Sueing T-Mobile

Butlers1982

All

I need step by step advice about sueing T-Mobile.
I have an iphone 4, 13 months old that doesnt work. T-mobile have said its not their problem and that i must speak to Apple. Apple want £140 to fix it. This goes against the soga and i need to take it up with t-mobile

Anyone any success in doing this?
What should my first letter say? Where and who should it go to?

arcon5

What is the fault and how have you determined what the fault is?

Remember as the phone is more than 6 months ol the burden of prove that the fault is inherent is on you. Your next step would be to obtain an independant report, send this to T-Mobile by registered post giving them the opportunity to rectify it.

Only then can you proceed. If in light of your evidence they fob you off to Apple or refuse to repair/replace/refund can you proceed to sending a Letter Before Action followed by small claims court.

Your contract is with T-Mobile, so deal with them -- they can deal with Apple themselve. Plus if it does go to a small claims court and you cannot prove you gave the seller the opportunity to rectify the situation I can't imagine a judge being happy.

Was it brand new also?

visidigi

arcon5 wrote: »

Your contract is with T-Mobile, so deal with them -- they can deal with Apple themselve.

But the phone does not form part of the contract, the airtime contract is the only thing you have Tmobile under contract for.

The clearest way to demonstrate this point is you can use any phone with the sim, its not speicifcally tied to that handset.

For me, you would be better off going to Apple with this and taking action against them - Apple are pretty stubborn on this sort of thing - o2 won't even speak to you about iPhone issues, they have been told to direct all owners to Apple stores.

cardinalbiggles

visidigi wrote: »

But the phone does not form part of the contract, the airtime contract is the only thing you have Tmobile under contract for.

Really, I would have said that if you took out the contract and got the phone then this would all be part of the contract. In addition I would expect them to fix it until the airtime contract runs out, providing you don't sit on it or drop it in water etc. etc.

gnasher18us

I know this is a site for moneysavers, and this post may not be appreciated, but...

an Iphone is a bit of an iconic phone, primarily for people who are (or want to look) affluent.

It is still the most expensive phone on the market - even though HTC phones are the best, in my view.

You decided to "buy into the brand" for whatever reason.

There have been problems with the iphone, and there have been issues with T-Mobile (I've had them myself).

To sue one, or both, of these companies yourself could prove a lot more costly than £140, and you probably would stand absolutely no chance of a win against two giants such as these.

Apple will protect their name if it costs them millions to do so.

You, also, still want to "have the look" I guess. Why not, save the stress, hassle and time of "taking people to court" and shell out the £140 to fix the iphone?

Like I said, perhaps not a very popular answer as this is "consumer rights site" and a "moneysaving" forum, but I know in your situation, I would have bigger things to worry about than taking 2 giant corporations to court for £140 - and probably losing.

That's how I see it.

gnasher18us

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

Really, I would have said that if you took out the contract and got the phone then this would all be part of the contract. In addition I would expect them to fix it until the airtime contract runs out, providing you don't sit on it or drop it in water etc. etc.

I-phones have a 12 month warranty on them - and this iphone is 14 months old. We haven't been told the fault, or why the fault has occured (it may have been through USE after 14 months, and therefore is not a manufacturer's FAULT).

It would be very hard for the OP to prove a manufacturing fault on a handset that is 14 months old (manufacturing faults usually appear far sooner and the O/P has probably had a lot of use from his i-phone).

The OP gets an i-phone and should have got insurance for it also, incase of "incidents" like mentioned above.

eranou

visidigi wrote: »

But the phone does not form part of the contract, the airtime contract is the only thing you have Tmobile under contract for.

The clearest way to demonstrate this point is you can use any phone with the sim, its not speicifcally tied to that handset.

For me, you would be better off going to Apple with this and taking action against them - Apple are pretty stubborn on this sort of thing - o2 won't even speak to you about iPhone issues, they have been told to direct all owners to Apple stores.

The phone does not form part of the airtime contract correct but it has its own sales contract. if t-mobile supplied the phone they are liable under the sales of goods act but as mentioned previously its more than 6 months since purchase so the onus is on you to prove the fault was inherrant.

shaun_from_Africa

(it may have been through USE after 14 months, and therefore is not a manufacturer's FAULT).

Just because a item fails after 14 months doesn't mean that the failure wasn't caused my a manufacturing fault.
The problem could be due to a component having a shorter than expected life, a soldering job not being carried out correctly and taking a while to appear etc.
If you can get an independent report stating that in the opinion of the person writing it, the fault is due to a manufacturing defect then the SOGA gives you up to 6 years to attempt to make a claim against the retailer. (It is "up to" 6 years
as this period depends on the type of goods, their price, etc).
It is for this reason that you will often read about posters refering to inherrent faults (inherrent from manufacture) and the need to prove if this is the case if the fault appears after 6 months. (before this 6 month period has elapsed, any fault is automatically assumed to be a manufacturing defect unless the retailer can prove otherwise.

gnasher18us

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Just because a item fails after 14 months doesn't mean that the failure wasn't caused my a manufacturing fault.
The problem could be due to a component having a shorter than expected life, a soldering job not being carried out correctly and taking a while to appear etc.
If you can get an independent report stating that in the opinion of the person writing it, the fault is due to a manufacturing defect then the SOGA gives you up to 6 years to attempt to make a claim against the retailer. (It is "up to" 6 years
as this period depends on the type of goods, their price, etc).
It is for this reason that you will often read about posters refering to inherrent faults (inherrent from manufacture) and the need to prove if this is the case if the fault appears after 6 months. (before this 6 month period has elapsed, any fault is automatically assumed to be a manufacturing defect unless the retailer can prove otherwise.

I agree, I did say "may" in the posting you refer to.

Mobile phones are often heavily used these days (phoning, texting, internet, applications blah blah blah).

If O/P is a heavy phone user (bills of £50+ pcm on contract, for example) they will use the handset more than a user paying less (and using their phone less)!

The O/P gives very little details about fault, usage, or anything really.

Also, to obtain the independent reports you mentioned wouldn't be "free", and does the O/P think they have not used the phone enough to cause any problem through "wear and tear"... (are they a very light user of their i-phone?)

In my mind, as said in a previous posting (sorry to repeat it), but consider if it's worth bothering about for the sake of £140.

That was the point.

shaun_from_Africa

If O/P is a heavy phone user (bills of £50+ pcm on contract, for example) he will use the handset more than a user paying less (and using their phone less)!

Should this really matter in this case?
If a phone is designed for making calls, texting, internet use etc, then this is exactly what I would expect it to do properly, and for a phone that probably cost £400+, I would expect it to do it for a lot longer than 14 months irrespective of how much it was used in that time.

This is exactly why the SOGA gives you the right to attempt a caim for up to 6 years from purchase. It might be reasonable for a £40 phone to only last 14 months, but IMO, not one that probably cost 10 times (or maybe more) than this.

gnasher18us

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Should this really matter in this case?
If a phone is designed for making calls, texting, internet use etc, then this is exactly what I would expect it to do properly, and for a phone that probably cost £400+, I would expect it to do it for a lot longer than 14 months irrespective of how much it was used in that time.

Fair point, but £250 of the £400 is for the name "Apple" and "i-phone"!

All of my handsets have lasted longer than 14 months, but "expensive" doesn't always mean "better quality. HTC phones are better than i-phones (in my view), and they are cheaper than i-phones.

If you buy a charm bracelet from that big charm bracelet shop on the high street, are their charm bracelets "the best", or do you pay for a "good" charm bracelet, and the name? This is the same with all designer stuff.

Up to the O/P I guess?