Disgraceful vodaphone

Jules18

There is something really wrong when you purchase a brand new phone,hardly use it( only three top ups in total,one of them unused because the phone had to go in for repair yet again) and after three monthes it breaks,to cut a long story short,returned 4 times for repair,with numerous lies as to whats wrong with it,this last time its "damaged beyond repair", HOW !!!!!,not by me it isnt, so Im promised a brand new phone , arrived in store to be offered a recon second hand phone.excuse me I did not buy a second hand phone from this store ,it was brand new and I expect a brand new phone in return,if Id wanted second hand id have bought one a damn sight cheaper than what I paid in the vodaphone shop.There is supposed to be a 12 month warranty,which isnt worth the paper its written on,they have told me I am out of warranty,the phone is only six monthes old now,My phone has been with vodaphone around 6-7 weeks of the six monthes I have owned the phone,the way they have behaved in all this is an absolute disgrace,the amount of 15 mile round trips I have had to make because the manager does not reply to messages left on his phone,and the rude member of staff who shouted across the shop in front of other customers when I first took the phone back,"have we ever had these phones in " as though I was a damn liar,amongst other in your face rudeness from the same member of staff .I should have known then shouldnt I what would happen.I would not recommend anyone having a phone off this company,you are repeatedly lied to and to top it off I have been told "if I have the recon phone they have offered me and anything goes wrong with that,I can always buy another new one,I have this in writing to prove,what sort of a company would say a thing like that.There should be an article in the newspaper re this companies bad and illegal practices ,one of them being not adhering to what the law states,I am in communication with trading standards at the moment and slowly doing what they have advised
See you in court Vodaphone
The government should intervene like they have with the energy companies,another lot who got too big for their boots
So come on Martin,if your reading this please try and help all of us innocents ripped off by Vodaphone

grumbler

Jules18 wrote: »

...this companies bad and illegal practices ,one of them being not adhering to what the law states,

What does it state? Unfortunately, the law says nothing about a brand new replacement. Unfortunately, the law (Sale of the Goods Act) is so vague that after 6 month it is very difficult to enforce it when dealing with a retailer, but Vodafone is the only provider that offers the warranty for the entire length of the contract for all phones except iPhones. So, it is not clear why they told that your were "out of warranty". Is it a PAYG phone?
And finally, all phones come with 12-24 months of manufacturer's warranty and if you don't like Vodafone you can deal directly with the manufacturer.

Jules18

Hi Grumbler
The phone is a pay as you go,it is 6 monthes old now,but when it was first taken in I had only had the phone for three monthes,they have been messing me about for over three monthes now
The first time they did a software update,the second time they said there was nothing wrong with it,the third time it came back from repair saying I or someone on my behalf and said to send the phone back to the shop and not repair it,who had said that to them I dont know,it certainly wasnt me I received no communication at all,the shop was baffled as to why it had come back too,or they pretended to be baffled,because of that the manager just sent the phone back to a chief engineer,after they had had it for a week and id heard nothing I went into the shop to be told it was damaged beyond economic repair,what exactly the fault was I still havnt been told
The phone was a brand new model when purchased in October, the Sony Ericsson 1,3i txt,and apparently after just a few monthes on the market they are no longer made,I would have been quite happy having my own phone back repaired properly so that it actualy worked or a brand new one the same,but a used refurbed one is totally unacceptable,as I said I didnt go into that store and buy a used one initially so they are not offering me like for like,the phone was not fit for the purpose intended,and never has been.If I had purchased a second hand phone which is what I would be getting from Vodafone if I accepted the recon one,(why didnt I just do that in the first place at half the cost),it would be like you purchasing a brand new car at 20K there were probs with it that they couldnt fix so they offered you a second hand one,which we all know could lose half its value when its left the forecourt,so in fact you are being given a commodity worth only 10 K that you paid 20K for,and of course it would be second hand not brand new. I have given them 4 chances to rectify the problem,now I want nothing at all to do with them and are seeking a refund,I even suggested another brand new phone from them and I would pay the difference.They are not adhering to what the law states which is a like for like replacement, I will never give Vodaphone my custom ever again

gjchester

Jules18 wrote: »

but a used refurbed one is totally unacceptable,as I said I didnt go into that store and buy a used one initially so they are not offering me like for like,the phone was not fit for the purpose intended,and never has been

They are not adhering to what the law states which is a like for like replacement

You may not like this but they do not have to give you a new phone and yes they are within the law.

You gave them a 3 (or now 6) month old used phone, so they legally only need to give you back the same or better. If they offer you a 3 months old refurb then that is what you gave them and legally permitted. It could be a different model, but has to be the same or higher spec but they don't have to offer a new phone in exchange.

Any retailer only have to offer a replacement or repair (at their choice) and a replacement or refund is at their discression. As Vodafone are trying to make repairs (and failing) they are with their legal rights, unfortunatly theres nothing that says how may repairs are allowed before you get a new phone. I'm suprised they didn't just swap it out at the time it first failed, but thats Vodafones choice, if the model was discontinued it may not have been possble.

