Faulty iPhone Consumer Rights

henrygregory

Update:

I contacted the retailer again and explained that I wanted my correspondence to be considered with the Consumer Rights Act in mind.
I got a prompt response back stating that as the device is no longer covered by the 2 year guarantee, any repair would usually be chargable. 

The retailer understands that I would like to pursue a claim under the Consumer Rights Act and states that the onus is on the customer to provide a VAT registered engineer report stating that there is an inherent fault with the phone. 

If anyone could recommend a reputable engineer, I would be most grateful.

isplumm

A few years ago I managed to drop my iPhone in the sea - on the beach - I took it to a local phone repair shop & they fixed it for £200 .... is it worth the OP looking at that - the phone is nearly 3 years old, so even if OP managed to get money back out of JL they would not get the £1k?

DullGreyGuy

henrygregory said:

The retailer understands that I would like to pursue a claim under the Consumer Rights Act and states that the onus is on the customer to provide a VAT registered engineer report stating that there is an inherent fault with the phone. 

The law doesn't require your expert to be VAT registered but no point fighting that battle now, it's well known here that it's a card JL plays. They simply need to be suitably qualified to be able to give a meaningful opinion, this can either be through qualifications or experience (or a combination of the two).

If you look in the world of insurance where expert testimony is common place in complex claims the experts report will include a section at the end highlighting their qualifications/certifications, memberships and experience to add weight to their report. 

RefluentBeans

isplumm said:

A few years ago I managed to drop my iPhone in the sea - on the beach - I took it to a local phone repair shop & they fixed it for £200 .... is it worth the OP looking at that - the phone is nearly 3 years old, so even if OP managed to get money back out of JL they would not get the £1k?

I tend to agree with this. I’m not sure that any engineers report would actually say much. Could take it to a phone shop and ask if they feel it’s because of an inherent fault, but think that there’s very few people who will actually have the expertise to say if it is or it isn’t. 

It simply isn’t enough to say ‘the logic board on the phone has not lasted as long as it should have done, and there seems to be a minimum amount of damage from a consumer.’ Without identifying the faulty component on the motherboard, it’s hard to say what the issue is. And those specialists are typically expensive. 

You of course can claim the money for the report back from JL if they side with you, but they may not. Or may be inconclusive. It’s a gamble and I don’t think there’s good odds. In addition if the ‘expert’ is not trained in the device, or subcomponent issues, then JL could turn around and say the report is not valid. If this is the case, you’d likely have to sue to get that money back. 

Basically, I’d look at quotes and see wether it’s worth the fight. If its £200 it may just be worth doing that, and saving the report fees and chasing JL. 

DullGreyGuy

RefluentBeans said:

isplumm said:

A few years ago I managed to drop my iPhone in the sea - on the beach - I took it to a local phone repair shop & they fixed it for £200 .... is it worth the OP looking at that - the phone is nearly 3 years old, so even if OP managed to get money back out of JL they would not get the £1k?

I tend to agree with this. I’m not sure that any engineers report would actually say much. Could take it to a phone shop and ask if they feel it’s because of an inherent fault, but think that there’s very few people who will actually have the expertise to say if it is or it isn’t. 

It simply isn’t enough to say ‘the logic board on the phone has not lasted as long as it should have done, and there seems to be a minimum amount of damage from a consumer.’ Without identifying the faulty component on the motherboard, it’s hard to say what the issue is. And those specialists are typically expensive. 

You of course can claim the money for the report back from JL if they side with you, but they may not. Or may be inconclusive. It’s a gamble and I don’t think there’s good odds. In addition if the ‘expert’ is not trained in the device, or subcomponent issues, then JL could turn around and say the report is not valid. If this is the case, you’d likely have to sue to get that money back. 

If the OP is correct in the assessment of the cause then on this case it should actually be fairly easy to assess... phone is marketed with IP68 water resistance meaning A. The moisture sensor in the SIM tray has not been triggered evidencing that the phone has not been submerged nor had excessive exposure to humidity. The water seal around the ear piece shows excessive deterioration for its age with no signs of physical damage. The logic board below the ear piece has failed and shows evidence of water ingress despite the moisture sensor having not triggered. There is no material damage to the device and it is otherwise in above average condition for its age. 

It is therefore evident that the premature failure of the weatherproofing around the ear piece has allowed moisture to enter the phone and caused the failure of the logic board. 

Whilst in my prior example I did name a particular chip as the cause it really just needs to say why something has failed, if there were multiple issues of dry solder it wouldnt be necessary to list each and every chip that's had poor connections made. I do agree however that most phone shops are just following basic guides and are often not trained to a sufficient level to identify the why X failed nor have the traditional tools to test points of failure. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

henrygregory said:

 a VAT registered engineer report stating that there is an inherent fault with the phone. 

OP you need an independent inspection to demonstrate it's likely on the balance of probabilities that the phone has a component that has failed before it's time rather than due to misuse. 

I'd take it to Apple if you have a store nearby, get their free print out of what area the problem is in and then go to a local repair shop to see what they'll put on paper for you.

Give both to JL with a letter before action  

RefluentBeans

DullGreyGuy said:

RefluentBeans said:

isplumm said:

A few years ago I managed to drop my iPhone in the sea - on the beach - I took it to a local phone repair shop & they fixed it for £200 .... is it worth the OP looking at that - the phone is nearly 3 years old, so even if OP managed to get money back out of JL they would not get the £1k?

I tend to agree with this. I’m not sure that any engineers report would actually say much. Could take it to a phone shop and ask if they feel it’s because of an inherent fault, but think that there’s very few people who will actually have the expertise to say if it is or it isn’t. 

