Mobile Phone Warranty Repair Refused due to unrelated cosmetic damage

OshayAway

unholyangel wrote: »

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

Quite, which is why I said "I'm not saying that's the situation here"

My point is that just because it's their policy, doesn't make it right or, for that matter, enforceable.

unholyangel wrote: »

Physical damage can void the entire warranty.

The warranty doesn't state that, see my previous quote of what it does say.

unholyangel wrote: »

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

Nothing unreasonable about that at all.

I appreciate your opinion but beg to differ as the damage and fault are categorically separate and unrelated.

SuperHan

It's likely that it'll take that long to get your out of court settlement (if you get one), most people will have forgotten about this post... I only ask, as it's useful to know which manufacturers are a pain in the gonads to deal with when buying a new phone Maybe you can link to an article saying the manufacturing fault is common....

OshayAway

SuperHan wrote: »

It's likely that it'll take that long to get your out of court settlement (if you get one), most people will have forgotten about this post... I only ask, as it's useful to know which manufacturers are a pain in the gonads to deal with when buying a new phone Maybe you can link to an article saying the manufacturing fault is common....

If I do that I might as well publish it here! I'll PM you.

It will be quite a quick process, a matter of weeks if they settle probably between 1 month and 2 if they don't. It's not worth their time and costs to attend court but I'll happily face them if they do!

OshayAway

For what it's worth, the manufacturer even tried to amend their warranty for the newer model so that they could avoid warranty repairs for this known fault inherent with their Super AMOLED screens, they were forced to retract their position and apologise due to customer complaints.

DevCoder

You don't want to mention the manufacturer yet you use the term Super Amoled which only one manufacturer has trademarked.

Not a great stretch to guess who it is.

wealdroam

OshayAway wrote: »

For what it's worth, the manufacturer even tried to amend their warranty for the newer model so that they could avoid warranty repairs for this known fault inherent with their Super AMOLED screens, they were forced to retract their position and apologise due to customer complaints.

OK, so now we know it is Samsung, their warranty states...

The warranty is invalidated if the defect is caused (howsoever) by misuse, neglect, and tampering or incorrect adjustment.

So we have a defect... a cracked glass.
Possibly/probably caused by misuse or neglect.

Therefore warranty is invalidated.

Therefore any other fault will not be looked at as a possible warranty repair simply because the warranty is no longer in force.

As Unholyangel said earlier, they are prepared to re-instate the warranty if you get the cracked glass repaired/replaced.

OshayAway

krisdorey wrote: »

You don't want to mention the manufacturer yet you use the term Super Amoled which only one manufacturer has trademarked.

Not a great stretch to guess who it is.

Doh! Didn't know that... oops.

OshayAway

wealdroam wrote: »

OK, so now we know it is Samsung, their warranty states...

So we have a defect... a cracked glass.
Possibly/probably caused by misuse or neglect.

Therefore warranty is invalidated.

Therefore any other fault will not be looked at as a possible warranty repair simply because the warranty is no longer in force.

As Unholyangel said earlier, they are prepared to re-instate the warranty if you get the cracked glass repaired/replaced.

Welcome to the party! Yes, it is a Samsung. If you'd read the previous posts you'd seen that I've already quoted the same part of the warranty wording to support my argument! The defect is the screen burn-in which is not caused by the damage!

Samsung have not stated that the warranty is invalid, they state that it is a warranty repair issue but that it is their policy to replace any cosmetic damaged parts first, whatever part of the phone that is. In this case, because they don't supply the glass on itself, replacing the glass involves also replacing the expensive faulty part that it's glued to.

wealdroam

OK, I'll leave you to it.

You clearly know exactly what needs to be done without any help from me.

ValHaller

wealdroam wrote: »

OK, so now we know it is Samsung, their warranty states...

The warranty is invalidated if the defect is caused (howsoever) by misuse, neglect, and tampering or incorrect adjustment.

So we have a defect... a cracked glass.
Possibly/probably caused by misuse or neglect.

Therefore warranty is invalidated.

I don't agree. While the cracked screen may well be due to misuse etc, the screen burn defect is acknowledged not to be by the manufacturer. So the exclusion clause is of no effect here.