Apple charges £146.44 to repair known fault with iPhone 6 Plus

NFH

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38026003

How can Apple get away with charging to fix a known fault? The supplier is liable for the costs of repair under:

• Section 48B of the Sale of Goods Act if supplied as standalone goods
• Section 11N of the Supply of Goods and Services if supplied in conjunction with a service
• Section 23 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 if supplied after 1st October 2015

If the supplier was Apple (usually the case with those who buy outright), then Apple cannot charge for the repair. I get the impression that Apple set a price for the repair of $149 in the United States, where consumer law is much weaker, and then arrogantly applied the same principle to the United Kingdom, where the consumer is entitled to a free repair from the supplier. Maybe this charge is so that a mobile network supplied the goods, then consumers can then make a claim against their mobile network, who can then make a claim in turn against Apple, but it seems a bit pointless as Apple will still ultimately foot the bill.

Given that Apple has admitted there's a fault with this model, there's no need for the consumer to prove that the fault with the product's durability existed at the time of supply. Consumers have up to 6 years (5 years in Scotland) to bring an action against a supplier.

d123

The bit in your link that sinks all your carefully crafted legislative bullet points would probably be:

Apple said it had "determined" that displays on some iPhone 6 Plus handsets flickered or became unresponsive if the device was dropped several times on a hard surface and was then subjected to "further stress

mrochester

That ended that quickly!

NFH

Lots of consumers have experienced this fault without subjecting the device to adverse wear and tear.

mrochester

That would be on the consumer to prove if the device were over 6 months old.

d123

NFH wrote: »

Lots of consumers have experienced this fault without subjecting the device to adverse wear and tear.

So that means your last statement isn't actually true?

This one:

NFH wrote: »

Given that Apple has admitted there's a fault with this model, there's no need for the consumer to prove that the fault with the product's durability existed at the time of supply. Consumers have up to 6 years (5 years in Scotland) to bring an action against a supplier.

Apple say if you drop the handset repeatedly on a hard surface it breaks (well...duh ).

It would be interesting to see you use that as an admission of a fault that would constitute a lack of durability to the satisfaction of a court...

NFH

d123 wrote: »

Apple say if you drop the handset repeatedly on a hard surface it breaks (well...duh ).

That is merely a way to reproduce the fault on purpose. It is not the cause of the fault for most owners of this product.

mrochester

NFH wrote: »

That is merely a way to reproduce the fault on purpose. It is not the cause of the fault for most owners of this product.

I don't think that's what Apple has determined, hence there's a charge for the repair.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Let's not forget the BBC tax you for £145 and I don't watch any of their programmes!

d123

NFH wrote: »

That is merely a way to reproduce the fault on purpose. It is not the cause of the fault for most owners of this product.

And how would you prove that assertion in court? How do you prove you've never dropped the phone to the satisfaction of the court?

It's not as easy or straightforward as your delightfully composed litany of legislation in your OP pretend to make it...

benten69

An investigation by iFixit and specialist repair shops found the cause of the fault was the placement of the touchscreen controller chip. Several rough knocks could dislodge this chip making phones unresponsive, it said.

That was in your link above and further backs Apples claims. If a 3rd party is stating that "rough knocks" dislodge the chip and make it unresponsive, then it's not Apples responsibility to repair.

You could argue that the poor soldering / manufacturing practices are to blames as a properly soldered BGA device will not move after a few rough hits, but you go and try to prove that on a device over 6 months old....neigh on impossible!

I blame RoHS and the need for lead free soldering. Lead free solder is so much more brittle and more prone to cracking than the old lead based stuff, but it's safer to work with.

Lead-free solder was one of the main root causes for the RRoD on the old XBOX 360's. However we live in a world where more and more "dangerous" materials are being banned in case some kid gets into the equipment and decides to eat bits of it :rotfl: