Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Prentiz
    • By Prentiz 10th Oct 17, 11:34 AM
    • 4Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Prentiz
    Faulty Samsung S7 and three - Warranty advice
    • #1
    • 10th Oct 17, 11:34 AM
    Faulty Samsung S7 and three - Warranty advice 10th Oct 17 at 11:34 AM
    Hi all!

    18 months ago I entered into a contract with Three to provide me with mobile phone service and a new Samsung Galaxy S7. Fast forward to last week, when a small purple spot appeared on the face of the phone, spreading over 24 hours to obscure the whole screen. After some faff (customer services fails deleted for brevity), it eventually made its way to Samsung's third party warranty people who, today, tell me that the fault was a result of "overpressure", no further details available, and this is warranty voiding damage. Apparently the engineer took no photographs, despite this being common practice. I've never dropped the phone, which was in a case and screen protector from new, and it was in mint condition without scratches or marks as a result. I've spoken to actual Samsung, who, aside from saying there's nothing they can do, said I could probably have a call back from their customer service manager in 3-5 working days (!). This leaves me paying quite a bit of money for a phone I can't use.

    I guess my questions are what options I have to pursue Three or Samsung to address this. Can I, for example, use the requirement under CRA 2015 that a product be reasonably durable here? Any advice on the best option much appreciated!
Page 1
    • mobilejunkie
    • By mobilejunkie 10th Oct 17, 12:35 PM
    • 7,434 Posts
    • 2,318 Thanks
    mobilejunkie
    • #2
    • 10th Oct 17, 12:35 PM
    • #2
    • 10th Oct 17, 12:35 PM
    You're not paying for the phone. You are paying for a probably expensive airtime contract. The warranty is an entirely separate issue.
    • Exemplar
    • By Exemplar 10th Oct 17, 12:53 PM
    • 1,102 Posts
    • 419 Thanks
    Exemplar
    • #3
    • 10th Oct 17, 12:53 PM
    • #3
    • 10th Oct 17, 12:53 PM
    You're not paying for the phone. You are paying for a probably expensive airtime contract. The warranty is an entirely separate issue.
    Originally posted by mobilejunkie
    This x 2. The phone is not the contract.
    'Just because its on the internet don't believe it 100%'. Abraham Lincoln.
    • JJ Egan
    • By JJ Egan 10th Oct 17, 1:38 PM
    • 9,735 Posts
    • 3,996 Thanks
    JJ Egan
    • #4
    • 10th Oct 17, 1:38 PM
    • #4
    • 10th Oct 17, 1:38 PM
    Samsung's warranty is limited and basically damage invalidates it .

    You now need to prove your claim of CRA 2015 .
    <a product be reasonably durable here >
    That would be against the vendor via a independent engineers report .
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

183Posts Today

1,294Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I was surprised to see the three people in front of me in the newsagents were all shocked their old £1 coins were no longer taken.

  • RT @natdebtline: If you?ve been visited by a bailiff since April 2014 we want to hear your story for our #bailiffreform campaign https://t.?

  • Well so far it seems there's one thing remainers and leavers agree on - the EU is getting the better of the negotia? https://t.co/70z5ffpG8S

  • Follow Martin