Faulty goods over 6 months old - proving fault was there at purchase

Leo2020

To back up what ThumbRemote said you would need an engineers report - as I said in my first post:)

Not that the SOGA actually mentioned the type of proof you need, but an engineers report is generally what would be accepted by retailers in the case of faulty electronic items. I'd imagine it's also what a court would accept.

xmfclick

ThumbRemote wrote: »

... if they don't accept the findings so you take it to the small claims court and you win.

Not sure what you mean. Surely I wouldn't win automatically (if I had an engineer's report saying it was an inherent fault)? Or do the courts give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt (i.e. if you've gone to the bother of getting a report that backs you up, then you must be right)? This is all both hypothetical and moot now, but CPW seem bolshie enough that they would actually go to court, even over something as trivial as this (Dunston didn't get to be a billionaire by giving in easily).

xmfclick

Leo2020 wrote: »

To back up what ThumbRemote said you would need an engineers report - as I said in my first post:)

I somehow missed your first post ... Seems to me the SOGA (and other legislation in this area) is a bit of a mess -- nothing really specified clearly, lots of stuff left up to the individual court to decide. All seems to favour the bolshie retailer if he's willing to tough it out for long enough.

Leo2020

Well my opinion on the SOGA being a bit grey is because it has to. It covers everything from buying a tomato to buying a car - you can't really get too specific and this is why the SOGA says "reasonable" in regards to a few different points. Because what's reasonable in regards to one product and situation is not reasonable in another.

xmfclick

Leo2020 wrote: »

Well my opinion on the SOGA being a bit grey is because it has to.

If I were a cynic I'd say it has something to do with keeping m'learned friends in work, bearing in mind that a lot of MPs are lawyers. Wouldn't do to make the law nice and clear, not so much for the lawyers to do then ...

xmfclick

Just got an email from Carphone Warehouse. As I sort-of predicted, they have said, "The phone was working fine when you bought it, then you did something to break it". Here's the main part ...

I am sorry to hear that your handset has been found to be beyond economical repair by our team of Engineers. Our Engineers work to a high standard and comply with guidelines set by the manufacturer. Following investigations they have found physical damage caused by liquid, which may have contributed to the issues you are experiencing and the reason you have passed it to us for Repair.

Liquid damage or liquid ingress as it’s sometimes known, can be caused by a number of things and there is no way of telling exactly how it has occurred. Our Engineers are able to tell it has occurred by opening up the device and assessing either indications to a liquid sensor or by signs of corrosive damage within the device itself. The device does not have to have to been submerged in water, it can be caused by a number of things such as;

· Condensation (moving quickly from a cold to a hot environment)
· Using the handset in the rain
· Exposure to steam (having the handset in the kitchen when cooking or in the bathroom when running hot water)
· Spillage of even a small amount liquid onto the device

A device that has been deemed beyond economical repair as a result of liquid damage unfortunately voids the manufacturer’s warranty, as such we are unable to repair. We understand that this may be disappointing and to help you further we have some options you may want to consider;

If you wish to dispute the physical damage you are more than welcome to a second opinion. This can be done by booking the device back into a Carphone Warehouse store and we will ask another engineer to investigate.

My thoughts are as follows:-

(1) I can't imagine how the phone could have suffered "liquid ingress" -- it has a plastic cover that plugs up the USB port, I've always been very careful to keep it plugged up, and I haven't done any of the sorts of liquid-ingress-inducing things they suggest, at least not on any kind of regular basis (not using the phone in the rain? in England?) However, if the CPW people have looked and decided the phone has suffered liquid ingress then maybe it has.

(2) Basically, their list of liquid-ingress-inducing things amounts to using the phone in any one of several normal day-to-day environments. I wonder if even that would be enough for a claim -- after all, if they are saying that having the handset in the kitchen when cooking can render it unusable then, in the context of something like a mobile phone, that is probably an inherent design fault.