That said it seems to be a bit of a fubar from a public relations point of view, You could try going direct to Sony, but from personel experience they are not that good either at direct repairs.

I'm sure a vodafone rep will be along with their contact detail soon, any they may be able to resolve this for you.

thatsean

Firstly Jules, whatever you might have heard. Paragraphs are not illegal.

Second. The retailer has the chance to repair the phone - they aren't forced to replace straight away by law. In this case they have tried to fix the phone on more than one occasion, and can't, so are replacing the phone.

They are not bound to replace the phone like for like, as in this case, things often go out of sale/stock. What do you expect them to do? Ask Sony to knock one up just for you? If the phone they are offering has the same features as the one that you have gone without then whatever they offer is reasonable under law. Finally, as your phone is not brand new, they don't have to replace the phone with a brand new one.

I know that this isn't what you want to hear, but ranting on here isn't going to get you a new phone, as you don't have the right under law to demand one. If you feel the offer they have made isn't reasonable of course you can sue them to force them to do what you feel they ought, but I think we both know that won't happen. A more calm dialogue may well help you. Best of luck.

wantmemoney

gjchester wrote:

Any retailer only have to offer a replacement or repair (at their choice) and a replacement or refund is at their discression.

thatsean wrote:

They are not bound to replace the phone like for like, as in this case, things often go out of sale/stock. What do you expect them to do? Ask Sony to knock one up just for you? If the phone they are offering has the same features as the one that you have gone without then whatever they offer is reasonable under law.

Whether the retailer is able to replace the item with 'like for like' is not the problem of the customer. I quite agree with you that the retailer is entitled to offer a different phone replacement but I think you will find it is for the customer to ultimately accept an offer of a different model/make of phone(may be wrong but I would be interested in seeing a link to this 'consumer legislation')
The Law clearly states that if the item is faulty and can't be repaired(in reasonable time) or replaced (for any reason) then the customer is entitled to a full/partial refund.

http://www.consumeradvice.net/pages/consumer.htm

Remedies
If a product that was faulty at the time of sale is returned to the retailer, the consumer is legally entitled to:

a full refund, if this is within a reasonable time of the sale ('reasonable time' is not defined in law but is often quite short)
a reasonable amount of compensation for up to six years from the date of sale (five years in Scotland).
nb - This does not mean all goods have to last six years! It is the limit for making a civil claim and is not equivalent to a guarantee.
These are long-established rights and they remain available to the consumer after the Regulations come into force on 31 March 2003.
What is new is that under the Regulations, consumers can choose to request instead:

a repair or replacement.
The retailer can decline either of these if he can show that they are disproportionately costly in comparison with the alternative. However, any remedy must also be completed without significant inconvenience to the consumer. If neither repair nor replacement is realistically possible, consumers can request instead:
a partial or full refund, depending on what is reasonable in the circumstances.
It may be the case that a full refund is not the reasonable option because the consumer will have enjoyed some benefit from the goods before the problem appeared.
This needs to be taken into account before a reasonable partial refund can be assessed.
Consumers will be able to switch between certain remedies if they find they are getting nowhere, however they would have to give a retailer a reasonable time to honour a request before they tried to switch, and they couldn't pursue two remedies at the same time.
Proving the fault
As now, the consumer needs to demonstrate the goods were faulty at the time of sale.
If the consumer chooses to request an immediate refund or damages. There is one exception - this is when a consumer returns goods in the first six months from the date of the sale, and requests a repair or replacement or, thereafter, a partial or full refund. In that case, the consumer does not have to prove the goods were faulty at the time of the sale. It is assumed that they were. If the retailer does not agree, it is for him to prove that the goods were satisfactory at the time of sale - this is called a reversed burden of proof.

I think you guys will find it's called the Consumer Protection Act.
The clue is in the name. It's extremely important European legislation to protect the public from miss-selling and unethical after sales practices.

It lays down guidelines that retailers have to follow and what legitimate requests can be made from the buyer.

Jules18

thatsean wrote: »

Firstly Jules, whatever you might have heard. Paragraphs are not illegal.

Second. The retailer has the chance to repair the phone - they aren't forced to replace straight away by law. In this case they have tried to fix the phone on more than one occasion, and can't, so are replacing the phone.

They are not bound to replace the phone like for like, as in this case, things often go out of sale/stock. What do you expect them to do? Ask Sony to knock one up just for you? If the phone they are offering has the same features as the one that you have gone without then whatever they offer is reasonable under law. Finally, as your phone is not brand new, they don't have to replace the phone with a brand new one.

I know that this isn't what you want to hear, but ranting on here isn't going to get you a new phone, as you don't have the right under law to demand one. If you feel the offer they have made isn't reasonable of course you can sue them to force them to do what you feel they ought, but I think we both know that won't happen. A more calm dialogue may well help you. Best of luck.

So your telling me that you wouldnt be annoyed if you had just spent the best part of £100 on a phone to find out after only 12 weeks and hardly using it that its useless ? then be messed about for over three months,and then to top it off be told that it was out of warranty !!!!!.when there is still six months left on it,goods have to be fit for purpose and to last for a reasonable length of time,I dont call 12 weeks a reasonable length of time. For a start, I dont expect them to just dispose of my phone with no explanation as to what was in fact wrong with it,and I object to being lied to,I should have been given the opportunity to have a different phone if I wanted,even if it meant putting money to it,instead I just had a phone which has been used by someone else,forced upon me,how can a phone have nothing wrong with it one week according to Vodafone,then the next week after not even being used its beyond repair,the whole thing stinks and believe me if you had been through what I have with them,(stupid emails to prove) your dialogue wouldnt be calm either
The latest daft email from them this evening now saying that they cant help me the issue will be resolved instore only,they cant interfere with that,so why approach me to help then,if they have no say,and since when has an head office been dictated to by a store manager
I will not say too much but trading standards have told me that Vodaphone are not adhering to what the law states,they ARE breaking the law,and what sort of a company removes posts from their web site telling the truth about whats gone on,they are frightened to death that a potential customer will see it and they lose a sale,its not just my post either,there are a lot of disatisfied customers and quite right too, they really should be investigated
Thankyou for your imput wantmemoney and for posting the consumer credit act

Guys_Dad

Julesifyouwanttobecomearegularposteronthisforum,thenpleaseuseparagraphstointroducesomewhitespaceintoyourpostssothatpeoplecanreadthem. Atpresenttheyarealmostunreadable. IfyoulookatyourpostsandtheothersinthethreadyoucanseewhatImean.

gjchester

wantmemoney wrote: »

Whether the retailer is able to replace the item with 'like for like' is not the problem of the customer. I quite agree with you that the retailer is entitled to offer a different phone replacement but I think you will find it is for the customer to ultimately accept an offer of a different model/make of phone(may be wrong but I would be interested in seeing a link to this 'consumer legislation')
The Law clearly states that if the item is faulty and can't be repaired(in reasonable time) or replaced (for any reason) then the customer is entitled to a full/partial refund.

True, but as each repair has been in a timly manner, (4 times in 3 months, with each time being a week or two as far as I can tell) it's not clear from the OP if the fault was fixed and another caused, or the original faullt not fully fixed. Repairs are being offered and done, just not fully, or something else ie being broken in the process.

I'm not sure what happens if the customer turns down a replacment, I guess they can have the old broken phone back instead.

wantmemoney wrote: »

I think you guys will find it's called the Consumer Protection Act.
The clue is in the name. It's extremely important European legislation to protect the public from miss-selling and unethical after sales practices.

It lays down guidelines that retailers have to follow and what legitimate requests can be made from the buyer.

True and as a repair has been offered they have forfilled the part of the act. The six months from hnew is distraction here, The phone is faulty and Vodafone are willing to repair or replace it.

It's in warranty, Vodafone have to repair it or supply a replacment of equil or better quality (and yes as it went in as 3 month old machine a 3 month old refurb would be considered the same), and as far as I can see they have offered repairs then replacement.

If there was no repair or replacment offered that different but there and whilt the OP may not want a 3 month old refurb thats all they are entitled to,anything else it a goodwill gesture and if the OP has had the attitude in the shop that she comes across as here that may have evaporated.

grumbler

gjchester wrote: »

True, but as each repair has been in a timly manner, (4 times in 3 months, with each time being a week or two as far as I can tell) it's not clear from the OP if the fault was fixed and another caused, or the original faullt not fully fixed. Repairs are being offered and done, just not fully, or something else ie being broken in the process..
...
...as a repair has been offered they have forfilled the part of the act.

Come one...
It's not 'just not fully'. The repairs have to be done without causing a significant inconvenience to the customer. By all means Vodafone did cause very significant inconvenience.
Who needs 'timely' worthless repairs that take 8 weeks in 3 months?

gjchester

grumbler wrote: »

Come one...
It's not 'just not fully'. The repairs have to be done without causing a significant inconvenience to the customer. By all means Vodafone did cause very significant inconvenience.
Who needs 'timely' worthless repairs that take 8 weeks in 3 months?

I agree it's been lousy service but comes down to if it's one ongoing problem or multiple problems. If its been fixed each time and then failed again for another reason it's different to one problem thats never been fixed.

I've had problems before where the fault that an item went in for was fixed but another created (irrelelvent who it was but it was a big company but not Vodafone). At the time I was living in a house with a solicitor, they believed because the reported fault was fixed each time they were just within the law, but only just. I know it sucks but that was the soliciters view of the law. They suggested a letter before action as a a way to get a response, as I just got told the same, Sorry we'll try again when I returned it each time.

In my case there were 3 attempts at repair and the the letter was enough to get a action and a refund , although the soliciter friend did say it was 50-50 if there was a case as the original fault had been fixed in a timely manner.

It may be worth the OP writing this all down calmly and sending it as a letter before action to Vodafone, and if that fails take them to the small claims track as they would probably back down.