Car Phone Warehouse. Great Phones but the worst returns policy.

Sandoval

You're still welcome...

dave5416

Had a phone call from CPW repair center (The geek squad) today. It seems that because I returned the handset to a CPW store with a CPW repair team embedded within the store, I may have unknowingly caused a problem. It seems if a customer returns a handset for repair at an express repair center it does not count towards the three repair visits that qualify for an exchange. It seems that CPW only class a repair if it is returned to the Wednesbury centre so in my case the handset had only been in for repair once under this rule.
How would any customer know this?
Also once an exchange is carried out the repair cycle does start again. However when I pressed this issue and made it clear I wanted a judge to decide if this was fair, it was made clear that if a handset goes faulty within ninety days (I was advised but I think it should be twenty eight days as more logical) of being exchanged then the exchange needs to be returned to Wednesbury for a like for like exchange.
Personally I think a customer should be able to reject the handset for a refund.
It seems unfair for a customer to by a duff handset because of the software then be expected to accept to put up with it until the handset goes out of manufacturers warranty. Surely a customer must have a right to reject shoddy goods?
Luckily for me keeping my cool paid off and now we are to return the handset for an alternate make and model exchange as a gesture of goodwill.
I will only accept this option without prejudice to take this claim to court if the handsets on offer are of lower specification or value to the original purchase price.

Putting this on this forum helped considerably.

sayedrahul

dave5416 wrote: »

In the past we have purchased many handsets from Car Phone Warehouse (CPW) and in the past when handsets were just mobile phones we never really had any repair issues. As handsets became more akin to mobile computers than phones we noted that we had to start returning handsets to the store. Only last year I had a complaint about the "LG cookie" and after weeks of hassle I ended up taking CPW to the small claims court.
After that experience you thought we had learnt our lesson but when my wife and daughter wanted new handsets in April this year and the only place they could get the handsets were CPW because of exclusive color options reluctantly and against my advice back we went to CPW.
In May my daughters new pink Nokia 5230 started to act up. The issue was the handset failed to notify when a text message was received. Back to CPW who refused to exchange within twenty eight days claiming that a simple software flash would resolve the problem. It did but a few weeks later and now outside the twenty eight days when my text mad daughter was compiling text messages the handset would suddenly delete the text. Now to a teenager who just compiled a two page text that fault is just not acceptable. Back to CPW who repaired the handset by replacing the touch screen and a further re flash of the firmware. Within a day of collection the handset started doing the same fault. After a few more days back to the store. Now I did assume that and because I thought that the returns policy stated that if a handset is faulty three times then the handset would be exchanged. The store said they would send the handset back to Nokia and request an exchange. Ten days later the handset was back. Not exchanged and with no repair report. Within a few days it was acting up again with the same fault. My car now knows its own way to the CPW store at Horwich near Bolton so back we all went and this time I have to admit my voice did seem to carry well. I was not shouting but I did make sure everyone heard the conversation in store when I insisted the store exchange the handset. The store explained that they company returns policy states that all handsets have to be exchanged by the repair team at Wednesbury, Birmingham. we were not happy that the handset would have to go away for another couple of weeks and then only to be exchanged with a refurbished model of the handset but it seems (not confirmed) that CPW have instructed all stores under threat of dismissal that handsets cannot be exchanged at store level. Now not wishing to cost any store member their job we reluctantly agreed to the handset being sent off. What more could we do? The store point blank refused us our rights to reject the handset as clearly the handset has a fault that is to do with the Nokia firmware which fixed one fault but caused another. So no refund. The store wont exchange for a brand new product because the person who processes the exchange may lose his job so the only option was to accept an exchange at the repair center Wednesbury. Feeling very annoyed we left but happy that half a dozen customers had been in the store and left. Two weeks later (Tuesday 10 August) my wife and daughter collected the handset. Yes its exchanged. We hope that is the end of this sorry saga......
Wednesday 11th August when I return from work my daughter advised me that the exchanged handset not only is deleting the text in the same manner that the original was but is also now auto rebooting.
I called the store to tell them enough was enough but they have come out with another line. It seems as the handset has been exchanged and a different IMEI number exists we have to go through the whole sorry mess again. Return the handset and we'll send it away for repair. If the handset can't be repaired after two visits to the repair center then on the third visit we will request an exchange for you. Based on this we have refused to return the handset to store level and decided to contact Mr Dunstone at cdunstone@cpwplc.com as the store advised us that they would like to exchange the handset but they feel the threat of losing a job is not a risk they wish to take and until CPW head office change the policy regarding returns they cannot do anything. The store even advised they would like the policy changing as the store has lost many repeat customers since this policy has been introduced. we have emailed Mr Dunstone who obviously does not read these emails but has a team to do it for him but all we get back is messages saying they can't find our account despite us giving name address, telephone number, even the transaction number for the original repair. This is obviously a course of action to frustrate a complaining customer. Three emails we have sent them advising them to read the emails in full or even telephone us but no all they do is send out an email requesting the same information claiming DPA (data protection act). As of today 20 August the saga continues as the fourteen days notice of court action runs down. So if your looking for a new mobile phone contract make sure your fully aware of the returns procedure for the supplier before signing or parting with any cash. I must say my own handset is on contract direct from "O2" and when things went wrong the handset went for repair came back went in again for the same fault and was exchanged without any quibble. I think my family have now learnt. For mobile phones give CPW a wide berth.

