Multiple phone faults breach of contract?

butterbeanmash

As I said, Consumer Direct say differently, and '3' capitulated. I'd suggest that the OP contact them, then Vodafone with the case number. Then we'd see how Vodafone react. I'm not going to continue to argue over the semantics of contract or company arms, or the fact that the n97 has been withdrawn from sale by the networks because of the issues that make it a catastrophic failure. I only came to offer the advice that I'd been given and the outcome that resulted because my network had offered me a 'phone that was in breach of the Sale of Goods Act i.e. cancellation of my contract.

gjchester

butterbeanmash wrote: »

As I said, Consumer Direct say differently, and '3' capitulated. I'd suggest that the OP contact them, then Vodafone with the case number.

Sorry if it sounded too harsh it wasn't meant to.

Consumer direct are wrong, and you didn't cancel your contract, 3 did what they are required to and replaced the phone.

butterbeanmash

gjchester wrote: »

Consumer direct are wrong, and you didn't cancel your contract, 3 did what they are required to and replaced the phone.

No.
I cancelled my contract and during the course of that conversation '3' agreed to this and sent the PAC code. As soon as this PAC code was used my contract would terminate and they would send me the final bill.
I subsequently decided that I would accept the HTC Hero-an offer they had made to stop me terminating the contract, and I re-instated it.
One more (last) time: I cancelled my contract, and '3' accepted this, because the Nokia n97 is not fit for purpose!

That's it, I'm done.

:wave:

Vodafone

Hi Psychidave,

I understand how frustrating it can be when your phone is not working the way that it should and it has to be sent in for repair regularly.

Although this is not a breach of contract, as we have offered to repair the handset in the past. We will be more than happy to look into this for you and see what options you have with regards to a repair/replacement. As we do not want you to be left with a phone that is not working properly.

If you could contact us by following the link below, we will be more than happy to discuss this further with you and I'm certain that we can help.

Web Relations Team - Vodafone UK

(When contacting, please quote the code WRT135 in the subject line. In the message body please include a link to this thread and your user name.)

Thanks,

Espi
Web Relations Team
Vodafone UK

daggy

gjchester wrote: »

Consumer direct are wrong.

Yes Vodafone are responsible for the phone and the warranty on it, but a lost, stolen or broken phone is not grounds to cancel the airtime contract.

Sale of goods act just says they have to give you a working phone by repair or replacment.

Trying to get out of a contract due to faulty phone is a well worn path. You may get out as a goodwill gesture but thats all.

No ther aren't... I'm sure the lawyers they employ know what they're talking about, but I also agree with you:

If you are sold a phone and contrat for airtime, they are seperate entities, however, one can not work without the other and they are sold on this pretence.

If the phone breaks, you don't have a right to cancel the contract, however, you have a right to a repaired phone or a replacment of equal value/capbilities.
If it was m, I'd also push for a refund for the time the phone was not working, as essentially you are not receiving your service during this time.

baldelectrician

gjchester wrote: »

Once the airtime contract comies into force the phone becomes yours and it's not related to the service.

If this is the case why did Vodafarce insist I return my phones when I cancelled the contract due to them increasing their prices by more than 10%?

Terms and conditions are sometimes misleading- they are only enforcable if they are fair and legal.
Sometimes companies forget this

Consumer direct (and trading standards) told me the phone was part of the contract - end of.
There were not 2 cotracts as the phone was ONLY provided if the mobile contract was taken out.

Exemplar

Hang on here, who actually chose the N97? Didnt you tap N97 into google? or N97 review? unless I am mistaken here we have someone who chose style over substance! I MUST HAVE AN N97 as its 'meant' to be the best......

daggy

alcot33uk wrote: »

Hang on here, who actually chose the N97? Didnt you tap N97 into google? or N97 review? unless I am mistaken here we have someone who chose style over substance! I MUST HAVE AN N97 as its 'meant' to be the best......

Not everyone reads reviews before they buy a phone. Many are confused by the pitter patter of smarmy salemen in shops.

On the face of things the N97 is not only a good looking phone, but one with many desirable capabilities.... sure, it's about as functional as an underwater hairdryer, but that isn't the OP's fault. The phone networks didn'tknow the pohne was a dud when they took it out, so surely many customers wouldn't have.

I could look on the internet and find a review that slates any phone and also one that praises it... granted it pays to look at several ( I do this myself), but many people neither have the desire or time to do this..

Is it not fair to expect that the networks (and manufacturers) would test a phone to iron out any major faults before they supply it to end users?

Guys_Dad

The problem with people taking out mobile contracts is the clever way in which they are sold.

Buyers talk about "getting a new phone" but actually the real deal is the service contract.

Phone companies have done very well with their marketing spending millions in creating over the last 20 years a market for mobile phones/gadgets.

However, networks have also invested heavily in lawyers that have tied up the service contract irrespective of the phone's performance. Read the Vodafone rep's reply, those of you who don't believe gjchester.

The vendor has a duty to abide by Sale of Goods as far as the phone goes, but until there is a test case that has gone right the way through the legal system that makes the performance of the handset an integral part of the service contract and, therefore, failure of the first can give cause for suspension of the second, then you are out of luck.

The point made about being able to cancel if the network alters the cost of the contract you signed up for is another matter altogether as Orange found out when they tried to change a service element of their contracts. They had to cancel many contracts over the week or so that this was in force and reverted back to the original pretty quick.

Butterbeanmash - I take everything you wrote about your 3 contract as 100% accurate, but there is just 1 thing that bothers me. You wrote " I cancelled my contract and during the course of that conversation '3' agreed to this and sent the PAC code. As soon as this PAC code was used my contract would terminate and they would send me the final bill.
I subsequently decided that I would accept the HTC Hero-an offer they had made to stop me terminating the contract, and I re-instated it."

Reading through threads on here about 3 and the problems people have had in cancelling, I would not bet my shirt on the absolute certainty that in some months after your "cancellation" you would not have had a letter from them saying you had a huge termination fee.
That is, of course, conjecture, but a distinct possibility.

In summary, Vodafone rep and gjchester are correct and Consumer Direct wrong. I have also checked Consumer Direct's web site and nowhere does it indicate what their employee is reported to have said. The site is not clear one way or the other, but at the very end, it clearly separates the contract from the phone by saying under "How to make a complaint"

If the fault is with the phone, you should contact the shop where you bought it.

If the fault is with the network or SIM card, you should contact the Network Service Provider.