"Water Damaged" Samsung Galaxy Note 3 after 2 months...

mije1983

paulfeakins wrote: »

I still think it's not fit for purpose. I'm going to see what trading standards have to say.

I think it's a scam - they put these little sensors in and then suddenly they don't have to deal with any returns because the sensor says the air humidity was too high. Well I'm sorry but that's not acceptable. If I wanted at barometer I would have bought one.

The goods are not fit for the purpose they were designed.

If you are that adamant about it, why don't you find your own specialist who could discredit the fact it is water damaged even if the sensors say it is? Then you could take them to court and let a judge decide who was correct.

I would be wary going down a 'not fit for the purpose they were designed' avenue though, especially if you go by what a dictionary definition of a mobile phone is.

Collins Dictionary says:

a portable telephone that works by means of a cellular radio system

and Oxford says:

A telephone with access to a cellular radio system so it can be used over a wide area, without a physical connection to a network.

So they clearly work as far as this definition goes, obviously as long as they are not damaged by water.

I wish you luck in your quest, but I'm afraid it may all become futile and will just end up costing you more and more money.

d123

paulfeakins wrote: »

I still think it's not fit for purpose. I'm going to see what trading standards have to say.

I think it's a scam - they put these little sensors in and then suddenly they don't have to deal with any returns because the sensor says the air humidity was too high. Well I'm sorry but that's not acceptable. If I wanted at barometer I would have bought one.

The goods are not fit for the purpose they were designed.

It takes more than the humidity being high to trigger the sensors. You must have got liquid ingress to the point of water getting into the handset (either rain or heavy condensation).

Many have thought they can take the matter up as you think, I don't think anyone has succeeded.

Good luck with TS.

paulfeakins

d123 wrote: »

(either rain or heavy condensation)

Okay so I leave my glasses in a cold car, turn on the heating and the lenses get covered in water. Sounds like that would be enough to trigger it.

I think if enough people complain it must start to get taken seriously. If you do a twitter search for "o2 water damage" you'll find so many people with the same issue.

You can't just sell a £500 item and then when it breaks a few months later after careful use say "no returns". That's not legal and it's not good business.

d123

paulfeakins wrote: »

Okay so I leave my glasses in a cold car, turn on the heating and the lenses get covered in water. Sounds like that would be enough to trigger it.

I think if enough people complain it must start to get taken seriously. If you do a twitter search for "o2 water damage" you'll find so many people with the same issue.

You can't just sell a £500 item and then when it breaks a few months later after careful use say "no returns". That's not legal and it's not good business.

They are saying "no returns if you abuse/don't look after the item", it's quite legal. Millions of users manage to avoid water damage, the odd thousand who don't are probably guilty of some form of use which they shouldn't, and the very few who through some fluke trigger the sensor without any apparent abuse or neglect will always struggle to get anyone to believe them.

People have been saying "I have no idea why my phone is water damaged, I've always been careful, how did rain/condensation get in? It's not fit for purpose!" since phones became small enough to carry in your pocket.

I haven't heard of a single one actually win that argument in court.

paulfeakins

d123 wrote: »

They are saying "no returns if you abuse/don't look after the item", it's quite legal.

As judged by their own incredibly sensitive sensor.

d123 wrote: »

People have been saying "I have no idea why my phone is water damaged, I've always been careful, how did rain/condensation get in? It's not fit for purpose!" since phones became small enough to carry in your pocket.

Probably a good proportion of them had a point.

d123 wrote: »

I haven't heard of a single one actually win that argument in court.

Maybe so. But I'm certainly going to make it known to as many people as possible what's happened in this case.

d123

paulfeakins wrote: »

As judged by their own incredibly sensitive sensor.

Ive used a number of makes recently, Apple, Samsung, HTC, Nokia. I'm currently using an iPhone 6 and a Galaxy Note, I'm not particularly careful in my usage and I haven't activated a single sensor.

paulfeakins wrote: »

Perhaps once or twice I've used it in light drizzle

I don't stand in the rain and use my phone though...

gjchester

paulfeakins wrote: »

I think it's a scam - they put these little sensors in and then suddenly they don't have to deal with any returns because the sensor says the air humidity was too high.

As I said, it was the fact people got phones wet and then claimed they were faulty that lead to the rise of these sensors. If people had not tried to "scam" makers before they may not have become so commonplace.


There are water resistant phone, Sony make a point of it in some adverts, but the actions of a few people have created the situation for the many.

paulfeakins

gjchester wrote: »

As I said, it was the fact people got phones wet and then claimed they were faulty that lead to the rise of these sensors. If people had not tried to "scam" makers before they may not have become so commonplace.

Yeah I agree, and I do see it from their point of view too. I'm sure plenty of people dropped their phones in the toilet and then claimed it had never been near water. But that's not my fault and that's not what's happened here.

gjchester wrote: »

There are water resistant phone, Sony make a point of it in some adverts, but the actions of a few people have created the situation for the many.

Yeah apparently the S5 has a hydrophobic coating on the inside made from nanoparticles. I wouldn't buy another Samsung anything though after this.

boyceyboy

Just had my S3 sent back from O2 as so called water damaged. This is a cover-all get out for them. The damage is apparently to the USB connector. The only way this could have got wet is from the sweat on my palms whilst out running! If so not fit for purpose.
Fault with phone nothing to do with USB, but incredibly slow processor. They say they have to fix the USB before looking at the other fault which is total garbage!
Warranty not worth a thing..

gycraig_2

When I worked at cpw not a single customer had ever got his phone wet when a water damaged phone came in .

Main reason I have a s5 no company will pay out if the phone has a water damage marked. I'm sure there's genuine cases but people lieing it has ruined it for everyone else