Orange Contract Phone Hardware Issue

ncfcstar

Hi guys,

Wondering if you can help before I phone Orange/EE again.

Over the past couple of months my phone has progressively got worse. It started off by failing to connect to any mobile internet for extended periods of time, then slowly apps would stop working in the background etc - last night I couldn't open anything on my phone. So I turned it off and back on again, and now it doesn't get past the load screen. Even a hard reset fails to do anything.

I am 19 months into a 24 month contract and now without a phone. I previously called Orange/EE when my phone started developing faults and they said there is nothing they can do. Do I have any real hope in this situation? I'd be happy to enter into another 24 month deal with them, but I do not want to be penalised for something which is out of my control. I look after my phone as I need it for work etc so there are no cracks/damage that I can see, it seems to me to be purely a hardware fault.

It is not an iPhone by the way (wish it was due to Apples excellent customer service) it's a Motorola.

Thanks for any guidance

Buzby

Put your SIM into a replacement s/h handset that works - problem solved! Your contract is just for the SIM and the phone itself is a separate issue, some do just wear out with heavy usage, but there's no requirement to keep buying expensive phone contracts simply to get a 'free' handset!

searchlight123

i'm in a very similar situation with orange.
iphone 5 gone faulty. no water damage. 24 month contract ends in september. orange wouldn't/couldn't help. went to apple store, they tested, told me main motherboard is faulty and they can replace for £209!!
i'm sure i read somewhere that trading standards state that if a phone is provided on a 24 month contract then barring user damage if it doesn't last the duration of the contract then it's not fit for purpose.
but orange say its apple's concern and apple say its orange's concern!!!

Anoneemoose

tonygold wrote: »

i'm in a very similar situation with orange.
iphone 5 gone faulty. no water damage. 24 month contract ends in september. orange wouldn't/couldn't help. went to apple store, they tested, told me main motherboard is faulty and they can replace for £209!!
i'm sure i read somewhere that trading standards state that if a phone is provided on a 24 month contract then barring user damage if it doesn't last the duration of the contract then it's not fit for purpose.
but orange say its apple's concern and apple say its orange's concern!!!

Not quite right.

If a phone is purchased as part of an agreement, then one could argue it should last the length of that contract. However, under SOGA, as the phone is over six months old, the burden of proof switches to you as the buyer. So, you would need an independent report (not from Apple) to state that the fault was inherent from purchase.

If you are able to provide this then Orange, as the retailer, should offer a remedy (repair, replacement or refund at their choosing). They should also reimburse you for the cost of the report and ensure that any repairs etc are carried out with minimal inconvenience to you. Even if they agree to repair it, they will do this by sending it to Apple anyway.

Apple are correct, they didn't sell you the phone so don't have to offer anything. Their (12 month) warranty is in addition to your statutory rights.

Orange are also correct in the sense they don't have to do anything until you provide them with the report as mentioned above.

searchlight123

Anoneemoose wrote: »

Not quite right.

If a phone is purchased as part of an agreement, then one could argue it should last the length of that contract. However, under SOGA, as the phone is over six months old, the burden of proof switches to you as the buyer. So, you would need an independent report (not from Apple) to state that the fault was inherent from purchase.

If you are able to provide this then Orange, as the retailer, should offer a remedy (repair, replacement or refund at their choosing). They should also reimburse you for the cost of the report and ensure that any repairs etc are carried out with minimal inconvenience to you. Even if they agree to repair it, they will do this by sending it to Apple anyway.

Apple are correct, they didn't sell you the phone so don't have to offer anything. Their (12 month) warranty is in addition to your statutory rights.

Orange are also correct in the sense they don't have to do anything until you provide them with the report as mentioned above.

thanks for reply. they probably realise that getting a report to say this fault was present from the start is impossible as clearly it wasn't as the phone has functioned correctly for 18 months. i just think the trading standards advice that a device given / sold with a 2 year usage contract attached to it should (barring user damage) last the contract term at the very least.
anyhow as an update my bank account has mobile insurance as an added benefit (i hadn't realised this at the time!) and for an excess payment of £100 will repair / replace the phone like for like so thats what i will have to do now.

grumbler

Anoneemoose wrote: »

Not quite right.

If a phone is purchased as part of an agreement, then one could argue it should last the length of that contract.

It should last for a reasonable time even if not as a part of a contract. I don't think that anybody (except Buzby) would suggest that 19 months is a reasonable time.

However, under SOGA, as the phone is over six months old, the burden of proof switches to you as the buyer. So, you would need an independent report (not from Apple) to state that the fault was inherent from purchase.

I don't see why it cannot be Apple. And I think it would be sufficient to prove that the fault isn't the result of damage or misuse, that is easier than to prove that the fault was inherent.

BadBehaviour

Can't just Apple give you something saying it's a motherboard issue (and not something caused by user damage) so that Orange can pay for the repair? If it's a motherboard failing, I struggle to see how they could say it's your fault...

usignuolo

Some years ago I purchased some piece of digital kit (honestly cannot recall what it was) from some specialist retailer like Currys. It was by Toshiba and within a few months it had developed a couple of faults. Currys referred me to Toshiba.

When I contacted Toshiba to fix it, they said they could not help as Currys had purchased the warranty rights from them. This meant I had to get it repaired by Currys.

What is the situation with mobile phones, does the retailer purchase the warranty rights from the manufacturer? In which case they are responsible. If not, the manufacturer is. What does it state on the documentation?

This is what which says; http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/action/what-to-do-if-a-warranty-provider-wont-honour-the-warranty-

usignuolo

This may be of interest - it is the list of manufacturers' warranty periods for mobile phones http://selfhelp.carphonewarehouse.com/SelfHelp/request.do?view()=c%7B79ae2a80-f9f3-11de-da00-000000000000%7D

grumbler

usignuolo wrote: »

This may be of interest - it is the list of manufacturers' warranty periods for mobile phones http://selfhelp.carphonewarehouse.com/SelfHelp/request.do?view()=c%7B79ae2a80-f9f3-11de-da00-000000000000%7D

This webpage gets quoted pretty often, but it's outdated and very confusing.

My understanding is that it is some warranty voluntarily offered by CPW regardless of the manufacturers' warranties:

• The above warranty lengths are for handsets sold through The Carphone Warehouse.
• If you purchased from another retailer, you must check with them what your warranty period is before putting your handset in for repair with us.

E.g. BB and LG offer 12 months, but CPW extend it to 24 months for both.

Motorola used to offer 12, and CPW didn't extend it, but now Motorola's manufacturer's warranty is 24 months, but CPW still say 12.

Anoneemoose

grumbler wrote: »

It should last for a reasonable time even if not as a part of a contract. I don't think that anybody (except Buzby) would suggest that 19 months is a reasonable time.

I don't see why it cannot be Apple. And I think it would be sufficient to prove that the fault isn't the result of damage or misuse, that is easier than to prove that the fault was inherent.

I agree that it should last a reasonable period of time and that 19 months isn't.

I also don't see why it can't be Apple who give the report but that's what EE say and rightly or wrongly, they get away with stating that.

I just thought that under SOGA requires proof that the fault is inherent so I can't say whether it would be acceptable to just prove it's not damage or misuse.