Tesco Mobile refusing to my Galaxy Z 4 Fold and now in deadlock

simonbamford

Okay, thanks everyone for replies. Seems to be a consensus to just get the repair done and live a happy life, lol. I will try and fight my grumpy old ways and do that or update you all on what happens. Lol. 

born_again said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

simonbamford said:

Tesco provided the credit so not a credit card. I thought S75 would not apply in this situation. 

@born_again might be able to offer some insight in to this one  

Honest answer I have no idea.
Guess you would need to study the T/C of the contract. 

If it was 02 refresh where you have 2 separate contracts, airtime & phone purchase. My thought would be possibly covered under S75.

It would be the same idea. One contract for your Airtime and one contract for your phone itself. I am trying to get a copy of that agreement to see what it says. 

Okell

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Okell said:

I might well be wrong but if a consumer approached the seller for a repair and the seller says something like "Sorry - we haven't the tools to do the repair and we'd have to send it off to the manufacturer, but you can send it to them yourself" and the repair failed, I'm pretty certain that that failed repair would be taken as having been made by, or on behalf of, the seller (for the purposes of the CRA).

That's what's generally said on here and it would seem to make sense but what's said on here isn't always correct and the law doesn't always make sense! 

You should know it is and it does whan I say it!         

tightauldgit

Okell said:

simonbamford said:

... To be fair though Tesco telling me Samsung will do something for free doesn't mean they will. Based on your bottom point Samsung could say it was in fact my fault and then where would that leave me? Samsung, who I don't have a contract but can repair the device saying no, and Tesco Mobile, who I do have the contract with saying yes but can't repair it. 

If this ended up being the case what would you say then? And no I can't prove the fault or failure was there from the beginning at the moment. I would need an engineer to look at that. But Tesco have said it should be free so I would take that as I'm in the clear with them. 

That's why I said in my first post:

"If you are concerned about protecting your consumer rights against Tesco under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, I would suggest that all you require is some sort of written acknowledgement from Tesco that they are meeting their obligations under that legislation by asking you to send the 'phone to Samsung for a free repair.  So long as Samsung know that as well, I don't understand the problem"

The point is that Tesco would be repairing the 'phone, but Samsung would be doing so on Tesco's behalf, and Tesco wouldn't be doing it themselves.

If Tesco are telling you to send it off to Samsung to meet their (Tesco's) obligations under the CRA then, in my view, you are still fully protected by consumer legislation.  Are they telling you that?  Have you asked them?

Unfortunately I don't know exactly what you've told Tesco (eg did you make it clear you were originally returning it to them under the CRA, or did you say under warranty, or didn't you make it clear?)  and I don't know exactly what Tesco have told you (eg when they said "you should get a free repair" did they mean that you were definitely entitled to a free repair, and if so, did they mean under the CRA or under warranty?).  None of it is very clear.

If Samsung find that the fault was not inherent and had been caused by you you're back where you started unless you can show otherwise.

If Tesco still have the 'phone, have you clarified with them why they (as the retailer) simply won't send it to Samsung themselves?  Have you been so stubborn insisting on them repairing it themselves that they've stopped cooperating with you?  (Yes if they are sending you a deadlock letter).

You asked in your original post if you could take a better "tact".  I'm not sure about that but you could try a more tactful tack...

If I were you I'd go back to Tesco in a non-confrontational manner and say you'd like to start over again and find a mutually acceptable solution.  Say you want to take advantage of your statutory rights under the CRA  (or under warranty if that gives you a better outcome).  Tell them you understand that it needs to go back to Samsung because Tesco can't repair it themselves, but ask them nicely why - as it's currently in their possession - they can't send it direct to Samsung themselves rather than returning it to you for you to send it to Samsung.  If they have a good reason for returning it to you for you to send it to Samsung, tell them that as they sold the 'phone to you then under the CRA they should be responsible (1) for the cost of you sending it to Samsung, and (2) if it gets lost in transit.

