Phone sent back for repair a second time, what rights if still not working?

donny909

Well my gf & me went into the 3 store to enquire on the status of her phone thats been sent back for repair a second time 9 days ago. While waiting for the guy to find out (on the computer and not by phone for some reason?) I commented that it cant take up to 2 weeks as we already have it in writing they cant fix it and they had replaced it which was a total lie. Thy guy says they dont know how they run things as it's an independent repair facility in scotland that all phone firms use. Seems a bit of a cop out that seeing as he just smiled at me when I asked does that mean he wont enquire as to why they sent a non repairable phone back and said that was the replacement.

He then informs us the partners phone has now had some conponents replaced instead and that it has now passed the quality control stage?. Funny that as they have claimed they cant repair it. Yet as soon as we pointed out they sent the same phone back as a replacement (it was security marked) they now come back with a conponents replaced line!.

Now call me suspicious, but I'm thinking they may well just send it back anyways if they cant fix it or see the problem the partner has and the shop has seen for themselfs. As they have already lied about the first time it was sent to them so have little trust about the "independent" repair facility in scotland.

If thats the case and it still does'nt work when coming back for the second time what rights does she have?. Surely they cant insist on it being sent back a third time can they?. Does she then have the right for either a full replacement from store stock of a similar spec phone or what about a right to then cancel the remainder of the contract due to breach of contract and service?.

By the way, has anyone ever heard of the repair facility in scotland?. Or is it an excuse to give customers who want answers and explanations?. Because the 3 store seems happy to blame everything on the "facility" when we are asking them questions they really should know the answer to.

gjchester

donny909 wrote: »

If thats the case and it still does'nt work when coming back for the second time what rights does she have?. Surely they cant insist on it being sent back a third time can they?. Does she then have the right for either a full replacement from store stock of a similar spec phone or what about a right to then cancel the remainder of the contract due to breach of contract and service?.

Scottish law may be different, but as long as they are attempting to repair the phone they are within the law.

Your mobile phone agreement is really two contracts, one for the airtime and one for the supply of the handset. They are only linked at the time you start the airtime contract in that the phone is given to you as a inducement to take out the contract. After that they are seperate legal entities. You will be unlikely to get the contract cancelled if your handset has failed. One key bit is the handset is yours from the moment that you take out the contracts, so although failure of the handset meand you cannot use the service, the fact the airtime provider has not stopped you using it means you are still liable for the service.


You may want to try contacting the manufacturer direct they may have an in house facility you can send it to rather than the independant place.

donny909

Always wondered about the phone being the "gift" to take the contract. And that if there were a problem with the phone your still liable for the payments etc. How would that then hold out if you had a contract that they could not forfill for whatever reason (say being in a blackspot for most of the time) several months into contract when a company claims a postal area is covered signal wise?. Do they then have a right to the phone back if they cant provide the sim side of things?.

Also I've read something about consumer law saying it's the phone company (3 in this case) that under UK law thats responsable for the phone as it's them who have provided it (free gift or not) and not the manufacturer directly?. If thats correct how can the phone companies claim the phone is seperate from the contract rather than both part of the contract?. Added to that it seems that after the third time they then have an obligation to replace the phone.

Looks to me like the phone company is liable for a faulty phone but not untill the point that they have done everything they can to delay taking that legal responsability.

I'm now wandering in the phone not being the contract for faults sake is so mentioned that it has to be true because of the times it's mentioned when the case is really otherwise?.

Would love for an expert on consumer law to clarify if the phone company is legally responsable for the phone, thefor IS part of the contract or not?.

JJ_Egan

The phone is under the Sale of Goods Act by itself not as part of the contract .
Seller of the phone responsible not the manufacturer but manufactures route can be quicker .

You need to wait until the phone comes back if not acceptable complain to the store that fails straight to trading standards for advice would be my route .

jje

gjchester

donny909 wrote: »

Also I've read something about consumer law saying it's the phone company (3 in this case) that under UK law thats responsable for the phone as it's them who have provided it (free gift or not) and not the manufacturer directly?. If thats correct how can the phone companies claim the phone is seperate from the contract rather than both part of the contract?.

Semi correct, under the sale of goods act its always the retailer who's responsible for warranty service, however remember the airtime arm and the retail arm will usually be seperate entities.

donny909 wrote: »

Added to that it seems that after the third time they then have an obligation to replace the phone.

The law states they need to repair or replace the unit but it's their choice, as they are offering repairs thats acceptable legaly, but not from your point of view or customer satisfaction.

donny909 wrote: »

Looks to me like the phone company is liable for a faulty phone but not untill the point that they have done everything they can to delay taking that legal responsability.

