Mobile Phone Warranty Repair Refused due to unrelated cosmetic damage

DevCoder

The cracked glass is separate from the burn in, one is the glass the other is the digitizer.

Even on a supposedly sealed unit like the S3 the iPhone etc the two can be separated.

Ive separated the glass from the digitizer on an S2 for example. It just takes care (with a heat gun) and a lot of patience.

A few glasses of wine also help.

OshayAway

wealdroam wrote: »

OK, I'll leave you to it.

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

At least we agree on something!

OshayAway

ValHaller wrote: »

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.

Finally, someone who understands! Thank you! :T

OshayAway

krisdorey wrote: »

The cracked glass is separate from the burn in, one is the glass the other is the digitizer.

Even on a supposedly sealed unit like the S3 the iPhone etc the two can be separated.

Ive separated the glass from the digitizer on an S2 for example. It just takes care (with a heat gun) and a lot of patience.

A few glasses of wine also help.

Interesting point. Funnily enough the glass can be bought separately but no authorised Samsung repairer is prepared to do it. I was contemplating doing it myself until I did more research to find it is not a viable option on the S2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es8gezSdKv4

ValHaller

krisdorey wrote: »

The cracked glass is separate from the burn in, one is the glass the other is the digitizer.

Even on a supposedly sealed unit like the S3 the iPhone etc the two can be separated.

Ive separated the glass from the digitizer on an S2 for example. It just takes care (with a heat gun) and a lot of patience.

A few glasses of wine also help.

OshayAway wrote: »

Finally, someone who understands! Thank you! :T

krisdorey's comments clarify and temper this to some extent. It seems that the manufacturer could reasonably claim that the glass and the screen are effectively one component. If this is the case, then you are getting some degree of betterment out of this.

If they are one component, however, you do have a valid argument that the glass would have been replaced in any event, so the cost of making the repair for the screen burn alone would be exactly the same as the cost of the repair you are having done. It is the same repair. Or if the glass is a separate component, the extra cost of the repair you require is the cost of getting a glass to the repairer's bench. Either way, the amount they are proposing to charge is disproportionate.

In days of less greed, any decent company would have just done the job and replaced the glass FOC.

OshayAway

ValHaller wrote: »

krisdorey's comments clarify and temper this to some extent. It seems that the manufacturer could reasonably claim that the glass and the screen are effectively one component. If this is the case, then you are getting some degree of betterment out of this.

If they are one component, however, you do have a valid argument that the glass would have been replaced in any event, so the cost of making the repair for the screen burn alone would be exactly the same as the cost of the repair you are having done. It is the same repair. Or if the glass is a separate component, the extra cost of the repair you require is the cost of getting a glass to the repairer's bench. Either way, the amount they are proposing to charge is disproportionate.

In days of less greed, any decent company would have just done the job and replaced the glass FOC.

I take your point entirely. If they were separate components (in fact they are, they are just fused together and not available separatly from Samsung) They would have to replace the glass anyway as it would not be possible to re-fit it cracked. In that event, I feel it would be totally reasonable to charge me for the glass, a small percentage of the total cost.

However, it's not possible. Samsung wont separate them, nor will any authorised repairer. Were I to attempt to do that myself, which I wouldn't on the strength of that youtube video, that action would in itself invalidate the warranty (part of the wording covers non-authorised repairs).

I suspect my letter will reap the desired results, if not, no doubt court action will.

OshayAway

Update: First reply to my correspondence was an interesting one. Confirming that their verbally stipulated policy is correct and not in writing or listed as a condition of the warranty.

It went on to state that I was advised correctly of their position.

I've since been informed by consumer direct that a manufacturers warranty is a contract with the end user and as such, I have recourse to argue breach of contract.

Letter of my intention to pursue this through the small claims court on its way!