HTC one mini silver and white hairline cracks

musicdave

Hi all,

I purchased an HTC one mini from EE, silver and white, about 5 months ago. I have always had my HTC in a case and yesterday I took the case off and noticed lots of hairline cracks on the white plastic band which runs all the way around the phone. I counted 8 very noticeable cracks and lots more smaller ones. I searched on the internet and there are lots of forums saying that the same had happened to them. Looking on the forum, one person commented that HTC had asked them to send their phone to them so that they could determine if it was covered under warranty. They then sent their phone away and HTC refused to acknowledge that it was a fault with the phone and it would cost them £27 to return the phone to them.

Today I rang EE and explained the problem and and after talking to an understanding member of staff I was told that their warranty only covered the workings of the phone and if it was a manufacturing fault then my issue was with HTC.

I therefore e mailed HTC and was sent a reply saying that I could send it to them and they would decide if it was under warranty. If they decided that it wasn't it would be £27 to send the phone back to me and they would quote me for the repair if I wanted to go ahead.

I then rang HTC and everything on the E mail was confirmed to me. I then asked if this was a common problem and the staff member acknowledged it was but said that their decision was final and if they did not think it was a warranty claim, they would charge me the fee to return the phone.

There are so many people who have had the same problem as me I am thinking it must be a manufacturing fault but not one that HTC will take responsibility for.

Has anyone had the same problem? Also, what would you do to try and solve this? Trading Standards?

Thanks

shaun_from_Africa

musicdave wrote: »

Hi all,Today I rang EE and explained the problem and and after talking to an understanding member of staff I was told that their warranty only covered the workings of the phone and if it was a manufacturing fault then my issue was with HTC.

Understanding of some things maybe, but it's clear that they don't understand their obligations under the Sale of goods act.

The retailer is legally responsible for the goods purchased and this covers the outside of the phone as well as the "workings".
As the phone is under 6 months old, the fault is taken to be due to a manufacturing defect and it is up to the retailer to prove otherwise.
You should contact EE again and point out to them that you are making a claim for the goods not being durable and that you are making this claim using the statutory rights you have under the SOGA and that you are not claiming under their warranty terms.

paddyrg

UNLESS they argue that the aftermarket case could have been a part of the cracking by adding stresses by making it larger/off-shape.

shaun_from_Africa

paddyrg wrote: »

UNLESS they argue that the aftermarket case could have been a part of the cracking by adding stresses by making it larger/off-shape.

Which is why I stated that if the retailer doesn't think that the problem is due to a manufacturing defect then they have to prove this.

musicdave

They shouldn't, it is a genuine HTC one mini case. Wouldn't be surprised though. :rotfl:

Anoneemoose

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Which is why I stated that if the retailer doesn't think that the problem is due to a manufacturing defect then they have to prove this.

I get your point but would this be the case if they thought it was 'damage'? As cracks could be classed as such.

unholyangel

Anoneemoose wrote: »

I get your point but would this be the case if they thought it was 'damage'? As cracks could be classed as such.

If it is within the first 6 months after purchase, the retailer is responsible for proving the goods conformed to contract and are not inherently faulty. This is because if your goods are faulty within the first 6 months, it is assumed they did not conform at time of sale/delivery.

After 6 months its then up to the consumer to prove it is inherently faulty.

Anoneemoose

unholyangel wrote: »

If it is within the first 6 months after purchase, the retailer is responsible for proving the goods conformed to contract and are not inherently faulty. This is because if your goods are faulty within the first 6 months, it is assumed they did not conform at time of sale/delivery.

After 6 months its then up to the consumer to prove it is inherently faulty.

I understand that side of things but is this the same as damaged goods. For example, if I bought a kettle for example and dropped it so it was obviously dented and didn't work and then tried to return it...could the store not legitimately refuse remedy if they believed the damage caused it not to work correctly???

Not trying to be awkward by the way, genuinely interested. Also asking because I know that EE offer repair on faults within 6 months under sale of goods and they also extend this repair service to cover manufacturer's warranty period. This leads me to think that EE are saying it is damaged rather than faulty.