OMG - In short you bought a phone it spazzed and CPW wont give you another one etc etc (why could you not make it that short?)

dave5416

OMG. I cant believe the number of numbties who find the size of this post more important than the statement of facts. I posted this as a true statement of my complaint. I needed to state clear facts and not turn it into something that could be deemed open to misinterpretation.
Posting it on here and informing CPW of it's existence paid off as CPW started to take note. You cant just say it "Spazzed" and not back up your case.

unholyangel

dave5416 wrote: »

OMG. I cant believe the number of numbties who find the size of this post more important than the statement of facts. I posted this as a true statement of my complaint. I needed to state clear facts and not turn it into something that could be deemed open to misinterpretation.
Posting it on here and informing CPW of it's existence paid off as CPW started to take note. You cant just say it "Spazzed" and not back up your case.

I dont think most of them were objecting to the length of your post but rather the lack of structure. Thereby making it difficult - impossible for some - to read.

Please remember that you were posting on here for help. Sandoval even set it out in paragraphs for you and instead of thanking him, you keep going on about how unhelpful posters were being. Posters have no obligation to answer your post. Albeit maybe not ALL of the comments were required, but certainly the first was just letting you know how difficult it is to read when it lacks the proper structure.

Just because they asked you to make it easier to read, they were being unhelpful? They could have just ignored your post completely!

Likewise, the full story isnt always required. Usually people would give the important details and if anything further was required, posters would ask. Thus making sure only relevant information is posted and keeping it less confusing.

And just to be pedantic, its numpties

Oopsadaisy

unholyangel wrote: »

.And just to be pedantic, its numpties

Lol, excellent.

To be extremely pedantic, it's "it's" not "its", and most sentences are finished with a full stop.

unholyangel

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

Lol, excellent.

To be extremely pedantic, it's "it's" not "its", and most sentences are finished with a full stop.

I never use ' in certain words and rarely use . when theres a smiley at the end. Internet isnt so uptight about punctuation as it seems to be about spelling. Writing letters is different. However my laziness isnt really comparable to someone calling other people "numbties" thus signifying they themselves are a numpty.

People seem to forget when they post on here that they are relying on the kindness of other users to help them. While i said several comments werent really required, neither was the OP's attitude of calling them all unhelpful and "numbties"......especially sandoval who went out of his way to put the post into a more readable structure - and we all know how sandovals posts usually go (pretty sure he'll agree with me especially given his earlier post).

You want to be really pedantic you could say you were using ,'s unnecessarily. But we start on this slippery slope and there will be no end in sight.

redpete

unholyangel wrote: »

But we start on this slippery slope and there will be no end in sight.

I'm sliding down it...

Internet isnt so uptight about punctuation as it seems to be about spelling.

The Internet just transfers data from one place to another however readers of information via the Internet are often as uptight about punctuation as spelling.

Oopsadaisy

Too/two/to late....we're/wear/where doomed!!!!!!!!!!!!

unholyangel

redpete wrote: »

I'm sliding down it...



The Internet just transfers data from one place to another however readers of information via the Internet are often as uptight about punctuation as spelling.

Actually the internet is a global computer network providing different information and communication facilities.

And from 14 years online, i've never seen anyone being uptight about punctuation - for user controllable input - just spelling.

Of course i could pull the "english isnt my first language" but not really important. As i said, i wouldnt write letters without the correct punctuation. Just as when i text someone, i use txt tlk. The acceptance changes depending on which method of communication you use.