Mobile Phone Warranty Repair Refused due to unrelated cosmetic damage

OshayAway

SuperHan wrote: »

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 Cosmetic damage is usually an indication that reasonable care has not been taken, so warranty is no longer valid.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.

Blimey I was after advice and opinion not judgement! It seems you don't understand the situation which is strange as it's really quite simple.

You seem unable to grasp the fact that the fault has nothing to do with the damage. That FACT is undisputed. The manufacturer acknowledge that, which I've stated twice before. Screen burn-in faults are caused by manufacturing defects and have nothing to do with misuse.

I now have a copy of the warranty wording which is perfectly clear and reasonable. It states "The warranty is invalidated if the defect is caused (howsoever) by misuse, neglect, and tampering or incorrect adjustment." That's pretty standard stuff I suspect

bod1467

Offer them, say, £30 towards the cost of repair?

OshayAway

bod1467 wrote: »

Offer them, say, £30 towards the cost of repair?

Thank you, nice to get a sensible response. That was going to be my next move actually. I've escalated a complaint in writing now that I have a copy of the warranty wording that doesn't make reference to this unreasonable policy they are insisting on.

I actually spoke to a diffident member of the customer service team today who was refreshingly pleasant and sympathetic. She encouraged me to challenge the policy and agreed it wasn't part of the warranty wording and said she would feel it was unreasonable too, in my shoes.

If I don't get offered a free of charge repair following my complaint, I will offer to contribute towards the repair. If that falls on deaf ears I'll take it to small claims. I've got some experience with that process and yet to lose a case. I suspect they would settle before it went to court anyway.

bod1467

OshayAway wrote: »

Thank you, nice to get a sensible response.

Don't think anyone has EVER called me sensible before! :rotfl:

PS - just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean their responses are not sensible; just that they don't agree with you.

OshayAway

bod1467 wrote: »

Don't think anyone has EVER called me sensible before! :rotfl:

PS - just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean their responses are not sensible; just that they don't agree with you.

My objection is that 'SuperHan' did not accept what I stated as fact, even though acknowledged by the manufacturer themselves. Rather, invented fictitious scenarios to try to backup his/her misguided notions!

SuperHan

No, no, no. I was saying that this is WHY the policies are in place, and thus why they are reasonable policies - NOT that this is what has happened in this case.

SuperHan

Out of interest, who is the phone manufacturer?

OshayAway

SuperHan wrote: »

No, no, no. I was saying that this is WHY the policies are in place, and thus why they are reasonable policies - NOT that this is what has happened in this case.

I still don't see how it's reasonable. It would be akin to a washing machine manufacturer insisting a cracked detergent dispenser draw be replaced at the customers expense before replacing a burnt-out motor.

I can see no justification and it's not in the warranty wording anyway.

It's not uncommon for company policy to contravene statutory rights. I'm not saying that is the situation here. Just because it's their policy, doesn't make it right or enforceable. I expect I would have a bit of an uphill struggle if such wording did appear on the warranty but it doesn't, I suspect because it wouldn't be considered a reasonable condition!

OshayAway

SuperHan wrote: »

Out of interest, who is the phone manufacturer?

If I name them, I won't be able to report back if it gets to small claims stage as normally out of court settlement will include a confidentiality clause.

Major smartphone manufacturer though.

unholyangel

OshayAway wrote: »

It's not uncommon for company policy to contravene statutory rights. I'm not saying that is the situation here. Just because it's their policy, doesn't make it right or enforceable. I expect I would have a bit of an uphill struggle if such wording did appear on the warranty but it doesn't, I suspect because it wouldn't be considered a reasonable condition!

Well you cant say thats the situation here, as you have no statutory rights :P

Physical damage can void the entire warranty.

They are effectively saying, if you remedy the physical damage, they will reinstate your warranty.

Nothing unreasonable about that at all.