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

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.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

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.

That's pretty condescending, particularly from a moderator.

Anytime I've gotten a free upgrade, the receipt says zero. If I buy a tv in a shop, the shops profit on it is paying towards the shops costs in selling it but in the SCC that is not taken into consideration, the price I paid is what I can claim in the SCC for the TV. The profit on the service contract might be paying for the cost of the phone, but if the handset is free, that is the amount I can claim for the handset. Logic.

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

That's pretty condescending, particularly from a moderator.

Anytime I've gotten a free upgrade, the receipt says zero.

Three receipts have the price on them. Three is the company under discussion here.

You are clearly not going to accept that a "free" device is paid for by the service contract so there is little point in telling you the same things over and over again.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

Three receipts have the price on them. Three is the company under discussion here.

You are clearly not going to accept that a "free" device is paid for by the service contract so there is little point in telling you the same things over and over again.

Dear God, if the receipt says something is free, and the consumer doesn't have to pay for it when receiving it, it's free.

What's the point in discussing this when you are making it up as you go along? If Three make the cost back by charging you more profit for the service, then that's the service cost, the handset price is set at zero in the case of a free upgrade.

Sonics2k

davo10 wrote: »

That's pretty condescending, particularly from a moderator.

Anytime I've gotten a free upgrade, the receipt says zero.

Genuinely, again. I worked for O2 for years and I know how it works.

L1011 is entirely correct when they say that the phone is 'free' in that you pay nothing at the time, the amount you pay per month is essentially you paying it off + the cost of the network services.

In this case, even though the OP is out of contract, they are still entitled to a repair, replacement or refund at the discretion of the retailer (Three).

In 99% of cases a network will chose to repair the phone, if after 2-3 attempts it fails they will then replace it.

edit: Personal tip. Always buy a phone on Prepay or direct from the manufacturer, the cost of a contract nearly always works out more expensive.

Xterminator

No-one is saying you dont pay for a phone over the contract term. OP did not complete that contract term.

As i see it the OP has 2 choices

Use SCC against the retailer. claim value of phone - and risk not winning because the circumstances are very murky. A judge might find in his favour but as stated it will not award more than he paid.

If the judge find in OPs favour the adds up all the months contract he did pay before cancelling, and then subtract the cost of providing that service - what are you left with?

The OP has a risk free option of using the manufacturer's warranty. Phone gets repaired with no risk.

For me the wiser option is clear.

JimsAlterEgo

Xterminator wrote: »

No-one is saying you dont pay for a phone over the contract term. OP did not complete that contract term.

As i see it the OP has 2 choices

Use SCC against the retailer. claim value of phone - and risk not winning because the circumstances are very murky. A judge might find in his favour but as stated it will not award more than he paid.

If the judge find in OPs favour the adds up all the months contract he did pay before cancelling, and then subtract the cost of providing that service - what are you left with?

The OP has a risk free option of using the manufacturer's warranty. Phone gets repaired with no risk.

For me the wiser option is clear.

cant the judge award a new phone from 3 or force them to repair it? or does it have to be cash?