Nokia Lumia 520 screen shattered

scootw1

Hi. I had the Nokia Lumia 520 phone as an upgrade from 3 today. As I was taking the back off the screen shattered and the touch screen does not work at all. I have been in touch with 3 Customer Service who advised me to speak to Nokia and I would need to meet the costs myself. I, however, am of the belief that the phone was not of satisfactory quality and not fit for purpose. That being the case I believe it is 3's responsibility to sort this out and meet any costs themselves. Can anyone tell me where I stand with this and what I need to quote to get 3 to take the responsibility for this. 3 have asked me to phone back tomorrow to speak to Nokia but I do not believe I should need to do this. Isn't it the retailer's responsibility to get this sorted? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

prowla

You're right about the 520 not being a good quality phone.

Taking the back off is a bit fiddly, and if it's stressed the screen enough to shatter, then it's a manufacturing or design fault.

One option could be to do a web search and see if this is common occurrence.

As far as warranty goes, I believe that your contract is with 3 and not Nokia.

grumbler

scootw1 wrote: »

...the back off the screen shattered ...I, however, am of the belief that the phone was not of satisfactory quality and not fit for purpose. ... Can anyone tell me where I stand with this and what I need to quote to get 3 to take the responsibility for this.

The only you can quote is SoGA (or SoGaSA): Consumer Rights Armour

However, with a shattered screen Three will just repeat what they have already told you, and the only way to prove your point would be to sue them.

IMHO, your chances of winning are very slim.

prowla wrote: »

...
As far as warranty goes, I believe that your contract is with 3 and not Nokia.

Warranty is with Nokia.
SoGA rights are against the supplier.

scootw1

I have googled and this is a very common problem with this phone (and others by Nokia). As the retailer who sold me the phone is 3, I believe they have a duty to sort this out. That appears to be what Martin's guide on consumer rights tells me. I do not believe I should need to sue 3 (and would have no wish to) and this would end up costing me more. If they really will not repair this free then I would have recourse to cancel the contract and just send the phone back I believe as 3 have not honoured the contract I took out.

grumbler, why do you think my chances are slim? If I bought a mirror and it shattered for no reason on the first day I would get the money back. Likewise, if a new tv shattered on the first day i would get a replacement. Why not a phone?

grumbler

scootw1 wrote: »

I do not believe I should need to sue 3 (and would have no wish to)

This is the only way if they refuse.

and this would end up costing me more.

The costs get refunded if you win.

If they really will not repair this free then I would have recourse to cancel the contract and just send the phone back I believe as 3 have not honoured the contract I took out.

What you believe is not always what is right. You cannot cancel the contract unilaterally. Three will trash your credit files and most likely will sell the debt to the debt collectors that will chase you.

grumbler, why do you think my chances are slim?
If I bought a mirror and it shattered for no reason on the first day I would get the money back.

Most likely you wouldn't as it's next to impossible to prove that it was "for no reason" - unless, of course, you were extremely lucky to record this on video.
A screen and a mirror are very easy to break accidentally. You don't even have to drop or hit your phone. It can be a result of bending or pressure, e.g. in jeans pocket.

scootw1

In which case the phone is not up to scratch and is not of satisfactory quality for sale. 3 should not be selling these phones, Nokia should not be issuing them either. I agree that a mirror is easy to break but I have had mine for over 10 years and it has not broken so I think a phone should last a fair while. By the Sales of Goods Act, isnt it up to the retailer to prove that the phone was not at fault in the first six months of purchase? Its not up to the consumer to prove anything.

grumbler

scootw1 wrote: »

In which case the phone is not up to scratch and is not of satisfactory quality for sale. 3 should not be selling these phones, Nokia should not be issuing them either.

You can say this about any phone with a screen broken by the owner. So, as a general statement, this is simply incorrect. Many goods are delicate and break not only because they are not fit for purpose.

I agree that a mirror is easy to break but I have had mine for over 10 years and it has not broken so I think a phone should last a fair while.

Yes, but you could have been unlucky to break it when transporting or hanging.

By the Sales of Goods Act, isnt it up to the retailer to prove that the phone was not at fault in the first six months of purchase?
Its not up to the consumer to prove anything.

This would be the case if there was no damage. A broken screen is usually deemed to be a user-inflicted damage.

I am not saying that you damaged it, just playing devil's advocate.

Kernel_Sanders

There's also the problem of 3 claiming they haven't actually sold you a phone, it was 'free'.

scootw1

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

There's also the problem of 3 claiming they haven't actually sold you a phone, it was 'free'.

i know its free but its not really as I am paying a contract. The phone is part of the contract

grumbler

Kernel_Sanders wrote: »

There's also the problem of 3 claiming they haven't actually sold you a phone, it was 'free'.

This wouldn't be a problem even if they claim this.

prowla

grumbler wrote: »

You can say this about any phone with a screen broken by the owner. So, as a general statement, this is simply incorrect. Many goods are delicate and break not only because they are not fit for purpose.
Yes, but you could have been unlucky to break it when transporting or hanging.
This would be the case if there was no damage. A broken screen is usually deemed to be a user-inflicted damage.

I am not saying that you damaged it, just playing devil's advocate.

The difference is that this phone is designed to have the cover taken off as part of normal operation (as opposed to, say an iPhone, which is sold as a sealed unit).

Therefore, if doing that is prone to damaging the phone, then it is a fault in design, which is covered under warranty.