit their turnover extensively

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

I was. It wasn't an SCC decision - Three decided to change contract terms and let everyone keep their phones.

Ya see, what you've said there is very misleading. The op is not in contract, and you don't have a SCC judgement to back up what you are posting (earlier post you said there were judgements to back up your viewpoint about free handsets "judgements don't generally agree") What you got was a gesture of goodwill for an exiting customer, that is a very different to the ops situation.

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

Ya see, what you've said there is very misleading. The op is not in contract, and you don't have a SCC judgement to back up what you are posting (earlier post you said there were judgements to back up your viewpoint about free handsets "judgements don't generally agree") What you got was a gesture of goodwill for an exiting customer, that is a very different to the ops situation.

Two different things.

I've heard of multiple SCC judgements that refused to accept the "phone is free" line by Three. Three thought it was a get out from having to ever refund/replace but it isn't. They never turn up anyway.

Separately, the OP was given the phone FOC at contract termination bnot down to its value or anything else, just the fact that Three made a terrible misjudgement of what would happen if they changed roaming. They rolled back but people had been allowed leave by then.

At the very worst, there is no way at all you can claim they haven't paid for 5/24ths of it. Reality is a judge will likely accept it has been paid for, as Three wrote off any claim themselves of their own choice.

Easiest way is still just to go to the manufacturers repairer.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

Two different things.

I've heard of multiple SCC judgements that refused to accept the "phone is free" line by Three. Three thought it was a get out from having to ever refund/replace but it isn't. They never turn up anyway.

Separately, the OP was given the phone FOC at contract termination bnot down to its value or anything else, just the fact that Three made a terrible misjudgement of what would happen if they changed roaming. They rolled back but people had been allowed leave by then.

At the very worst, there is no way at all you can claim they haven't paid for 5/24ths of it. Reality is a judge will likely accept it has been paid for, as Three wrote off any claim themselves of their own choice.

Easiest way is still just to go to the manufacturers repairer.

Ah here, "I heard"?.

Three didn't make a terrible judgement, I'm pretty sure they are required to allow customers to opt out of contract if t&cs are changed during the term of that contract. All providers do that.

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

Ah here, "I heard"?.

Three didn't make a terrible judgement, I'm pretty sure they are required to allow customers to opt out of contract if t&cs are changed during the term of that contract. All providers do that.

SCC judgements are all "I heard", they aren't published.

The customer outflow and resulting financial results show that Three made a terrible decision. They rolled back on it rapidly, but damage was done - the BA thread here certainly helped.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

SCC judgements are all "I heard", they aren't published.

The customer outflow and resulting financial results show that Three made a terrible decision. They rolled back on it rapidly, but damage was done - the BA thread here certainly helped.

But roaming charges were changed by the EU, not by Three, and they had to offer opt out, every mobile provider did.

I'm pretty sure you'll find that here: https://www.ccpc.ie/consumers/contracts-and-services/

Sorry, I took by your earlier post that you were sure that what you were posting was based on SCC judgements you knew about, you certainly gave that impression.

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

But roaming charges were changed by the EU, not by Three, and they had to offer opt out, every mobile provider did.

Sorry, I took by your earlier post that you were sure that what you were posting was based on SCC judgements you knew about, you certainly gave that impression.

Three decided to limit roaming allowances (likely illegally). That caused many people to leave - including me. Can't remember how pathetic the offering was, but I got significantly better from Eir for the same money. That was their - stupid - decision; as shown by them rowing back, huge reduction in customer numbers and turnover.

Whoever thought they were being smart there has shown that they weren't, at all.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

Three decided to limit roaming allowances (likely illegally). That caused many people to leave - including me. Can't remember how pathetic the offering was, but I got significantly better from Eir for the same money. That was their - stupid - decision; as shown by them rowing back, huge reduction in customer numbers and turnover.

Whoever thought they were being smart there has shown that they weren't, at all.

I really don't see what that has to do with this thread. The op opted out of a contract because he/she could when charges changed, it really doesn't matter in this what those charges are. What is important is that you don't have a SCC case to back up an entitlement to a refund on a free phone.

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

I really don't see what that has to do with this thread. The op opted out of a contract because he/she could when charges changed, it really doesn't matter in this what those charges are. What is important is that you don't have a SCC case to back up an entitlement to a refund on a free phone.

I've heard of plenty of cases there Three's defense of "its' free!" was refused. SCC judgements are not published online, or anywhere for that matter. You post here enough to know that. You do not need to turn every thread in to an argument either.