(3) After my initial anger I re-read the email more carefully. Interestingly, they say they "have found physical damage caused by liquid, which may have contributed to the issues you are experiencing". So, they don't claim it has definitely, or even probably, caused the problem -- it may have contributed to it. So, by implication, the real or main cause of the fault was something else -- which, presumably, they couldn't identify. (I guess they had a quick look, said "Liquid ingress, reject, next!" and that was it.) In which case I wonder if CPW have themselves given me enough ammunition for a Small Claim, because they are effectively admitting that there was some other fault, and they haven't suggested how I might have caused it, so it must have been inherent. Maybe?

(4) The bit about "A device that has been deemed beyond economical repair as a result of liquid damage unfortunately voids the manufacturer’s warranty, as such we are unable to repair." I am sure this is utter b*||*cks -- whether or not they deem it economic to repair the device is nothing to do with me, and the manufacturer’s warranty has nothing to do with anything, AFAIK. In the first instance it's CPW who have a duty to repair or replace, surely?

I had to laugh at the bit about getting another CPW store to give a second opinion!

I have drafted a Letter Before Action type reply, but I'm holding off sending it. Given that Samsung have been very nice so far and are offering to look at the phone, would it be worth retrieving it from CPW, letting Samsung have a look, and if they say they won't repair or replace, have another go at CPW?

Thanks in anticipation.

PS: It just occurred to me that the second paragraph of CPW's reply indicates that this is their stock "liquid ingress" letter, because they haven't even bothered to customise it to my own situation

amcg100

Water Ingress - rubbish ! thats the one they all use - car warranties - phone warranties - everything. If I bought a goldfish that subsequently died the pet shop would say it was due to water ingress.
Carphone warehouse should repair or replace the phone. If your phone is on contract you will be covered under consumer credit act and you should demand a refund or replacement. It will be harder to prove liability under sale of goods act, but still do-able.

Get stuck right into them

ThumbRemote

xmfclick wrote: »

Not sure what you mean. Surely I wouldn't win automatically (if I had an engineer's report saying it was an inherent fault)? Or do the courts give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt (i.e. if you've gone to the bother of getting a report that backs you up, then you must be right)? This is all both hypothetical and moot now, but CPW seem bolshie enough that they would actually go to court, even over something as trivial as this (Dunston didn't get to be a billionaire by giving in easily).

You could get an engineers report, the retailer refuse to pay, and you decide not take it to court (for whatever reason) - in which case you obviously wouldn't get the money back.

You could take it to court and the court find against you, albeit unlikely with evidence.

Even if you win in court, the retailer may not pay up, though less likely with a major retailer.

unholyangel

xmfclick wrote: »

I have drafted a Letter Before Action type reply, but I'm holding off sending it.

So have you established that the fault is inherent? If not, don't send the LBA until you have done so and presented it to CPW (even send a copy of the report along with the LBA). At present, they have no proof its an inherent fault so are not required to provide a remedy.

If you send the LBA and go through with small claims....a judge is not going to look kindly upon you going the legal route before giving them a chance to provide a remedy under SoGA. And yes you're probably thinking they've had a chance.....but as above, until an inherent fault is confirmed.....SoGA doesnt apply.

What kind of phone is it? There was an iphone that had problem with the water sensors indicating water damage but the sensors were being triggered by mere moisture and was nothing to do with the actual fault. There was also the motorola (i think it was anyway) that advertised their phone as "life proof" and showed the phone being dropped onto a concrete floor from standing height. People had their phones knocked off sofa/tables etc onto laminate and they were smashing....

If your phone has something like that in the advertisement (ie someone using the phone in the rain in their Ad), it may give you another angle to work with.

Zandoni

If you have any troubles with any of the phone shops it's easy to get a little revenge.

Stand by the door and keep triggering the sensor that shows the amount of people that visit the shop. The manager gets a lot of stick if a certain percentage of customers who visit don't buy.

:rotfl: