Raylo provided non UK phone

sausage1971

Ok, but could this be classed as negligent misrepresentation then? The latest devices are advertised with full specification so when I took the lease the 14 model was the latest product and would have been advertised with esim capabilities

A_Geordie

eskbanker said:

sausage1971 said:

Not specifically but would you consider it reasonable to assume you were buying a UK spec product from a UK supplier unless stated otherwise? The UK spec has esim functionality 

But in the context of an assertion of mis-selling, it's not really about whether or not your assumption was reasonable, it's about whether their product complied with how they advertised it.

I would generally agree with this 95% of the time. Silence does not normally amount to a misrepresentation but, the are some exceptions to that rule and one of those is where it is a contract of utmost good faith, in which case there should be a duty of disclosure of material facts in good faith. Failing to do that would be considered a fraudulent misrepresentation. 

The very basic argument would be that Apple have produced an iPhone with specifications that are to be sold in the UK which includes eSIM capability. Raylo are allegedly purchasing iPhones that have different specifications and were destined to be sold in a different country, but are now selling those phones in the UK knowing that they would have certain limitations or specifications that are not the same as the UK iPhone specifications, and subsequently failing to disclose those material facts. It is not an unreasonable stretch that if a company is selling goods that have been manufactured to specifications for UK customers, then a customer in the UK would expect those goods to conform to UK specifications unless the description clearly says otherwise.

I think that would be a plausible legal argument to make and although I couldn't comment on the success of it, at the very least I think its a persuasive argument.

sausage1971

That is extremely helpful and I could not agree more. I think I do have a strong argument that the product has been mispresented. Will keep the thread updated with any progress/outcome. Thank you very much 

Bradden

In their defence Raylor do make it clear they source globally...

Raylo Re-commerce

We find channels, both locally and globally, to re-sell and re-lease returned devices, ensuring they're always in use and their value is maximised.

A_Geordie

Well before you go off gallivanting potentially down the legal route, you may want to consider submitting a formal complaint and going via the financial ombudsman for redress as they do not necessarily look at the strict letter of the law.

Also, you could threaten to report the issue to the media, telling them that Raylo are selling Chinese spec iphones to UK customers but failing to disclose that material fact on their website. You should be careful with this as potentially it could be defamation but if you have evidence from Apple that the phone is a Chinese/HK spec phone then you should be ok. 

You could also try going through those consumer columns like the Guardian (Your Problems with Anna Tims) who will write on your behalf and get the resolution you want, as you may find that you could have better success with Raylo when the media starts sniffing around, but not always.

Finally, if the legal route is the only option, in addition to misrepresentation you could also consider a claim under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 on the basis Raylo failed to disclose a material fact. You missed out on the right to unwind the contract which is within the first 90 days but you are still entitled to pursue damages/discount of the price based on the past and future payments due to the failure to disclose the material information.

sausage1971

Already submitted a formal complaint and waiting for either a resolution or a Final Response which will allow me to escalate to the Ombudsman. I'm only considering a small claim as a very last measure. 

eskbanker

A_Geordie said:

eskbanker said:

sausage1971 said:

Not specifically but would you consider it reasonable to assume you were buying a UK spec product from a UK supplier unless stated otherwise? The UK spec has esim functionality 

But in the context of an assertion of mis-selling, it's not really about whether or not your assumption was reasonable, it's about whether their product complied with how they advertised it.

I would generally agree with this 95% of the time. Silence does not normally amount to a misrepresentation but, the are some exceptions to that rule and one of those is where it is a contract of utmost good faith, in which case there should be a duty of disclosure of material facts in good faith. Failing to do that would be considered a fraudulent misrepresentation. 

The very basic argument would be that Apple have produced an iPhone with specifications that are to be sold in the UK which includes eSIM capability. Raylo are allegedly purchasing iPhones that have different specifications and were destined to be sold in a different country, but are now selling those phones in the UK knowing that they would have certain limitations or specifications that are not the same as the UK iPhone specifications, and subsequently failing to disclose those material facts. It is not an unreasonable stretch that if a company is selling goods that have been manufactured to specifications for UK customers, then a customer in the UK would expect those goods to conform to UK specifications unless the description clearly says otherwise.

I think that would be a plausible legal argument to make and although I couldn't comment on the success of it, at the very least I think its a persuasive argument.

Yes, point taken, but materiality is presumably a key aspect of that, i.e. how significant is that functionality relative to the other features of such a phone, and to what degree of detail are the phone's features specified in the listings?

sausage1971

The phone features are listed in detail on the website including esim compatibility 

eskbanker

sausage1971 said:

The phone features are listed in detail on the website including esim compatibility 

In which case the point I made earlier stands, i.e. you don't need to be making assumptions, but simply pointing out that the phone doesn't meet its description.

voluted

sausage1971 said:

The phone features are listed in detail on the website including esim compatibility 

https://www.raylo.com/products/refurbished-apple-iphone-14-pro-max-128gb-deep-purple?term=12-months

I don't see any mention of eSIM functionality there. In fact, the features list is noticeably smaller than the one for the iPhone 16 Pro Max. Where are you seeing eSIM as a feature?

As an aside, I'd personally rather have dual SIM functionality than one physical/one eSIM but perhaps I'm weird, or old.