We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Three evading their responsibilities?
A friend of mine took out a contract with Three on a Samsing S4 mini in September for £29 a month. It was done in store, although it must be made clear that the contract was done online by the store staff for her as there were none of the phones in stock. This was the second store she had tried and neither had any S4 minis in stock.The phone from the start had problems with people hearing her, but she put that down to being in a bad area.
5 weeks after the contract started, the microphone on the phone stopped working completely. She then realised that it had been the microphone intermittently not working all along and in order to try and sort it, took the phone to the local store. They explained that sadly as the phone had not been supplied directly by a store they could not replace it, as being an online order it had to have been returned within 28 days! If it had been supplied directly by the store, it would have been replaced up to 90 days. This was a no time explained to her by the store who ordered the phone.
We have tried to ask nicely via store and the customer services email if as a matter of good relations they would replace it, especially as her daughter has a brain tumour and has been ill and in and out of hospital over the last couple of weeks, leaving her unable to contact anyone by phone except via text, which is not always suitable or possible. The answer both times has been a point blank no, and that her only option is to return it herself to Samsung for repair. The store offered her a replacement phone by wanted £69 as a deposit, despite the fact that she is still paying the monthly bill! She is using the sim in a phone lent to her by a friend, but that is a basic phone and she cannot use apps or anything.
Can anyone assist me with some pointers towards the SOGA relating this case, as IMHO the phone clearly was faulty from the start as it failed so quicky from new, apart from the fact that the store directed her towards an online contract and did not explain the difference in warranty to that done in store. I have found out the CEOs email from a website to contact tomorrow as the responses from Three have been blunt and not helpful (apart from very slow!)?
5 weeks after the contract started, the microphone on the phone stopped working completely. She then realised that it had been the microphone intermittently not working all along and in order to try and sort it, took the phone to the local store. They explained that sadly as the phone had not been supplied directly by a store they could not replace it, as being an online order it had to have been returned within 28 days! If it had been supplied directly by the store, it would have been replaced up to 90 days. This was a no time explained to her by the store who ordered the phone.
We have tried to ask nicely via store and the customer services email if as a matter of good relations they would replace it, especially as her daughter has a brain tumour and has been ill and in and out of hospital over the last couple of weeks, leaving her unable to contact anyone by phone except via text, which is not always suitable or possible. The answer both times has been a point blank no, and that her only option is to return it herself to Samsung for repair. The store offered her a replacement phone by wanted £69 as a deposit, despite the fact that she is still paying the monthly bill! She is using the sim in a phone lent to her by a friend, but that is a basic phone and she cannot use apps or anything.
Can anyone assist me with some pointers towards the SOGA relating this case, as IMHO the phone clearly was faulty from the start as it failed so quicky from new, apart from the fact that the store directed her towards an online contract and did not explain the difference in warranty to that done in store. I have found out the CEOs email from a website to contact tomorrow as the responses from Three have been blunt and not helpful (apart from very slow!)?
0
Comments
-
So, without an explanation, what was her assumption about her rights? What the law says is that the supplier has to repair or replace a faulty item at their discretion - regardless of whether it was bought online or in a store.A friend of mine took out a contract with Three on a Samsing S4 mini in September for £29 a month. It was done in store, although it must be made clear that the contract was done online by the store staff for her as there were none of the phones in stock. This was the second store she had tried and neither had any S4 minis in stock.The phone from the start had problems with people hearing her, but she put that down to being in a bad area.
5 weeks after the contract started, the microphone on the phone stopped working completely. She then realised that it had been the microphone intermittently not working all along and in order to try and sort it, took the phone to the local store. They explained that sadly as the phone had not been supplied directly by a store they could not replace it, as being an online order it had to have been returned within 28 days! If it had been supplied directly by the store, it would have been replaced up to 90 days. This was a no time explained to her by the store who ordered the phone.
If it was faulty from the start she should have not waited for 5 weeks and should have rejected it straight away.Can anyone assist me with some pointers towards the SOGA relating this case, as IMHO the phone clearly was faulty from the start as it failed so quicky from new,
MSE article: Consumer Rights
At their discretion '3' have to repair or replace within reasonable time and without causing you significant inconvenience. Unfortunately, the law doesn't define 'reasonable' and 'significant'.0 -
£29 a month is more than i pay for my S4, And that was a year ago. £29 for the mini is way too much.Censorship Reigns Supreme in Troll City...0
-
So, without an explanation, what was her assumption about her rights? What the law says is that the supplier has to repair or replace a faulty item at their discretion - regardless of whether it was bought online or in a store.
