Manufacturer or retailer for fault in replacement item???

CupcakeSquirrel

Hi,

Hoping someone can help me! I bought an iPhone 5 on a Vodafone contract in June 2013 (24 month contract). In about July last year i was having problems with it so went to an Apple Store for some advice, and in the end they just replaced the phone for me.

Now, another fault has developed. I took it to an Apple Store again and have been told it's not repairable so I'd have to pay £200 for replacement because warranty on replacement phones is 29 days (even where it's a brand new out of box phone!)

It's not covered under my Vodafone insurance because it's a fault not accidental damage.

I know Sale of Goods Act States that an item should last for a reasonable length of time, which I'm led to believe for mobiles should be at least the length of the contract, but I'm not sure whether Vodafone would be the responsible retailer now I've had it replaced.

I'm feeling very stupid for getting help elsewhere than Vodafone now, but at the time getting advice from Apple seemed like the best option.

Does anyone know what my best chance is? Or do I just suck it up and pay the £200 for a new one?

Thanks!

JJ_Egan

Why is it not repairable ???

unholyangel

Essentially if you've had it repaired under warranty then no, they can't disclaim liability on those grounds.

The reason being is that the warranty formed part of the contract at time of sale. Consumers cannot sign away their statutory rights. Any contractual provision used to restrict or remove a consumers statutory rights would likely be seen as an unfair term.

However as its been more than 6 months.....they can require you to prove the fault is inherent (rather than caused through misuse or physical damage for example) before they have to offer you a remedy.

stevemLS

But the warranty does not form part of the statutory rights?

unholyangel

stevemLS wrote: »

But the warranty does not form part of the statutory rights?

Statutory rights come from statute.

A warranty (if provided) forms part of the contract so becomes a contractual right. You cannot limit or restrict a consumers statutory rights for them exercising a contractual right.

System

However the problem is that the statutory rights are with Vodafone. As you do not have the phone that Voda have a record of giving you and not being involved when you went to Apple then they can probably successfully argue that they have no responsibility to get a phone directly supplied by Apple without their involvement repaired/replaced.

The original problem should have been actioned through Voda in the first place to give traceability to the replacement

unholyangel

!!!!!! wrote: »

However the problem is that the statutory rights are with Vodafone. As you do not have the phone that Voda have a record of giving you and not being involved when you went to Apple then they can probably successfully argue that they have no responsibility to get a phone directly supplied by Apple without their involvement repaired/replaced.

The original problem should have been actioned through Voda in the first place to give traceability to the replacement

But that phone was only supplied by apple under a contract OP made with VF.

Its covered under unfair contract terms under the grouping "guarantees operating as exclusion clauses".

The bit which sums it up says:

However, it remains
the case that consumer guarantees in contracts for the sale of goods have to contain a
statement that the consumer has statutory rights which are not affected by the guarantee – see
paragraph 18.6.11 below.

CupcakeSquirrel

Thank you very much for the replies. This shows exactly the problems I was having deciding what to do, but I will give it a try with Vodafone and see how I get on. I'll Bob back and let you know...

mattyprice4004

unholyangel wrote: »

But that phone was only supplied by apple under a contract OP made with VF.

Its covered under unfair contract terms under the grouping "guarantees operating as exclusion clauses".

The bit which sums it up says:

But those rights apply to the original phone, which the OP no longer has, surely?

unholyangel

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

But those rights apply to the original phone, which the OP no longer has, surely?

You were sold an item with a x month/year guarantee. The guarantee forms part of the contract. A guarantee shouldn't operate as an exclusion clause.

CupcakeSquirrel

Ok so here's the update of the saga so far.

We established (with the help of this thread) that it is the supplier of the item (Vodafone) responsible for the item under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. The consumer's rights under this are very similar to Sale of Goods Act only this is where you're paying for goods supplied on a contract such as a mobile phone on pay-monthly. (That's not exactly it, but it's how it applies to my situation).

To keep it brief, I've tried in store and in writing followed up by phone contact with customer services, and Vodafone are not budging. So far they've claimed:

* the 14 day cooling off period is the "reasonable time" to ensure goods are fit for purpose
* "Apple law" applies
* it's not their responsibility to make sure the goods are fit for purpose because Apple supply the phones sealed in boxes to them which are not opened
* a warranty is the only way a repair should be made
* they don't have an agreement to supply me with a phone (even though I'm paying a pay-monthly with iPhone contract and they supplied me with an iPhone. In fact I'm pretty sure I paid something towards the cost of the phone!)

The longer this goes on and the more advice and legislation I read the more I'm convinced they're trying to circumvent the law. I'm still within my contract and I just want the phone I chose to go with the contract.

I'm in the middle of getting some advice from my local Trading Standards to see if it's worth going to the ombudsman, but I've got nothing to lose so I might well do anyway.