CPW repairs

nsabournemouth

grumbler wrote: »

I don't buy this. They are not a charity and goodwill has nothing to do with this. If they have no agreements with Orange, then they do have with Nokia and get paid by Nokia.

This probably explains their selective approach to repairs - choosing jobs with the highest price to efforts ratio. If the ratio is not satisfactory they blame the customer for alleged 'water damage'.

Rubbish!! There is nothing stopping a customer from sending a phone direct to say HTC or Samsung apart from being lazy and expecting someone to do something for them for free.

If a phone was bought from vodafone or O2 etc , why should cpw sort out the repair?

grumbler

nsabournemouth wrote: »

Rubbish!!

What exactly part of my post this comment refers to?

There is nothing stopping a customer from sending a phone direct to say HTC or Samsung apart from being lazy and expecting someone to do something for them for free.

Well, it is up to the customer to chose between the retailer and the manufacturer. It was the retailer who was lazy and directed them to CPW. Sending to the manufacturer may be not free, may require good packaging, going to a PO and probably wasting time on queuing there. And for some reason Martin Lewis recommends to deal with the retailer in the first place: Consumer Rights

Martin_Lewis wrote:

DO return it to the store, NOT the manufacturer

If it breaks SadFart rules, your agreement's with the shop you bought it from, NOT the manufacturer; so the retailer MUST deal with it - don't let it palm you off.

nsabournemouth wrote: »

If a phone was bought from vodafone or O2 etc , why should cpw sort out the repair?

Have I ever said that they should?
Generally they should not if they are not an authorised repairer and don't have any special agreements with other retailers and manufacturers. As they attempted to repair the phone under the warranty they certainly have some agreement with the manufacturer that pays them for this, but probably this agreement doesn't oblige them to sort out all repairs.

If they didn't have to repair it, they should have refused to do this in the first place instead of taking the handset, then discovering that it was not that as easy to repair as they expected (*my guess*) and using their usual excuse for getting rid of it.

nsabournemouth

I'm sorry, rubbish wasn't meant to be put in their grumbler.

One big problem when it does come to repairs is the public are experts on these things all of a sudden and start banging out crap about their 'rights' which suit them when they want them too.

CPW would have no interest in sending a a phone back saying water damage if it wasn't.

'It wasn't like that when I gave it too them' is as old as the bible and most of the time when people are fishing for a new phone. You're also dead right, the contract is with the shop but it is quicker to send it off to Nokia,Samsung etc yourself, people are just too lazy to do it.

visidigi

nsabournemouth wrote: »

Rubbish!! There is nothing stopping a customer from sending a phone direct to say HTC or Samsung apart from being lazy and expecting someone to do something for them for free.

If a phone was bought from vodafone or O2 etc , why should cpw sort out the repair?

HTC repair time for me a minimum of 4 weeks (longest was 7!)

o2 repair time 4 days

Both went to an outsourced repair center for the work -I was not lazy, its just some manuafacturers wouldn't know customer service if it was drawn on their forehead backwards.

CPW should sort out the repair as they are a defined repair center for a brand's handsets - therefore they are paid by the brand to handle repairs.

CPW is nothing more than a convienent repair center for consumers...and trust me, CPW do NOTHING for free nowadays - they can't even print up POS and newspaper ads properly...constantly.

grumbler

nsabournemouth wrote: »

...
One big problem when it does come to repairs is the public are experts on these things all of a sudden and start banging out crap about their 'rights' which suit them when they want them too.

Oh, surely they have to rely on 'experts' from CPW that even don't bother or are incapable of taking a decent photo to prove the alleged 'water damage' when even the water damage indicators remain white.

CPW would have no interest in sending a a phone back saying water damage if it wasn't.

I've heard this groundless statement many times. My common sense suggest that they do have every reason, but I have not seen any real facts yet proving that this is not the case. One of the latest arguments from an insider was that they wouldn't do this because it was "a sackable offence". Does this not mean that their 'engineers' do have reasons and only fear o getting sacked stops them?

Just one of numerous examples: Samsung Galaxy S2 bricked after 30 days

'It wasn't like that when I gave it too them' is as old as the bible and most of the time when people are fishing for a new phone. You're also dead right, the contract is with the shop but it is quicker to send it off to Nokia,Samsung etc yourself, people are just too lazy to do it.

Some manufacturers are not much better than CPW. HTC springs to mind.

MissKeith

As I've said many, many times before, engineers are commission based. If the handset is repaired, they gain commission. If it's liquid damaged, they get nothing. Handsets go through two different quality control checks to ensure they are repaired correctly. If the phone isn't repaired correctly and the customer returns to CPW reporting the same fault, the commission is clawed back from the engineer. Put those tin foil hats away already.

grumbler

MissKeith wrote: »

As I've said many, many times before, engineers are commission based. If the handset is repaired, they gain commission.

You can keep saying this, but this doesn't prove anything as I tried to explain many times.

Handsets go through two different quality control checks to ensure they are repaired correctly.

I can guess they don't go through two different control checks to ensure that they are rejected correctly because of the alleged 'water damage'.
In the above example the phone rejected by CPW was successfully repaired by Samsung. I doubt that anybody at CPW was even punished as a result of this, let alone sacked. More likely, nobody at CPW was even informed about this.

visidigi

MissKeith wrote: »

As I've said many, many times before, engineers are commission based. If the handset is repaired, they gain commission. If it's liquid damaged, they get nothing. Handsets go through two different quality control checks to ensure they are repaired correctly. If the phone isn't repaired correctly and the customer returns to CPW reporting the same fault, the commission is clawed back from the engineer. Put those tin foil hats away already.

What an idiotic business model - the engineer sits on their tod all day waiting for handsets to come in broken. If they were on commission then that would make me want to fix a water damaged handset each and everytime. Paying an engineer commission for a product flow he has no control or affect over is quite shady - its not as if they can make handsets break now is it.

As for quality control checks, I suspect this is also a broken system, the number of people getting messed around by CPW repairs is a clear demonstration of that.

sarahhannah_2

CPW are crap they havent helped me at all,they sent my phone off and had it for weeks and wouldnt do the repair.I now have an 8 week old broken phone and still have a 22 month contract to pay for and i dont believe for 1 minute that it would cost 170 quid to fix a charging port which they say i have broke.

Techhead_2

grumbler wrote: »

You can keep saying this, but this doesn't prove anything as I tried to explain many times.
I can guess they don't go through two different control checks to ensure that they are rejected correctly because of the alleged 'water damage'.
In the above example the phone rejected by CPW was successfully repaired by Samsung. I doubt that anybody at CPW was even punished as a result of this, let alone sacked. More likely, nobody at CPW was even informed about this.

The reason Miss Keith keeps saying it is because its true. The repair company is paid when they repair a handset. If they don't repair a handset they don't get paid.

If a phone is damaged then its not covered under warranty and will not be repaired. Not covered under SOGA either. Its not that the phone can't be repaired, rather there is no entitlement to a repair.

A good repair company will provide proof of the damage and have an escalation procedure for when a dispute arises as to w whether the handset is damaged. Sometimes the handset will be repaired to keep the customer quiet, sometimes it will be an unclear case, sometimes it will be a mistake has occurred.

One thing to bear in mind its that if the phone is damaged and the reported problem fixed then the damage can cause further problems down the line. This is especially true with water damage where the corrosion builds up over time.