It it was faulty from the start she should have not waited for 5 weeks and should have rejected it straight away.
MSE article: Consumer Rights
At their discretion '3' have to repair or replace within reasonable time and without causing you significant inconvenience. Unfortunately, the law doesn't define 'reasonable' and 'significant'.
The fact that it is 5 weeks that it failed completely, and it is reasonable to assume that you have a bad reception is you use a new network provider as she was. Also the fact that the store staff did not explain the difference between warranty of store bought items and online orders? Why should there be 28 days warranty for one order and 90 days for another?
Also Three have not offered to send the phone themselves, simply told her to contact Samsung for a bag to return the phone herself, surely it would be their responsibility as retailer as the phone forms part of the contract?0 -
From MSE website on Supply of goods and services act regarding repairing if the phone: And if the goods supplied as part of the service become faulty, it's the service provider that's responsible for sorting the problems, not the supplier of the goods.
Plus the phone still falls under the SAD FART bit: specifically Last a reasonable length of time. I would think 5 weeks for a pretty important part of a mobile phone (the microphone) is not a reasonable length of time!0 -
We have tried to ask nicely via store and the customer services email if as a matter of good relations they would replace it, especially as her daughter has a brain tumour and has been ill and in and out of hospital over the last couple of weeks, leaving her unable to contact anyone by phone except via text, which is not always suitable or possible. The answer both times has been a point blank no, and that her only option is to return it herself to Samsung for repair. The store offered her a replacement phone by wanted £69 as a deposit, despite the fact that she is still paying the monthly bill! She is using the sim in a phone lent to her by a friend, but that is a basic phone and she cannot use apps or anything.
You contradict yourself several times here. You say you asked them to replace it and they said "point blank no" yet go on to say they did offer a replacement at a £69 deposit - so which is it?
£69 deposit seems fair enough, it's not an actual charge so compiles with SOGA as far as I know.
Bearing in mind they're allowed to make a reasonable amount of repairs first it sounds like they have made you a good offer here.
Not to come off as heartless but everybody seems to say something to the effect of "my xx is in hospital and xyz". Read a lot of posts on here and this is a common theme, but it doesn't mean you get special service off three, I doubt they care.0 -
The signal strength is shown in the status bar. If it's good, there are other ways to check the microphone.The fact that it is 5 weeks that it failed completely, and it is reasonable to assume that you have a bad reception is you use a new network provider as she was.
The only *warranty* is the Samsung's one. The store can have a different *policy*. Also the seller has obligations under the SoGA.Also the fact that the store staff did not explain the difference between warranty of store bought items and online orders? Why should there be 28 days warranty for one order and 90 days for another?
I am pretty sure that both 28 days and 60 days are red herring unless you can prove me wrong.
Yes, it is their responsibility (or of their online division if the phone was sent to her home). However they always try to fob a customer off first. Now you know your rights - don't let them do this.Also Three have not offered to send the phone themselves, simply told her to contact Samsung for a bag to return the phone herself, surely it would be their responsibility as retailer as the phone forms part of the contract?
And? In your case '3' is the supplier of both the phone and the services.From MSE website on Supply of goods and services act regarding repairing if the phone: And if the goods supplied as part of the service become faulty, it's the service provider that's responsible for sorting the problems, not the supplier of the goods.
That said, IMO MSE's article is incorrect. If the phone is sold, say, but CPW with '3' contract, then '3' have nothing to do with the phone and it's CPW who is responsible under the SoGA.
Yes, but where does it say that in this case it has to be replaced? Also, if you believe that the replacement has to be new should they decide to replace it, you are mistaken.Plus the phone still falls under the SAD FART bit: specifically Last a reasonable length of time. I would think 5 weeks for a pretty important part of a mobile phone (the microphone) is not a reasonable length of time!0 -
Just an update, she emailed the CEO today and ad an immediate respnse from the head of executive office operations assigning someone to the case and assuring her of a response to resolve the case by 5.30pm on Monday. I will update further.0
-
She has had a phone call this morning from the executive office apologising profusely and admitting that it should have been treated as a store order. They are sending out a new phone to her.
Well done Three, but shame it took so long to resolve.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 347.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 251.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.2K Spending & Discounts
- 240.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 616.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.4K Life & Family
- 253.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards