Do not want to pay to upgrade my phone

NFH

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

You keep missing the point though. In order to pursue this, OP would need to prove that this fault was inherent first. Usually by way of an independent report.

As I've already said, the OP will only need to prove this if Orange disputes it.

NFH

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

Orange Terms state:

Your Device is not a part of your Contract
14.1 "Your Device and Accessories are acquired by you outside the terms of your Contract".

Now I am not in anyway saying I agree with this but as far as I know it is quite common and not something that is in dispute within legal 'systems' as being unfair or unenforceable.

It is irrelevant that Orange has separate contracts for the goods and service. It is relevant that:

• Orange supplied the goods with the intention that they be used with the service.
• The goods were supplied at the price paid on condition of entering into the contract for service.
• The goods are funded, either partially or fully, by the monthly charge for service.
• The goods were supplied at the same time that the service started.
• The goods and service were marketed as a package.

Therefore the supply of the goods is governed by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, not by the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

oopsadaisydoddle

NFH wrote: »

As I've already said, the OP will only need to prove this if Orange disputes it.

If OP goes back to them quoting the act that you mentioned, they will straight away tell OP that the phone is acquired outside the terms of the contract as per the terms they agreed when signing up. Therefor the SOGA applies, and, in this case Orange have done all that is required under that untiL OP proves otherwise.

I am not saying this to be on Orange's 'side' - having worked for them, I do know how they work. I just want to make OP aware. By all means, try it but I just honestly think it will be a waste of time. OP could try writing in I suppose as sometimes, that might get their attention and get them to do something anyway.

oopsadaisydoddle

NFH wrote: »

It is irrelevant that Orange has separate contracts for the goods and service. It is relevant that:

• Orange supplied the goods with the intention that they be used with the service.
• The goods were supplied at the price paid on condition of entering into the contract for service.
• The goods are funded, either partially or fully, by the monthly charge for service.
• The goods were supplied at the same time that the service started.
• The goods and service were marketed as a package.

Therefore the supply of the goods is governed by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, not by the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

Why is it irrelevant that their terms state differently? Has anyone ever successfully claimed under this as being an unfair term?

As I said, I don't necessarily disagree with you, just that (I believe) OP will have to litigate before they get Orange to do anything!

NFH

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

If OP goes back to them quoting the act that you mentioned, they will straight away tell OP that the phone is acquired outside the terms of the contract as per the terms they agreed when signing up.

How was the phone acquired outside the terms of the contract?

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

I am not saying this to be on Orange's 'side' - having worked for them, I do know how they work.

How they work is irrelevant. If the OP sends a letter before claim to Orange, they will have to abide by the law rather than by their internal policies which often ignore consumers' statutory rights.

NFH

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

Why is it irrelevant that their terms state differently?

Because statutory legislation automatically takes precedence over commercial contracts.

Dogger69

bellaboo86 wrote: »

The charging component on the phone wouldn't charge.

All this fuss and no one has established exactly what the fault is!

bellaboo86, can you explain further please? Will it charge at all - have you established the fault is with the phone and not the charger?

oopsadaisydoddle

NFH wrote: »

How was the phone acquired outside the terms of the contract?


How they work is irrelevant. If the OP sends a letter before claim to Orange, they will have to abide by the law rather than by their internal policies which often ignore consumers' statutory rights.

As per the terms of the agreement that i posted earlier which state:

Your Device is not a part of your Contract
14.1 "Your Device and Accessories are acquired by you outside the terms of your Contract".

Now as I said, you could be right, but if so, why have these terms not been outed as being 'illegal' or unfair before?

Yes they could send a letter, as I also suggested, however I still believe they will get the same response and again, I am speaking from experience!

NFH

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

As per the terms of the agreement that i posted earlier which state:

Your Device is not a part of your Contract
14.1 "Your Device and Accessories are acquired by you outside the terms of your Contract".

Now as I said, you could be right, but if so, why have these terms not been outed as being 'illegal' or unfair before?

This doesn't change the obligation upon Orange to repair the fault (assuming it is a manufacturing defect). In any case Section 48B of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 has the same effect as Section 11N of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. However, it is important that the OP quotes the correct legislation when corresponding with Orange, particularly in a letter before claim.

oopsadaisydoddle

NFH wrote: »

This doesn't change the obligation upon Orange to repair the fault (assuming it is a manufacturing defect). In any case Section 48B of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 has the same effect as Section 11N of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. However, it is important that the OP quotes the correct legislation when corresponding with Orange, particularly in a letter before claim.

So what I said is correct then about OP needing to prove it is a manufacturing fault first? Why would Orange act otherwise?