Virgin Mobile saying my warranty is void

Emy1501

Cant see why SOGA would not apply as phone is not fit for purpose. Can't see a judge accepting that water damge can be caused by condensation etc. Phones should be made to withstand being in a kitchen bathroom etc. Condensation can build up anywhere.

I'd be suprised if a judge accepted the arguments given by the manufacturers.

grumbler

Buzby wrote: »

The oxidisation of components (where they rust) is an indication of 'water damage' and as this would not have happened in the factory or box, the culprit invariably is the consumer.

As said many times before, it's not a fact. Most soldering fluxes are acidic and have to be thoroughly washed out at the end.

The damp trigger markers as just an additional measure and do not require to change IF another component shows a problem.

It's just your opinion. The judge's opinion is very likely to differ.

Since both repairers have concurred, you may want to have your own independent check made, but if this shows the same it may be £30 wasted

It's Virgin who has to prove their diagnosis, not the consumer during the first six months. Their statement that "they do not have to provide evidence of the fault within 6 months if the phone can be repaired, only if it is beyond repair" is simply laughable.

gjchester

lycam wrote: »

I now don't know what to do with this, I'm thinking either reporting this to trading standards or small claims court. All I know is I've got 2 differently diagnosed faults (but ultimately both are blamed on water damage).

You've had two reports stating water damage, one from the maker and regardless of the actual method of water ingress, water damage is almost always caused by the user (ie using in the rain, getting wet and so on) and hence not covered by warranty. The number of fraudulant claims in the past made makers less tolerant of liquid issues and hence why the stickers are almost always inspected before any work is carried out. Liquids can cause all sort of damage on electronics, from shorting to salt depositions to corrosion, some of which may not become evident until months after a repair.

Liquid damage is not always user created and you say not be in your case so you could try asking an independant repairer for a report (not stating anything about the prior ones). You will have to pay for the report, and if you then proceed to sue you can put the charge in with the claim on Virgin. As you got the phone from Virgin your claim is with them, not Samsung.

However as you have had two reports already of water damage you will most likely get a 3rd. Given you've had the phone over 6 months the onus is on you to show that was caused by a manufacturing defect and it was present at the time of manufacture, and the odds are not in your favour.

Good Luck..

Buzby

Soldering Fluxes? Why cloud the issue with irrelevances? The 'can' surrounding many RF stages (to provide shielding) is ferrous and will rust - no requirement for it to be within dripping distance for flux (which, if truth be told) is highly targeted and a long way away from the solder baths used in the 1980's. The fact remains, the level of rust and its location will be paramount in deciding relevance.

The matters surrounding the triggering of dampness indicators is common sense - sorry if this is an alien concept to you.

Lastly Virgin havew already satisfactorily proved that abuse is the cause of the failure - therefore it falls squarely on the OP to prove otherwise. I agree their statement is laughable, however it is irrelevant as two entities have confirmed that same problem, so their remain correct that they are not required to replace at their cost under SOGA.

grumbler

gjchester wrote: »

...Given you've had the phone over 6 months the onus is on you to show that was caused by a manufacturing defect...

The phone stopped working within 6 months actually.

grumbler

Buzby wrote: »

Soldering Fluxes? Why cloud the issue with irrelevances? The 'can' surrounding many RF stages (to provide shielding) is ferrous and will rust - no requirement for it to be within dripping distance for flux (which, if truth be told) is highly targeted and a long way away from the solder baths used in the 1980's. The fact remains, the level of rust and its location will be paramount in deciding relevance.

Yes, it will. However, it was you who used the word "invariably" first and now are referring to some ferrous 'can' while the OP mentioned just some "tiny part which is nowhere near the USB". Most often corrosion affects the copper tracks.

Why soldering flux is irrelevant? It is used in the soldering process and it can cause corrossion if not washed out properly at the end of the process.

And what do these "solder baths" have to do with this?!

The matters surrounding the triggering of dampness indicators is common sense - sorry if this is an alien concept to you.

Of course you are right. They are in place to protect the companies only, not the customers.

Lastly Virgin havew already satisfactorily proved that abuse is the cause of the failure

Proved? Really?

I ask for the engineer's report and photo evidence of the liquid damage but they said there is no report or photos since as soon as they see water damage they do nothing else on it.

Emy1501

Buzby wrote: »

Soldering Fluxes? Why cloud the issue with irrelevances? The 'can' surrounding many RF stages (to provide shielding) is ferrous and will rust - no requirement for it to be within dripping distance for flux (which, if truth be told) is highly targeted and a long way away from the solder baths used in the 1980's. The fact remains, the level of rust and its location will be paramount in deciding relevance.

The matters surrounding the triggering of dampness indicators is common sense - sorry if this is an alien concept to you.

Lastly Virgin havew already satisfactorily proved that abuse is the cause of the failure - therefore it falls squarely on the OP to prove otherwise. I agree their statement is laughable, however it is irrelevant as two entities have confirmed that same problem, so their remain correct that they are not required to replace at their cost under SOGA.

So you agree the reason given for the failure of the phone is laughable but do not agree that their is potential claim under SOGA?

How is a phone that suffers water damage from breathing on it or being left anywhere where condensation can build up be fit for purpose or of merchantable quality.

Christ Virgin and Samsung cant even agree on reason of the failure of the phone!

gjchester

grumbler wrote: »

The phone stopped working within 6 months actually.

True, sorry...

lycam_2

Buzby wrote: »

Since both repairers have concurred, you may want to have your own independent check made, but if this shows the same it may be £30 wasted - accepting a replacement at £100 is still good value.

Situations where oxidisation take place are steamy environments (bathrooms, kitchens) or an external (anorak!) pocket when it's raining. The damage is done, but it takes a while to manifest itself.

I would happily pay the £100 except that I cannot think for the life of me what could have caused it so don't want to pay £100 to find in 5 months time I'm back to this again. I don't take it in the bathroom, kitchen or anywhere like that. I suppose a lot of people claim not to have damaged it themselves so Virgin just don't believe anybody now but they can see my usage, I barely use the phone. In the whole 5 months they could count my calls and texts on their fingers. My main use is 3 times a week I watch a few youtube videos on the train and it's a contact number for the school.

It also won't be a replacement, it will be the repair on my phone, which they say is the USB although Samsung said it isn't that, it's some other part. The warranty will still be void they say and as it's water damage their could be other damage which is not showing yet that occurs weeks/months down the line which won't be covered. I also fear they will fix the USB then say something else has been affected now and charge me more (for the part that Samsung have seen)