iPhone 6s free battery replacement!

Gavin83

Except Apple aren't refusing to fix the faulty part. They're refusing to fix (for free) a part that you broke. It's unfortunate for you that it's a part they have to remove to fix the battery but this doesn't change your rights. They're perfectly within their rights to do this. You have 3 options:

1) Pay the money to get the screen fixed and get the new battery.
2) Don't pay for the screen and don't get the battery.
3) Get the phone back, get it repaired somewhere else and then send it back for the battery replacement. However you'll likely need an official screen so the cost difference may be minimal.

They're your choices, take your pick.

Out of curiosity if they agreed to replace the battery and ended up making the screen unusable while doing so would you be insisting they replaced the screen too?

TheSmoothSalmon

My Consumer Rights knowledge is very little but this all doesn't seem right. The product is faulty and I understand that there is damage but Apple need to replace the faulty part that they put in the device and if getting to said faulty part requires replacing the screen, then that is a cost that they should have to absorb?

Hypothetically, if the foundations of a house needed repairing (due to a construction error) but it means having to remove a wall, who pays for the wall to be removed and rebuilt to get to the foundations? 'Well, the foundations are the issue but you'll need to pay for the wall to be removed for us to fix them'...

I hope I'm making sense and getting my point across and I understand what you're all saying above, thank you.

bigisi

TheSmoothSalmon wrote: »

then that is a cost that they should have to absorb?

No it isn't - as you've been told.

TheSmoothSalmon wrote: »

and I understand what you're all saying above, thank you.

Except you clearly don't.

foxtrotoscar_2

TheSmoothSalmon wrote: »

My Consumer Rights knowledge is very little but this all doesn't seem right. The product is faulty and I understand that there is damage but Apple need to replace the faulty part that they put in the device and if getting to said faulty part requires replacing the screen, then that is a cost that they should have to absorb?

Hypothetically, if the foundations of a house needed repairing (due to a construction error) but it means having to remove a wall, who pays for the wall to be removed and rebuilt to get to the foundations? 'Well, the foundations are the issue but you'll need to pay for the wall to be removed for us to fix them'...

I hope I'm making sense and getting my point across and I understand what you're all saying above, thank you.

Then why come here and argue! Whoever caused the damage to the screen pays for it to be fixed and then Apple will proceed and replace the battery. You are not entitled to betterment by having a free replacement screen.

shaun_from_Africa

TheSmoothSalmon wrote: »

Hypothetically, if the foundations of a house needed repairing (due to a construction error) but it means having to remove a wall, who pays for the wall to be removed and rebuilt to get to the foundations? 'Well, the foundations are the issue but you'll need to pay for the wall to be removed for us to fix them'...

Not quite the same thing as you make no mention of the wall already being damaged by something that wasn't do with the faulty foundations.

IMO, it's more like having faulty foundations and when the builders come to carry out the repair, they find that you have a window in the wall that has to be removed and rebuilt.
They agree that they are responsible for removing and replacing the window when finished but they discover that the frame is broken and by attempting to remove it it's almost certain that the glass will shatter.
Would you expect the builders to repair the frame before they move it even though the damage was nothing to do with them and was not caused by the dodgy foundations?

DoaM

foxtrotoscar wrote: »

Then why come here and argue! Whoever caused the damage to the screen pays for it to be fixed and then Apple will proceed and replace the battery. You are not entitled to betterment by having a free replacement screen.

Saves me having to type the same thing.

Unless you can prove the screen cracked of its own accord then the crack will have been user-damage. Therefore you need to (pay for the) repair (to) the screen before they'll fix the battery.

Edit: the above analogy is much better than the one I used (and have now deleted).

unholyangel

TheSmoothSalmon wrote: »

My Consumer Rights knowledge is very little but this all doesn't seem right. The product is faulty and I understand that there is damage but Apple need to replace the faulty part that they put in the device and if getting to said faulty part requires replacing the screen, then that is a cost that they should have to absorb?

Hypothetically, if the foundations of a house needed repairing (due to a construction error) but it means having to remove a wall, who pays for the wall to be removed and rebuilt to get to the foundations? 'Well, the foundations are the issue but you'll need to pay for the wall to be removed for us to fix them'...

I hope I'm making sense and getting my point across and I understand what you're all saying above, thank you.

As has been explained, you have no consumer rights against apple because you didn't buy from them. Your rights against apple are under the terms of the warranty they offer only (and I believe their warranty usually excludes batteries).

Even under consumer rights against the seller, not only could they ask you to prove a fault exists, they could ask you to prove that the fault is inherent. The fact a battery is a consumable may also have bearing because the battery was only ever going to last so many charge cycles before needing replaced.

Gavin83

unholyangel wrote: »

As has been explained, you have no consumer rights against apple because you didn't buy from them. Your rights against apple are under the terms of the warranty they offer only (and I believe their warranty usually excludes batteries).

Even under consumer rights against the seller, not only could they ask you to prove a fault exists, they could ask you to prove that the fault is inherent. The fact a battery is a consumable may also have bearing because the battery was only ever going to last so many charge cycles before needing replaced.

Not really sure it makes a difference. Even if the battery was faulty in technical terms (up for debate) and the seller agreed to replace it they'd still require him to foot the cost of replacing the screen. Whoever he goes through he'll need to pay for the cost of replacing the screen.

mattyprice4004

You aren!!!8217;t grasping the concept - you damaged the screen, that!!!8217;s your fault. You need to pay to have this rectified as when they repair the other issue, the screen will likely crack due to the damage.

You have 2 choices - pay up and have the screen sorted, or don!!!8217;t and have an unrepaired phone.

It!!!8217;s that simple - Apple are doing nothing wrong as literally everyone has repeatedly pointed out.