EE refusing to repair

maria41

We purchased an Iphone 6s for our daughter in November 2015 from EE.
after a couple of months the phone started continually searching for the network, we phoned ee who stated it was a common problem and advised us to reset factory settings. We did this and the phone worked for a few days and then reverted back.
We phoned EE again who advised us to take the phone in to a local EE shop to be sent for repair.
We did this and at the store they took the phone in to the back for 30 mins and then provided us with a receipt saying the phone was in good condition, no water damage, dents or cosmetic damage.
We received a call today saying that due to a bend in the phone the apple warranty is not valid, after lots of calls they sent me the photos of the phone that show an obvious bend and damage to the screen (this may only be the screen protector that my daughter has put on, but is very noticeable), when I queried this with EE (or their repair people) they stated the following.
" The device is bent and such damage may have been overlooked by the store, but ultimately, any physical damage of this kind would void the manufacturer warranty, whether related to the fault or not. "




there was no damage to the phone when we handed it over to the shop, which is evidenced by the receipt.
after two hours of calls, they have now said they will investigate because I have the receipt from the store, but were already attempting to challenge this by saying I must have signed a terms and conditions which states that the store do not have final say on condition, it is down to the repair technician, I have advised them that I was not given any such note and they kept stating, well they just didn't follow their policy.
firstly can i ask how can it be accurate that "any damage, whether related to the fault will invalidate the warranty??? and secondly any advise due to the new sale of goods act and its application

arcon5

Their argument is the fault is because it's been damaged by the user.

You got insurance?

suki1964

Take the phone into Apple. It will be covered with them plus they repair whilst you wait usually

The searching for networks is a common problem if you google it and can be sorted by user

maria41

hi thanks for this, what I don't understand is the idea that a warranty is invalid if any damage, regardless of whether the damage causes the fault. There was no damage to the phone and the store checked it over when they took possession.

tykesi

maria41 wrote: »

hi thanks for this, what I don't understand is the idea that a warranty is invalid if any damage, regardless of whether the damage causes the fault. There was no damage to the phone and the store checked it over when they took possession.

Really? So you think you can dunk the phone in water, twist it, bend it, smash it then take it in and have a warranty repair for any issues?

Good luck getting that from any provider, that's what insurance is for.

maria41

hi, no that is not what I think, however if for example the screen had a crack it in, but was not an issue that was causing the fault, why would the warranty not be valid. In this case there was no damage to the phone, but I find it strange, I have no problem if the damage is the issue causing the fault, but for damage to not have to be linked to the fault I find strange.

Cycrow

How do you know that the cracked screen is seperate from the fault ?

a cracked screen is usually caused by some impact, that impact could have also damaged other parts of the phone, which may not be apparent at the time of damage.

It can also weaken the phone causing more damage over time

maria41

thanks, I can appreciate what your saying and the cracked screen was just an example, surely it would all depend on the fault that was found, if the damage was then identified as a factor I can understand that, however limiting it to any damage whether it has caused the fault or not is the issue I have.

naedanger

maria41 wrote: »

there was no damage to the phone when we handed it over to the shop, which is evidenced by the receipt.
after two hours of calls, they have now said they will investigate because I have the receipt from the store, but were already attempting to challenge this by saying I must have signed a terms and conditions which states that the store do not have final say on condition, it is down to the repair technician, I have advised them that I was not given any such note and they kept stating, well they just didn't follow their policy.

If there was no damage to the phone when you handed it in for repair then surely the obvious conclusion is that EE must have damaged it when it was in their possession? In which case they should fix both the original fault and the damage they caused.

I would ask for details of their complaint process and put my complaint in writing and insist on a written response. (It should make matters easier if you need to take legal action. Also my experience is that organisations are sometimes more reasonable when they have to put their response in writing.)

Also how did you pay for the item originally? (Demanding on the payment method you may have other options for taking your complaint further.)

If you have a receipt confirming there was no physical damage to the phone when it was handed in then it seems to me you have good evidence to support your case.

firstly can i ask how can it be accurate that "any damage, whether related to the fault will invalidate the warranty???

I would not pursue this line of argument if I were you. It is not relevant to your case if the phone was not damaged when you handed it in. Indeed if you pursue this argument it might appear you accept the phone was damaged by you.

and secondly any advise due to the new sale of goods act and its application

If the phone was inherently faulty (i.e. the fault existed when it was purchased even if it only manifested itself later) then the retailer is obliged to repair/replace/refund at their option. The fact they damaged it makes no difference. (If the fault was not inherent - e.g. a fault caused by you physically damaging the item - then the retailer would not be liable.)

unholyangel

maria41 wrote: »

thanks, I can appreciate what your saying and the cracked screen was just an example, surely it would all depend on the fault that was found, if the damage was then identified as a factor I can understand that, however limiting it to any damage whether it has caused the fault or not is the issue I have.

They won't touch them if theres signs of damage - even to check if the damage is related to the fault - because if they do, theres a good chance they could make the damage worse and then people would expect them to fix it for free since it happened while they were looking at it.

maria41

hi thanks all,
there was no damage to the phone when we took it into the shop and I am not challenging the warranty issue with them, because as you rightly state for my situation it is immaterial as there was no damage. I am just trying to understand their warranty conditions as it seems unfair on the consumer to me. if a product is still usable and damage to the product has not caused the fault why should they not be liable for the fault in the product. i appreciate that pre damage could be made worse, however they would be able, im sure to place a clause in an agreement regarding this.