Galaxy S3 Sudden Death and Related Issue........... :-(

kevbiff1

Good afternoon all,

My turn for a long story, apologies in advance ............

I've been a recent victim of the Galaxy S3 sudden death syndrome, and like most people, knew nothing about it until it happened.

About a month ago I contacted Samsung and they agreed to take my phone in for repair and low and behold it was returned to me operational again. That was all fine and dandy.

However, on trying to use my phone, I was given the message "Not registered on Network". I tried to register via the phones settings but was unable to.

Whilst my phone had been with Samsung they had upgraded the software (and replaced the motherboard), so I thought it may be a problem with my Sim card and the new software. I contacted my service provider (EE), who promptly sent me a new SIM.

Upon receiving the new SIM, I tried it in my S3, still didnt work. I reied it in my wifes phone, it worked normally. I then contacted Samsung. I had noticed (from doing a little wed research), that since being sent to Samsung, the phones IMEI number printed on the back of the handset did not now match the one in the phone settings, I was to later learn this was due to the motherboard change.

After another 2/3 weeks of chasing Samsung every couple of days, being promised call backs and escalations, given conflicting information etc I have now been told they want me to send my phone in again as they beleive it to be a software fault???

I have received the prepaid bag tday and sent it off.

In addition, I sent a letter late last week to their customer services team in Surrey, explaining the situation and asking them to consider a claim for compensation, as I have been without my phone for a month (more now) and all the time I am paying EE for a monthly contract on a phone I cannot use.

I received an email back from them today telling me "We can advise that we will not offer compensation for consequential loss. The terms and conditions of your warranty is a repair warranty."

Please could somebody tell me whether or not they are right to say this, and if in fact I can claim for damages etc for loss of use or similar??

Any advice would be helpful.

Many thanks in advance :-)

grumbler

Yes, they are right.
If you wanted a better protection and if the phone was supplied by the network, you should have dealt with the network under the SoGSA/SoGA, not with the manufacturer.

MSE article: Consumer Rights

kevbiff1

Thanks for that info, I did have a sneaky feeling that was the case........you live and learn I suppose, and theres certainly no mileage in going to EE now with the same compensation request.

Oh well, many thanks again for your advice grumbler !!!!:T

gjchester

grumbler wrote: »

Yes, they are right.
If you wanted a better protection and if the phone was supplied by the network, you should have dealt with the network under the SoGSA/SoGA, not with the manufacturer.

MSE article: Consumer Rights

For the repair I don't see it makes much odds, it probably got resolved faster by Samsung.

For compensation the network may offer you a refund for the time you didn't have the phone if you had gone to them, but to be honest almost everyone has a spare phone that may be basic but will at least works. Anything above a refund of line rental is down to consequential loss and on a consumer contract without insurance its unlikely to be paid out

kevbiff1

Thanks gjchester, you right, I thought I would get the phone repaired more quickly cutting out the middle man (EE customer services can be at best, pretty poor).

However, for the sake of one months line rental c£36, you probably right. Best forget about it and move on, although the experience may help me in making a decision on my next contract/phone in a month or so's time !!!!

gjchester

kevbiff1 wrote: »

although the experience may help me in making a decision on my next contract/phone in a month or so's time !!!!

Possibly but all the networks are similar in that respect....

SmokieJoe

grumbler wrote: »

Yes, they are right.
If you wanted a better protection and if the phone was supplied by the network, you should have dealt with the network under the SoGSA/SoGA, not with the manufacturer.

MSE article: Consumer Rights

Interesting point! I have a problem with a handset provided with my contract (3 months old) through 3, and when I contacted them they wanted to pass me on to the manufacturer, LG, to resolve my issue. After a lot of arguing (numerous calls, visit to a 3 shop), 3 have agreed a way forward (sending a new handset) but insist I will have to deal with LG and whatever criteria they demand I meet to have any future issues resolved, regrdless of quoting SoGSA to them.

If you are saying your protection and rights are lessened by dealing with the manufacturer (under the manufacturers warranty for example), how do people prevent themselves being pushed that way by retailers claiming the only way to get a resolution is through that warranty? See, this appears to be at odds with Which advice, who point you to both the retailer and/or the manufacturer http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/action/how-to-get-a-faulty-mobile-phone-replaced-or-repaired. So who's right? Continue to argue with the retailer or accept you have to go through the manufacturer?

grumbler

SmokieJoe wrote: »

If you are saying your protection and rights are lessened by dealing with the manufacturer (under the manufacturers warranty for example), how do people prevent themselves being pushed that way by retailers claiming the only way to get a resolution is through that warranty?

Not to let them fob you off. They are doing this because they know that 90% of people will let them.

See, this appears to be at odds with Which advice, who point you to both the retailer and/or the manufacturer http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/action/how-to-get-a-faulty-mobile-phone-replaced-or-repaired. So who's right? Continue to argue with the retailer or accept you have to go through the manufacturer?

'Which' do mention the retailer first. If the retailer tries pooling a fast one, it's easier to deal with manufacturer, but if the manufacturer replaces the handset you lose all your rights against the retailer as it's not the handset that they have supplied.

gjchester

SmokieJoe wrote: »

. After a lot of arguing (numerous calls, visit to a 3 shop), 3 have agreed a way forward (sending a new handset) but insist I will have to deal with LG and whatever criteria they demand I meet to have any future issues resolved, regrdless of quoting SoGSA to them.

The retailer can insist all they want but the retailer is always responsible not the manufacturer. However the retailer may simply just take the phone and send it to maker on your behalf.


In most cases its simply faster and easier to deal with the maker, and the retailer may encourage this but if you wish them to repair or replace any hardware you purchased though the retailer then they cannot refuse.

SmokieJoe

gjchester wrote: »

The retailer can insist all they want but the retailer is always responsible not the manufacturer. However the retailer may simply just take the phone and send it to maker on your behalf.


In most cases its simply faster and easier to deal with the maker, and the retailer may encourage this but if you wish them to repair or replace any hardware you purchased though the retailer then they cannot refuse.

They tell me they have only agreed to deal with it themselves on this occasion as I am a "good customer", and probably because I wouldn't budge from my position that I wanted the retailer to be the only people I dealt with. I simply wanted a means to return the handset for repair, I wasn't stipulating where it should be returned to or who should repair it. 3 kept trying to explain they don't have facilities to repair items which is their reasoning for telling you to deal with the manufacturer!

gjchester

SmokieJoe wrote: »

3 kept trying to explain they don't have facilities to repair items which is their reasoning for telling you to deal with the manufacturer!

Which may well be true, however it does not mean they are not the one responsible for the help, Even if all they do is take the phone and sent it on to the maker, so adding a day to the process legally the retailer is always responsible.