It simply isn’t enough to say ‘the logic board on the phone has not lasted as long as it should have done, and there seems to be a minimum amount of damage from a consumer.’ Without identifying the faulty component on the motherboard, it’s hard to say what the issue is. And those specialists are typically expensive. 

You of course can claim the money for the report back from JL if they side with you, but they may not. Or may be inconclusive. It’s a gamble and I don’t think there’s good odds. In addition if the ‘expert’ is not trained in the device, or subcomponent issues, then JL could turn around and say the report is not valid. If this is the case, you’d likely have to sue to get that money back. 

If the OP is correct in the assessment of the cause then on this case it should actually be fairly easy to assess... phone is marketed with IP68 water resistance meaning A. The moisture sensor in the SIM tray has not been triggered evidencing that the phone has not been submerged nor had excessive exposure to humidity. The water seal around the ear piece shows excessive deterioration for its age with no signs of physical damage. The logic board below the ear piece has failed and shows evidence of water ingress despite the moisture sensor having not triggered. There is no material damage to the device and it is otherwise in above average condition for its age. 

It is therefore evident that the premature failure of the weatherproofing around the ear piece has allowed moisture to enter the phone and caused the failure of the logic board. 

Whilst in my prior example I did name a particular chip as the cause it really just needs to say why something has failed, if there were multiple issues of dry solder it wouldnt be necessary to list each and every chip that's had poor connections made. I do agree however that most phone shops are just following basic guides and are often not trained to a sufficient level to identify the why X failed nor have the traditional tools to test points of failure. 

IF it’s caused by water damage. No guarantee it is. As far as I’ve seen, the device hasn’t been opened. And if it’s opened before the report then the device has already been tampered with and can’t make a comment on the weathering of the waterproof protection. 

Like I said - I don’t think the logical option is pursuing an engineers report. It makes sense in a car context where the report can be expensive, but is a small fraction of the value of the product. In this case, even £100 is 10%. Plus it depends how long the lifespan of the phone is - I’d guess that JL would go for a pay out of £500ish as I think a reasonable time would be 4-5 years. That also has the advantage, to JL, of getting rid of any further issues. If they pay out at all, if the engineers report says what the OP wants it to. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:
Plus it depends how long the lifespan of the phone is - 

Apparently, JL thinks everything lasts 6 years, that might benefit OP in this instance  

RefluentBeans

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RefluentBeans said:
Plus it depends how long the lifespan of the phone is - 

Apparently, JL thinks everything lasts 6 years, that might benefit OP in this instance  

Hopefully - they seem to think everything lasts 6 years - glad they don’t sell cars! But might start to get my phone cables from them - mine never last past 12 months! 

DullGreyGuy

RefluentBeans said:

DullGreyGuy said:

RefluentBeans said:

isplumm said:

A few years ago I managed to drop my iPhone in the sea - on the beach - I took it to a local phone repair shop & they fixed it for £200 .... is it worth the OP looking at that - the phone is nearly 3 years old, so even if OP managed to get money back out of JL they would not get the £1k?

I tend to agree with this. I’m not sure that any engineers report would actually say much. Could take it to a phone shop and ask if they feel it’s because of an inherent fault, but think that there’s very few people who will actually have the expertise to say if it is or it isn’t. 

It simply isn’t enough to say ‘the logic board on the phone has not lasted as long as it should have done, and there seems to be a minimum amount of damage from a consumer.’ Without identifying the faulty component on the motherboard, it’s hard to say what the issue is. And those specialists are typically expensive. 

You of course can claim the money for the report back from JL if they side with you, but they may not. Or may be inconclusive. It’s a gamble and I don’t think there’s good odds. In addition if the ‘expert’ is not trained in the device, or subcomponent issues, then JL could turn around and say the report is not valid. If this is the case, you’d likely have to sue to get that money back. 

If the OP is correct in the assessment of the cause then on this case it should actually be fairly easy to assess... phone is marketed with IP68 water resistance meaning A. The moisture sensor in the SIM tray has not been triggered evidencing that the phone has not been submerged nor had excessive exposure to humidity. The water seal around the ear piece shows excessive deterioration for its age with no signs of physical damage. The logic board below the ear piece has failed and shows evidence of water ingress despite the moisture sensor having not triggered. There is no material damage to the device and it is otherwise in above average condition for its age. 

It is therefore evident that the premature failure of the weatherproofing around the ear piece has allowed moisture to enter the phone and caused the failure of the logic board. 

Whilst in my prior example I did name a particular chip as the cause it really just needs to say why something has failed, if there were multiple issues of dry solder it wouldnt be necessary to list each and every chip that's had poor connections made. I do agree however that most phone shops are just following basic guides and are often not trained to a sufficient level to identify the why X failed nor have the traditional tools to test points of failure. 

IF it’s caused by water damage. No guarantee it is. As far as I’ve seen, the device hasn’t been opened. And if it’s opened before the report then the device has already been tampered with and can’t make a comment on the weathering of the waterproof protection. 

Like I said - I don’t think the logical option is pursuing an engineers report. It makes sense in a car context where the report can be expensive, but is a small fraction of the value of the product. In this case, even £100 is 10%. Plus it depends how long the lifespan of the phone is - I’d guess that JL would go for a pay out of £500ish as I think a reasonable time would be 4-5 years. That also has the advantage, to JL, of getting rid of any further issues. If they pay out at all, if the engineers report says what the OP wants it to. 

Yes, hence the opening statement of if the OP's assumption is correct.

JL seem to simply do a straight line depreciation over 72 months based on both my claim (freezer) and other claims we've seen on here with JL for laptops and other small electronics. With the device being 31 months old at point of failure you'd be looking at circa 57% refund if a claim was successful. 

10% of costs in a claim is not particularly high, though there is always the risk of just compounding your losses if the report ultimately is inconclusive or determines its user error/damage.