Apple refusing consumer rights on faulty phone

theonlywayisup

George_Michael wrote: »

But the OP purchased the original phone from an Apple store and it was this same Apple store that provided the replacement under the OP's consumer rights.
This is also the same store that has now told the OP that their SOGA rights no longer apply on the replacement phone.

Perhaps highlight the correct part. I was replying to Bris. But my actual comment outlined the part I have correctly highlighted (and you seemed to miss).

theonlywayisup wrote: »

Consumer rights are with the retailer. Apple is correct to refer a non Apple store purchase to the retailer.

I understand from the OP that the item was purchased direct from Apple, in an Apple store anyhow. Op, you need to understand the difference between your consumer rights and a guarantee. They are different, albeit on this occasion (for you) they are given by the same provider - Apple. If you buy from the Apple store, the store is the one to go to with consumer rights claims. The company, Apple, is the one providing the guarantee.

custardy

aninvasion wrote: »

In my experience Apple have been more than willing to help with a product regardless of where it is purchased from as long as you provide a proof of purchase.

They tend to have some of the best customer services out there as long as you book a genius appointment.

So what about the experience here?
Phone replaced at under 2 years old,nothing special given most mainstream manufacturers have a 2 year warranty (unlike Apple with 1)

theonlywayisup

Fosterdog wrote: »

But what bris is getting at is that if you buy from another retailer but take something back to Apple they always say if you had bought directly from them, even a few years ago, they would swap the product straight away and the only reason they can't is because it was purchased elsewhere. They say that they give better service to their own direct customers than they do to others. Yet quite often when you actually buy directly from them you do not see the fantastic service they say they have and instead insist you jump through the same hoops as if you'd bought it elsewhere.

They are not legally obliged to do anything until an inherent fault is proven but that is not what they often tell people.

I understand what Bris is saying. But he/she was incorrect by saying Apple are hypocrites. Apple are correct in saying you need to have purchased from them to invoke your consumer rights. Too many people mix up a guarantee with consumer rights. I then did quantify that the OP was actually able to pursue both his/her consumer rights and guarantee by the fact they HAD bought direct from Apple.

That said, the OP bought under SOGA and NOT under CRA. The timescales, limits and stipulations are subtly different.

DoaM

bris wrote: »

You need an independent report now stating it has an inherent fault, good luck with that. Time to buy a new phone.

theonlywayisup wrote: »

The OP bought under SOGA.

And? That part hasn't changed between SOGA 1979 and CRA 2015 ... you've always needed (legally, if the retailer demands it) a report to verify an inherent fault once the burden of responsibility changes from retailer to consumer. And that 6 month timescale is also unchanged between SOGA and CRA.

Fosterdog

theonlywayisup wrote: »

I understand what Bris is saying. But he/she was incorrect by saying Apple are hypocrites. Apple are correct in saying you need to have purchased from them to invoke your consumer rights. Too many people mix up a guarantee with consumer rights. I then did quantify that the OP was actually able to pursue both his/her consumer rights and guarantee by the fact they HAD bought direct from Apple.

That said, the OP bought under SOGA and NOT under CRA. The timescales, limits and stipulations are subtly different.

You are still missing the point. We all know that you have to have purchased from them to invoke your rights, nobody has disputed that. The part about them being hypocrites is what they tell people they would do if you had bought from them and what they actually do when people buy from them.

As an example, I buy an iPhone from John Lewis, it develops a fault and I take it to Apple (even though my rights are agains JL) Apple would tell me, and quite rightly, you didn't buy from us so we can't do anything, what they almost always add on though is the hypocritical part. If you had bought it from us we would just swap it over, we don't make our customers jump through hoops.

So I upgrade my phone and this time buy directly from Apple because they've told me that if it develops a fault and I bought it from them I can just take it in and walk out with a replacement, sounds great, no more hoops to jump through to invoke my rights. Until something goes wrong that is, and all of a sudden they seem to forget that they tell so many customers that there are no hoops to jump through if you buy direct. I end up in the exact same situation as I was with my previous phone of it not just being swapped, and me having to jump through the same hoops as when I bought from JL.

mattyprice4004

That doesn’t match my experience with Apple at all.
I had a 9 month old faulty phone, Apple swapped it for me. It was from 3 (the network).

I then bought its replacement direct (cash back credit card with 0%, very MSE!) and 2.5 years in it developed a charging socket problem.
Swapped in store with no fuss.

George_Michael

custardy wrote: »

What rights would they be for a person standing in the store with a (effectively)3.5 year old phone?

Surely as you are a regular poster, you know what those rights are don't you?

Just in case you don't.
Goods are expected to last a reasonable time (taking into account amongst other things, the type of goods and the price paid).
If goods fails to meet this expectation and the fault can be shown to be due to a manufacturing defect, the purchaser is entitled to a repair, a replacement or a refund (which can be partial).

I know that the refund on a 3.5 year old phone won't be much but it might be the case that Apple would opt for a repair instead.
Whatever Apple decide to do, the simple fact is that the OP was misinformed when they were told that their SOGA rights didn't apply as the phone had already been replaced.

custardy

George_Michael wrote: »

Surely as you are a regular poster, you know what those rights are don't you?

Just in case you don't.
Goods are expected to last a reasonable time (taking into account amongst other things, the type of goods and the price paid).
If goods fails to meet this expectation and the fault can be shown to be due to a manufacturing defect, the purchaser is entitled to a repair, a replacement or a refund (which can be partial).

I know that the refund on a 3.5 year old phone won't be much but it might be the case that Apple would opt for a repair instead.
Whatever Apple decide to do, the simple fact is that the OP was misinformed when they were told that their SOGA rights didn't apply as the phone had already been replaced.

So in short as I purposely worded. Standing in the shop with a broken 3.5 year old phone,they have little rights.
Without proof of an inherent fault.

custardy

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

That doesn’t match my experience with Apple at all.
I had a 9 month old faulty phone, Apple swapped it for me. It was from 3 (the network).

I then bought its replacement direct (cash back credit card with 0%, very MSE!) and 2.5 years in it developed a charging socket problem.
Swapped in store with no fuss.

2 dodgy handsets in a row,great customer service

George_Michael

custardy wrote: »

So in short as I purposely worded. Standing in the shop with a broken 3.5 year old phone,they have little rights.
Without proof of an inherent fault.

Purposly worded?
To me it looked like a clearly worded question, otherwise why put a question mark at the end of it?

custardy wrote: »

What rights would they be for a person standing in the store with a (effectively)3.5 year old phone?

Even if the OP had "little rights", this is still more rights than the store staff incorrectly informed them that they had by stating that the SOGA didn't cover their phone.