Mobile Phone Warranty Repair Refused due to unrelated cosmetic damage

OshayAway

So, to cut a long story short, I just got off the phone to the phone manufacturer who have told me that my phone will not be repaired unless the cosmetic damage is repaired first as this is their policy.

My phone has 2 problems; 1) the glass on the screen is cracked; 2) the LED display has a burn-in fault where there is a shadow of the notification bar no matter what is on the display.

The latter is a common and known fault with early versions of this model and would normally be replaced under the 24 month warranty. However, because the glass is cracked, which they acknowledge has nothing to do with the fault, they refuse to replace the faulty component.

They explained that regardless of the fault, any cosmetic damage must be replaced first at my expense, even if the mic was faulty, the screen would have to be replaced first. Doesn't seem right to me at all.

With this particular phone, the glass screen, digitiser and AMOLED is all bonded together. It's the reason I didn't get it replaced when the screen glass cracked. Because the crack has no effect on the usage or function, I've just lived with it.

To complicate matters, the retailer I purchased the phone from is no longer trading so I can't pursue them.

I'm used to arguing the sales of goods act 1988 as amended but not in circumstances like this and I'm unaware if it even applies to the manufacturer.

Any help would be greatly received, thanks in advance!

shaun_from_Africa

I can think of two reasons why they have this policy.

When they take the phone apart to carry out the repair, any existing damage may well get worse, leading to them either having to repair it at their expense or leaving it as it is and then having the customer complaining about the phone being returned in a worse condition than it was originally.

Secondly, if the glass is cracked, this could lead to the repairer getting cut or at the very least, the repair taking longer than normal due to extra care having to be taken.

All in all, I don't think that they are being unfair in asking for the glass to be repaired before they attempt to work on the phone.

OshayAway

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I can think of two reasons why they have this policy.

When they take the phone apart to carry out the repair, any existing damage may well get worse, leading to them either having to repair it at their expense or leaving it as it is and then having the customer complaining about the phone being returned in a worse condition than it was originally.

Secondly, if the glass is cracked, this could lead to the repairer getting cut or at the very least, the repair taking longer than normal due to extra care having to be taken.

All in all, I don't think that they are being unfair in asking for the glass to be repaired before they attempt to work on the phone.

I don't really care what their policy is to be honest, I want to know what my options are legally.

For them to repair the fault requires them to replace the broken glass as those 2 parts are bonded together. If they could replace just the glass separately, I would pay a small amount to have that done as that's not the expensive part.

At no point have the mentioned health and safety and they are working in an environment to replace damaged components anyway.

unholyangel

OshayAway wrote: »

I don't really care what their policy is to be honest, I want to know what my options are legally.

For them to repair the fault requires them to replace the broken glass as those 2 parts are bonded together. If they could replace just the glass separately, I would pay a small amount to have that done as that's not the expensive part.

At no point have the mentioned health and safety and they are working in an environment to replace damaged components anyway.

If you want to know what you're entitled to legally, you'd need to look at your warranty information. They can attach any reasonable condition they like to their warranty as it is in addition to your statutory rights (and your statutory rights are with your credit provider/retailer anyway).

Unless it was over £100 and paid by credit card, you'll be hard pushed to get anything else since the retailer has closed.

OshayAway

unholyangel wrote: »

If you want to know what you're entitled to legally, you'd need to look at your warranty information. They can attach any reasonable condition they like to their warranty as it is in addition to your statutory rights (and your statutory rights are with your credit provider/retailer anyway).

Unless it was over £100 and paid by credit card, you'll be hard pushed to get anything else since the retailer has closed.

I did fear as much. I'll ask for a copy of the warranty wording. I suppose my only hope is if the criteria is reasonable or not. I'd happily take it to the small claims court.

OshayAway

Update, so it would seem that this is simply their policy and not stated in their warranty wording. Although I have requested a copy to see for myself.

Which ever way I look at it, it seems an unreasonable policy which I would like to challenge.

SuperHan

It will be written somewhere in their warranty, and is a perfectly reasonably clause. Without spending time and investigating they don't *know* that the fault is not related to the damage.

As you have no direct contract with the manufacturer, but rather with the retailer, you're unlikely to get very far legally.

OshayAway

SuperHan wrote: »

It will be written somewhere in their warranty, and is a perfectly reasonably clause. Without spending time and investigating they don't *know* that the fault is not related to the damage.

As you have no direct contract with the manufacturer, but rather with the retailer, you're unlikely to get very far legally.

Why do you think it's reasonable? I genuinely don't see that at all.

The 2 issues are entirely unrelated which they acknowledge. If it were, or even if it wasn't but was 'possible' then yes, I totally agree, fair enough. But the fault is categorically and undeniably not related.

stugib

OshayAway wrote: »

Why do you think it's reasonable? I genuinely don't see that at all.

I guess it's equivalent to the concept of betterment if this was an insurance claim.

You have a cracked screen, this would normally cost you, say, £50 to get it repaired. This wouldn't be covered under warranty.

You now have a warranty-covered fault which requires the cracked screen to be replaced at the same time.

You now have a fixed screen and have saved yourself £50.

SuperHan

stugib wrote: »

I guess it's equivalent to the concept of betterment if this was an insurance claim.

You have a cracked screen, this would normally cost you, say, £50 to get it repaired. This wouldn't be covered under warranty.

You now have a warranty-covered fault which requires the cracked screen to be replaced at the same time.

You now have a fixed screen and have saved yourself £50.

Exactly why it is reasonable, along with other reasons mentioned above.

Warranties are often only valid so long as you have taken reasonable care of the product. Cosmetic damage is usually an indication that reasonable care has not been taken, so warranty is no longer valid. Having cosmetic damage repaired shows you care enough to fix any damage caused. Who knows what else you have done to the phone that may (or may not) have caused the fault you are having.

Unfortunately, as any warranty is above and beyond statutory rights they can add in any clauses they like.

OshayAway

stugib wrote: »

I guess it's equivalent to the concept of betterment if this was an insurance claim.

You have a cracked screen, this would normally cost you, say, £50 to get it repaired. This wouldn't be covered under warranty.

You now have a warranty-covered fault which requires the cracked screen to be replaced at the same time.

You now have a fixed screen and have saved yourself £50.

Thanks for your post and taking the time to reply. I understand the point you make but here's why I don't think it applies here:

The cost of replacing the crack is the same as replacing the faulty LED as the two components are bonded together. If it were possible to replace the glass for a reasonable price, my guess would be nearer £20 - £30, I would have done so at the time. I've lived with the damage for some time as it doesn't effect the function of the phone at all.

The cost of replacing the 3 components is circa £120. The other 2 parts will make up the lions share of that figure (if they were separate) as they are electronic.