That's what I'd try at this stage.  See what others think.

Remember that, if you go down the CRA route, as it's more than 6 months after purchase Tesco might want you to establish that this fault was inherent when it was bought and has not been cause by you (eg misuse or damage caused by you)

Hard to tell if retailers are sneaky or just not really clued up sometimes but they do tend to have a habit of telling people they need to get things repaired under warranty by the manufacturer to make it someone else's problem. And I do suspect that once you go down the warranty route you find that your rights suddenly are diminished either accidentally or deliberately and then you're fighting an uphill battle to get them back.

If I was going ahead on the basis you suggest I'd definitely want something in writing from Tesco confirming that they are instructing Samsung to do the work on their behalf in accordance with the CRA and it's not a warranty claim.  

Okell

I think a consumer with a faulty product first needs to weigh up whether a warranty (if there is one) gives them better protection than their statutory rights.  (Unlikely in the first 6 months, but after that there are things like TV warranties from JL and Richer Sounds that might give a better deal  than the CRA.  Depends what they offer)

If they want to go down the CRA route then I'd suggest the consumer needs to make it 100% clear to the retailer that that is what they want, and that if the retailer refers them to the manufacturer, then the consumer will be treating that as the retailer's first attempt to repair or replace under the CRA, and not as a warranty claim.  [Edit:  And whilst I'd prefer the seller to agree to that in writing, so long as the consumer has made it clear to them in writing I'd argue it was enough]

What I'm a bit concerned about here is that the OP has taken Tesco's comment that he "should" be entitled to a free repair to mean that he "is" entitled to one.  Without knowing exactly what has been said between them I'm not sure that after more than 6 months it's going to be that simple and straightforward.  I'm afraid the OP's apparent intransigence that Tesco themselves must fix it has not helped matters...

RefluentBeans

Okell said:

I think a consumer with a faulty product first needs to weigh up whether a warranty (if there is one) gives them better protection than their statutory rights.  (Unlikely in the first 6 months, but after that there are things like TV warranties from JL and Richer Sounds that might give a better deal  than the CRA.  Depends what they offer)

If they want to go down the CRA route then I'd suggest the consumer needs to make it 100% clear to the retailer that that is what they want, and that if the retailer refers them to the manufacturer, then the consumer will be treating that as the retailer's first attempt to repair or replace under the CRA, and not as a warranty claim.

What I'm a bit concerned about here is that the OP has taken Tesco's comment that he "should" be entitled to a free repair to mean that he "is" entitled to one.  Without knowing exactly what has been said between them I'm not sure that after more than 6 months it's going to be that simple and straightforward.  I'm afraid the OP's apparent intransigence that Tesco themselves must fix it has not helped matters...

I 100% agree with this. In all honesty, I would suspect that a claim under the CRA would be unsuccessful on the screen protector (even though it is required for folding phones). I think that in a situation like that - showing the fault is inherent is neigh on impossible. And even if you forked out for an engineer's report or something similar - I doubt that this would be conclusive and would have a long list of caveats. The peeling could be caused by the phones poor glue, but it could equally have been caught by something in a customers pocket and then started the peel from there. This is why I felt that the warranty solution offered better coverage. If a retailer wanted to dig its heels in, they reasonably could, and force someone to take it to court to decide. 

This is where I think legalisation needs to be changed to force companies to sell consumers replacements. But that's very much off topic so I won't go into it - just something I'm very passionate about! Having the option to replace it yourself, even if it prevents you from claiming under CRA, is often the better solution in my opinion. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

This is where I think legalisation needs to be changed to force companies to sell consumers replacements. But that's very much off topic so I won't go into it - just something I'm very passionate about! Having the option to replace it yourself, even if it prevents you from claiming under CRA, is often the better solution in my opinion. 

Under The Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021 there is the "right to repair" as it's been dubbed.

Very long piece of legislation that I haven't read but from news articles I believe it only applies to certain products, manufacturers have 2 years from placing the product on sale to provide parts and those parts must be available for 7 years after the product is no longer placed on the market.

The EU is also looking to ban planned obsolescence and prevent the destruction of unsold goods, random link

https://www.euractiv.com/section/circular-economy/news/lawmakers-back-eu-ban-on-planned-obsolescence-destruction-of-unsold-goods/

Ultimately I think kids should be taught more in schools, ours is in primary and whilst I don't expect them to teach how to fix an iPhone at that age they could make art out of old electronics and have field trips to recycling plants.

By secondary school they could be teaching kids how this stuff all works and what each piece does with practical classes on repairing tech. 

Then of course they should also be teaching them about their rights, not just as a consumer but for example as tenant or interactions with the police. Not mention how to manage finances. 

Maybe they do nowadays (they didn't when I was at school some 20 years ago).

If the kids all turn out to be really smart perhaps they won't feel the need to own folding smart phones.... 

RefluentBeans

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RefluentBeans said:

This is where I think legalisation needs to be changed to force companies to sell consumers replacements. But that's very much off topic so I won't go into it - just something I'm very passionate about! Having the option to replace it yourself, even if it prevents you from claiming under CRA, is often the better solution in my opinion. 

Under The Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021 there is the "right to repair" as it's been dubbed.

Very long piece of legislation that I haven't read but from news articles I believe it only applies to certain products, manufacturers have 2 years from placing the product on sale to provide parts and those parts must be available for 7 years after the product is no longer placed on the market.

The EU is also looking to ban planned obsolescence and prevent the destruction of unsold goods, random link

https://www.euractiv.com/section/circular-economy/news/lawmakers-back-eu-ban-on-planned-obsolescence-destruction-of-unsold-goods/

Ultimately I think kids should be taught more in schools, ours is in primary and whilst I don't expect them to teach how to fix an iPhone at that age they could make art out of old electronics and have field trips to recycling plants.

By secondary school they could be teaching kids how this stuff all works and what each piece does with practical classes on repairing tech. 

Then of course they should also be teaching them about their rights, not just as a consumer but for example as tenant or interactions with the police. Not mention how to manage finances. 

Maybe they do nowadays (they didn't when I was at school some 20 years ago).

If the kids all turn out to be really smart perhaps they won't feel the need to own folding smart phones.... 

Oh I 100% agree. I think in the past 20 years there’s been so much innovation to make products as anti-repair as possible. The rationale that companies use (like it’s dangerous for people to mess around in their phones because of batteries or electricity) is so stupid when you can go buy a car battery and replace it yourself. 

I don’t think everyone needs to know how to repair everything, but you should be able to go to third parties to get repairs. Like with a car - if I needed something repairing I maybe wouldn’t feel comfortable doing it myself, but I can take it to a local garage and ask them to do it for me. I don’t have to back to Volvo and be overcharged for a basic part. 

I agree about consumer rights being taught more. And how to exercise them in practice too. To be honest - a lot of life skills like mortgages, savings, pensions, taxes etc (all the fun stuff that make adulthood so exciting) need to be taught far better. 

pushpull

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RefluentBeans said:

This is where I think legalisation needs to be changed to force companies to sell consumers replacements. But that's very much off topic so I won't go into it - just something I'm very passionate about! Having the option to replace it yourself, even if it prevents you from claiming under CRA, is often the better solution in my opinion. 

Under The Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021 there is the "right to repair" as it's been dubbed.

Very long piece of legislation that I haven't read but from news articles I believe it only applies to certain products, manufacturers have 2 years from placing the product on sale to provide parts and those parts must be available for 7 years after the product is no longer placed on the market.

The EU is also looking to ban planned obsolescence and prevent the destruction of unsold goods, random link

https://www.euractiv.com/section/circular-economy/news/lawmakers-back-eu-ban-on-planned-obsolescence-destruction-of-unsold-goods/

Ultimately I think kids should be taught more in schools, ours is in primary and whilst I don't expect them to teach how to fix an iPhone at that age they could make art out of old electronics and have field trips to recycling plants.

By secondary school they could be teaching kids how this stuff all works and what each piece does with practical classes on repairing tech. 

Then of course they should also be teaching them about their rights, not just as a consumer but for example as tenant or interactions with the police. Not mention how to manage finances. 

Maybe they do nowadays (they didn't when I was at school some 20 years ago).

If the kids all turn out to be really smart perhaps they won't feel the need to own folding smart phones.... 

Currently working for a mobile phone insurer and the number of these devices that come back with "broken" (or in other words faulty) screens is frightening. Sure, other glass slabs break if you drop them but these things never come in for that, it's either a break down the fold or the hinges are buggered.

When Samsung first announced them I just KNEW it was going to be a failure but even after all the issues they've released four generations of the things. I'm guessing better that than admitting that the tech isn't there to have foldable screens yet and performing a recall.

Unsurprisingly both the network that sells them and Samsung call it user damage and refuse to repair/repair under CRA. Both of them cite "physical damage" and therefore not a fault (yeah LOL.)

Okell

pushpull said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RefluentBeans said:

This is where I think legalisation needs to be changed to force companies to sell consumers replacements. But that's very much off topic so I won't go into it - just something I'm very passionate about! Having the option to replace it yourself, even if it prevents you from claiming under CRA, is often the better solution in my opinion. 

Under The Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021 there is the "right to repair" as it's been dubbed.

Very long piece of legislation that I haven't read but from news articles I believe it only applies to certain products, manufacturers have 2 years from placing the product on sale to provide parts and those parts must be available for 7 years after the product is no longer placed on the market.

The EU is also looking to ban planned obsolescence and prevent the destruction of unsold goods, random link

https://www.euractiv.com/section/circular-economy/news/lawmakers-back-eu-ban-on-planned-obsolescence-destruction-of-unsold-goods/

Ultimately I think kids should be taught more in schools, ours is in primary and whilst I don't expect them to teach how to fix an iPhone at that age they could make art out of old electronics and have field trips to recycling plants.

By secondary school they could be teaching kids how this stuff all works and what each piece does with practical classes on repairing tech. 

Then of course they should also be teaching them about their rights, not just as a consumer but for example as tenant or interactions with the police. Not mention how to manage finances. 

Maybe they do nowadays (they didn't when I was at school some 20 years ago).

If the kids all turn out to be really smart perhaps they won't feel the need to own folding smart phones.... 

Currently working for a mobile phone insurer and the number of these devices that come back with "broken" (or in other words faulty) screens is frightening. Sure, other glass slabs break if you drop them but these things never come in for that, it's either a break down the fold or the hinges are buggered.

When Samsung first announced them I just KNEW it was going to be a failure but even after all the issues they've released four generations of the things. I'm guessing better that than admitting that the tech isn't there to have foldable screens yet and performing a recall.

Unsurprisingly both the network that sells them and Samsung call it user damage and refuse to repair/repair under CRA. Both of them cite "physical damage" and therefore not a fault (yeah LOL.)

In an "efficient" free market that worked properly I'd expect your employers (ie the mobile phone insurance industry in general) to be feeding back to Samsung that this folding phone design is clearly not of satisfactory quailty and is not fit for purpose because of the number and amount of claims they have to pay out for this specific fault.

But I suppose insurers can just put the premiums up and so long as customers are willing to pay the increase they just make more money.

Not really in the consumer's interests, but...

(Not criticising you personally - just the industry.  Well, pretty much all industries really)

nyermen

For note - z fold 4 hasn't been out a year, so it should be consumer rights rather than any warranty (although obviously 6m+ rules apply).