No it's the retailer, although as I said they may be the same company they will usually be different arms.

[/QUOTE]Would love for an expert on consumer law to clarify if the phone company is legally responsable for the phone, thefor IS part of the contract or not?.[/QUOTE]

Try a soliciter, they'll be about £50 an hour to consult.

The retailer (in this case the company) is responsible for the phone in that if it breaks they need to repair / replace it under the phones warranty, however it's not linked to the airtime contract.

One of the main reasons for this is otherwise if your phone was lost or stolen then if there was a ling (almost like a hire or rental charge) then the phone company would have to replace the phone. By giving you the phone it's your responsibility and by divorcing it from the airtime agreement you are the one who has to pay out for a new phone if you lose / damage it.

daindian

the provider is responsible for the phone IF it was bought DIRECTLY from the provider, otherwise its the place or website it was purchased from

jenniewb

I had similar issues with 3 with my handset. It never really worked from the outset but about 9 months in was beyond a joke and so I sent it in to be repaired. It came back still with the same faults, they told me they could not find any faults.

I went to the 3 store, they sent it in on my behalf, same thing, came back they said it was fine, even the 3 shop staff saw it wasn't. So the manager sent it in. Exactly the same thing happened, sent back saying it was fine and it obviously was not.

It took them several weeks and months to deal with it and eventually fix it, it works now. I did get a refund on the time the handset was being 'repaired' but it was such a hassel and getting to the shop, repeatidly having to call and being sent a faulty phone in the first place. Apparently not rare with 3 from what else I read.

They are acting within their rights though, it can be repaired as many times as it needs so long as its within warrenty. I begged and pleaded for them to either send me a different handset or end the contract, they would do neither without handing me a massive bill for essentially the rest of the contract charges.

Only advice I can give is to stand your ground and if you believe there is a fault keep sending it back, then ask for a refund for the time the handset is being repaired.

daindian

as a rule if it gets the same fault, 3 times THEY HAVE TO REPLACE THE PHONE! i have managed to geta replacmeent after 2 faults though

gjchester

daindian wrote: »

as a rule if it gets the same fault, 3 times THEY HAVE TO REPLACE THE PHONE! i have managed to geta replacmeent after 2 faults though

Maybe a network or retailer policy, but it's not a rule and it's not written in any law.

It's good customer service to offer a replacement but if they just want to give you a repair then they are legally entitled to do so.

donny909

It sure is confusing eh?. To be honest the complaint is both sides the service from 3 and there repair place in scotland. It took many many calls and several months to admit the fault was with the phone and not the masts (coverage that they DID blame for several months).

But then the repair place have lied the first time. 3 are saying the place is nothing to do with them so cant answe our questions. Yet when tomorrow comes and if the phone is returned and not working can they continue to hide behind the "it's independent and nothing to do with 3" line?. And continue to use that if we start pushing for an instant replacement and mentioning trading standards and poiting out the store is responsable for the phone as it is them who provided it and not Hawaui (or how ever it's spelt lol)?.

The replacement they are offering while her phone is in for repair is basically a cheap payg model. It's neither a like for like phone or has many of the features that she wanted or agreed to take the contract for when being offered a phone.

donny909

Right phone came back and still the same problem and it's really annoying me let alone my partner.

They say they will send it back a third time but the partner is saying no simply because the first letter says they have replaced the phone because they cant fix it but sent it back with nothing done. The second time they clain to have replaced conponents and ran it through tests to "ensure" it works. But there is nothing about the phone thats changed. We can also calin the first letter against the second where they had said they cant repair it.

Anyways the store has refered us to the repair place in scotland to enquire (I went ape at this stage (not with 3) as it's not for my partner to phone there repair centre to ask what going on. The store claims thats the way it's always been and not the store who has to deal with it. Quoting the Sales Of Goods Act the store claims they can only go by what the companies procedure is and cant (or wont) do anything as they dont have the authority to replace the handset and only the repair centre in scotland replace the handsets.

The store says they cant provide me with any contact number for any management or head office in this country as they say 100% of everything has to go via Mumbi. Having explained we have tried this countless times over the last 8 months and got nowere with them and even took 7 months of calling to get them to admit the fault was with the phone the store says there is nothing more they can do.

Now they seem to be ignoring the sales of good act and there responsability and referinbg all responsability to getting the phone replaced with the repair centre in scotland as thats the way it's always been according to the store.

Does anyone oh here know of a contact here in the UK we can deal with as 3's call centre dont seem to know what the sales of goods act is (even management there) and we feel we are within our rights to refuse it to be looked at a third time because they are saying this that and the other when it all seems to be lies.