Realistically if the OP has to go to the SCC, a judge is likely to find in their favour but more realistically, Three won't turn up.

Additionally, they can just claim on the manufacturers warranty in this case which, for once, is actually the path of least resistance.

Former Former

davo10 wrote: »

I really don't see what that has to do with this thread. The op opted out of a contract because he/she could when charges changed, it really doesn't matter in this what those charges are. What is important is that you don't have a SCC case to back up an entitlement to a refund on a free phone.

This is the only point that matters here.

The question was "do I have rights?", the answer is no.

You can't exercise your right to break the contract, as the OP did, and then rely on that same contract a few months later when things don't pan out.

L1011

Former Former wrote: »

This is the only point that matters here.

The question was "do I have rights?", the answer is no.

You can't exercise your right to break the contract, as the OP did, and then rely on that same contract a few months later when things don't pan out.

The mobile phone service contract and the provision of the phone are two separate things.

Three willingly let the OP have the phone for free at cancellation - most operators charge the cost divided by the remaining term. Three's loss. Doesn't stop them having been the retailer of the phone.

It may be the case that a judge decides they're only entitled to the paid off portion of the phone - so be it in that case. Trying to insist the phone is free will not hold water.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

I've heard of plenty of cases there Three's defense of "its' free!" was refused. SCC judgements are not published online, or anywhere for that matter. You post here enough to know that. You do not need to turn every thread in to an argument either.

Realistically if the OP has to go to the SCC, a judge is likely to find in their favour but more realistically, Three won't turn up.

Additionally, they can just claim on the manufacturers warranty in this case which, for once, is actually the path of least resistance.

"I heard" again, this isn't an argument, and if it is, there's two of us in it. You posted with seeming authority that judgements in the past have said that someone who got something without having to pay for it, got awarded a sum of money. I certainly can understand that in a case like your own, but a free upgrade where no fee is attached and the contract ended, sorry I'm calling you on that.

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

"I heard" again, this isn't an argument, and if it is, there's two of us in it. You posted with seeming authority that judgements in the past have said that someone who got something without having to pay for it, got awarded a sum of money. I certainly can understand that in a case like your own, but a free upgrade where no fee is attached, sorry I'm calling you on that.

You're going to have to live with no published judgement; as there aren't any.

The OP didn't get anything "for free" anyway. They made an agreement to pay for a service in lieu of payment for an item with a specified retail price, of which they paid 5/24ths, and then the other party decided to let them off the rest. The item was still provided in a retail transaction, and they have paid money for it.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

You're going to have to live with no published judgement; as there aren't any.

The OP didn't get anything "for free" anyway. They made an agreement to pay for a service in lieu of payment for an item with a specified retail price, of which they paid 5/24ths, and then the other party decided to let them off the rest. The item was still provided in a retail transaction, and they have paid money for it.

For the term of the contract, which ended when the op left. The op had use of the phone for the time period he/she paid for.

I can live with it, but it's not wise to refer to judgements you have no knowledge of, others might call that bluffing.

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

For the term of the contract, which ended when the op left.

I can live with it, but it's not wise to refer to judgements you have no knowledge of, others might call that bluffing.

The contract ended with the OP owning a device for which Three Ireland Retail (Hutchinson) Limited were the retailer and with a receipt showing the price on it.

That a different division of Three paid for it in lieu of the contract (that they ended) isn't really relevant.

I have knowledge of the judgements from what has been told to me - in this scenario there is absolutely no way of getting better info unless you are a court clerk or the judge themselves.

Former Former

L1011 wrote: »

The contract ended with the OP owning a device for which Three Ireland Retail (Hutchinson) Limited were the retailer and with a receipt showing the price on it.

That a different division of Three paid for it in lieu of the contract (that they ended) isn't really relevant.

Not sure where you got any of the above from tbh.

L1011

Former Former wrote: »

Not sure where you got any of the above from tbh.

Knowledge of how things pan out in reality.

Three already make a completely spurious defence of the phone being free in other claims and it's not accepted. The reason for why they make that claim is of little importance

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

Knowledge of how things pan out in reality.

Three already make a completely spurious defence of the phone being free in other claims and it's not accepted. The reason for why they make that claim is of little importance

How can a claim for goods being provided be "spurious" when the consumer was not actually charged for them? It would appear to be obvious to most that a free upgrade you don't actually have to pay for, is actually free because no money was paid for it. You seem to be unable to differentiate between cost (price paid by consumer) and value (what the item might be worth)

This is from the CI site on SCC:

"It is important to include the amount for which you are claiming. If the claim is not disputed, you may get judgement without having to go to court. Bear in mind that you can normally only claim the amount for which you are directly out of pocket, in other words, the amount you paid for the faulty goods and/or any cost involved in having them repaired. It is therefore a good idea to keep all receipts and documentation to show what these amounts are."

