Virgin Mobile refusing to provide fault details in writing

grumbler

Silk wrote: »

The problem is though if they have a photo that shows physical damage and it matches the phone it's end of story unless the OP can prove otherwise.

Where does SoGA say anything about 'damage' and define it?
IIRC, what it says is that during the first 6 months the supplier has to prove that the fault was caused by the user, i.e. prove the direct link between the alleged 'damage' and the fault.

mafflondon

Thanks Silk. I fear you maybe right however grumbler's point is also valid I think. I put it to VM that under SoGA (1979) that as phone is under 6 months old the onus is on VM to prove that the fault was caused by me. I don't understand why they haven't done that anyway. Why would they persistently say 'we can't provide you this information in writing'?

Silk

grumbler wrote: »

Where does SoGA say anything about 'damage' and define it?
IIRC, what it says is that during the first 6 months the supplier has to prove that the fault was caused by the user, i.e. prove the direct link between the alleged 'damage' and the fault.

I wasn't quoting from the SOGA was I ?


If someone buys a phone and drives over it with a truck it's hardly going to be covered is it ?


The supplier has supposedly sent a pic and said it's physical damage which would prove they weren't liable. The question is does it or not ?
If it's a power fault it's probably related to the battery component and if it has been damaged then it's plausible but without expert opinion who's to know

Silk

mafflondon wrote: »

Thanks Silk. I fear you maybe right however grumbler's point is also valid I think. I put it to VM that under SoGA (1979) that as phone is under 6 months old the onus is on VM to prove that the fault was caused by me. I don't understand why they haven't done that anyway. Why would they persistently say 'we can't provide you this information in writing'?

At a guess it's probably the engineer has taken the back off, seen the damage, put the back on and sent it back saying "physical damage" without taking it any further.

mafflondon

Thanks again for all replies.

That is my point. I have a photo without any explanation. There is damage but I dont know what the damage actually is. Isnt is reasonable that they could tell me in writing what the problem actually is so 1. I could see if I should contest it and 2. I can seek a repair myself. VM offer to repair it, they say they cant. They verbally tell what the problem is but put it in writing - hence my frustration.

grumbler

Silk wrote: »

I wasn't quoting from the SOGA was I ?

Were we not talking about SCC?
SoGA is the only relevant law that the judge can rely upon when making the decision.
I don't think that the judge will be satisfied by a vague picture of some minor 'damage' that in fact doesn't prove anything.

Silk

grumbler wrote: »

Were we not talking about SCC?
SoGA is the only relevant law that the judge can rely upon when making the decision.

Yes we were which is why I said that a photo of physical damage that matches the phone in question would be enough to reject it, even more so the fact it's power related.


It still begs the question though, how did the damage happen ?


Was the phone bought as brand new or was it possibly a refurb ?

mafflondon

Phone was bought brand new direct from VM.

Damage is a mystery as aside from the IOS update issues I have had it has worked fine. Not sure how such internal damage can be caused - rendering it unrepairable - without a scratch on the outside?

All very fishy to me.

I will pursue the complaint and feedback here. Thanks again

mafflondon

Received the following from VM yesterday evening, Grateful for any comments / advice please on whether I should proceed with complaint or not?

Up until yesterday VM had always verbally said 'the phone is beyond economic repair' or 'damage to battery component' and they verbally argued that this was my liability. As you know, they wouldn't put in writing what the fault was or why they believed it was my liability. I only found out last week by taking my phone into an Apple store and told it had been tampered with. So, yesterday's email (below) if the first time VM have said this also.

I have highlighted a sentence in bold where VM state that me as the customer would need to seek from the manufacture what the actual damage is. Is this correct? The phone is 5 months old. There is damage to it but due to tampering they wont fix it. I haven't tampered with it (I wouldn't know how to even open the phone). VM still state they wont write what is wrong with the phone (ok there is a photo but it doesnt tell me anything). By the way I never said to VM I believed they had tampered with the phone. I simply reported what Apple Store had said last week and fed this back to them.

'Thank you for your email the most recent dated 20th April 2015 in
regards to your mobile account. I would've liked to speak to you about
your case, however you have confirmed you would prefer a response in
writing. I apologise for delay in my response and the inconvenience this
issue has caused.

I'm sorry you've had to contact us regarding this issue, disappointing
to learn that you're unhappy with the service you've received in regards
to the repairing of your mobile. As the mobile was no longer turning on
it was booked in for repair on the 2nd April 2015. The handset has been
returned back to you and was deemed out of warranty. I've spoken to the
repairs centre and they have confirmed the battery component has been
accessed by a non authorised repairer.

I understand you're disputing as you say the mobile has always been in a
case and you feel the damage to the phone may haven been caused by our
repairs centre. In regards to repairs all we do is follow the warranty
guidelines which have been set by the manufacturer. However when an
Apple phone is booked in for repair it does go directly back to Apple
and the phone is not assessed by our repair centre. So the feedback
which we received in regards to the repair is directly from Apple.

I apologise for when you had contacted our Customer Service Team on the
8th April you were advised the phone had been repaired, I'm unable to
give an indication on why you received that information but I have
passed your feedback on to our Service Improvement Team regarding this.

You've explained you've received a screenshot of the phone however you
would like a written explanation of what damage has been caused to void
the warranty. I've requested this information today and I've been
advised this can not be provided. In situations like this I would advise
as a customer you could contact the manufacturer for a second opinion
but you've mentioned you've already spoken to Apple and they have
advised the phone can not be repaired.

I understand this is not the response you're hoping for however we are
unable to override any decisions regarding repairs .Once again I
apologise for all the inconvenience caused, If you would like to discuss
this further please contact me on...'

grumbler

Accusing a customer of "accessing the battery compartment" of a new iPhone that is under warranty makes no sense really.
I don't think that any judge will believe this.
If the battery compartment was accessed by "a non authorised" person, then this was either before VM supplied the phone or when they attempted to repair it.

A Letter Before Action - like I suggested. Then, if they refuse, it's up to you whether to take a risk and pay the SCC fee.