As for the knowledge on how things pan out in reality, what reality are you talking about exactly?

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

How can a claim for goods being provided be "spurious" when the consumer was not actually charged for them? It would appear to be obvious to most that a free upgrade you don't actually have to pay for, is actually free because no money was paid for it.

This is from the CI site on SCC:

It is important to include the amount for which you are claiming. If the claim is not disputed, you may get judgement without having to go to court. Bear in mind that you can normally only claim the amount for which you are directly out of pocket, in other words, the amount you paid for the faulty goods and/or any cost involved in having them repaired. It is therefore a good idea to keep all receipts and documentation to show what these amounts are.

You pay for it via the service contract. Claiming otherwise is spurious.

You are out of pocket for the replacement cost as shown on the receipt.

Three have a habit of not even bothering to defend SCC claims. The initial correspondence to the courts usually claims the phone is free, but its not accepted as its nonsense.

This thread is going round in circles at this stage. The OP has paid for the phone via a service contract, which 3 decided to terminate with 5/24ths paid. There is no way, at all, to argue for less than 5/24ths value - the phone was not "free"

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

You pay for it via the service contract. Claiming otherwise is spurious.

You are out of pocket for the replacement cost as shown on the receipt.

Three have a habit of not even bothering to defend SCC claims.

So they only defended the ones which involved your buddies? The chances of that cluster must be in the billions.

Again, I don't think you understand the concept of the SCC, you can claim for what you paid, not what it's worth or the cost of replacement. If you buy a jacket in a sale at half price, the SCC awards you what you paid for it, not the full price of the jacket.

You are bringing it round in circles by posting anecdotes and insisting that the op would be entitled to more than was paid for the phone. It's drivel.

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

So they only defended the ones which involved your buddies? The chances of that cluster must be in the billions.

Again, I don't think you understand the concept of the SCC, you can claim for what you paid, not what it's worth or the cost of replacement. If you buy a jacket in a sale at half price, the SCC awards you what you paid for it, not the full price of the jacket.

They make a defence by letter, then don't turn up in court.

I understand the SCC process perfectly well, thanks. The amount paid is on the receipt - being paid by a service contract isn't relevant. The phone is not free.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

They make a defence by letter, then don't turn up in court.

I understand the SCC process perfectly well, thanks. The amount paid is on the receipt - being paid by a service contract isn't relevant. The phone is not free.

If judgments were handed down, whether they turned up in court or defended by letter is immaterial, the judgment would still be registered. Which is it?

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

If judgments were handed down, whether they turned up in court or defended by letter is immaterial, the judgment would still be registered. Which is it?

SCC judgements are not published.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

SCC judgements are not published.

Jeez, I'm not talking about them being published, I'm talking about how the retailer doesn't actually have to be in court for the decision, a letter will do, it makes no odds.

Your friends are seriously unlucky if they are the only ones who Three defended, even by letter, and they got the decision. Either that cluster is in the billions to one, or you are bluffing.

How much does a phone cost that you don't hand over any money for? The service contract in this case is for calls/texts/SMS/data if there isn't a handset cost.

You are bringing this thread round in circles. The facts are that the op ended the contract and did not have to pay anything for the handset.

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

You are bringing this thread round in circles. The facts are that the op ended the contract and did not have to pay anything for the handset.

The service contract includes the cost of the phone. The phone is not free. Your "facts" are not facts. You are the one insisting repeatedly that it is in the face of logic.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

The service contract includes the cost of the phone. The phone is not free. Your "facts" are not facts. You are the one insisting repeatedly that it is in the face of logic.

Ah here, this is a joke.

JimsAlterEgo

another way of looking at it is you are also out of pocket for the cost of you replacing the phone

davo10

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

another way of looking at it is you are also out of pocket for the cost of you replacing the phone

You can certainly look at it that way, but the SCC will only allow you to claim for what you paid for the item. Unless of course you are one of L1011's friends and different laws apply.

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

You can certainly look at it that way, but the SCC will only allow you to claim for what you paid for the item. Unless of course you are one of L1011's friends and different laws apply.

Drop the sarcasm.

Its blatantly obvious that a phone on a service contract is paid for, and the amount is stated on the receipt. If you chose not to accept this, fine, but stop repeatedly arguing against logic.