Google Pixel 8 – authorised repair removed IP68 water resistance (any advice?)

VicariousThrills

Okell said:

@VicariousThrills

Apologies if I've missed this, but from whom did you buy the 'phone?

And if it was a known manufacturing fault, why did you get it fixed under warranty rather than exercising your statutory consumer rights against the seller?

I bought it from Fonehouse. I didn't exercise my statutory rights against them because I wasn't aware that there was a difference at the time. Once the pink line appeared, I was so relieved when I found out Google was going to cover it as it was a manufacturing fault that I let them. I didn't expect the fix to damage the phone in other ways - I thought that would be the end of it.

I'm beginning to think this was a mistake though. I emailed Fonehouse yesterday and explained the situation but I imagine they'll say - not unreasonably - that they didn't damage the phone so it's no longer up to them to replace it. Although if I'd contacted them in the first instance presumably they would have had it fixed by a Google authorised repair programme in a similar way and I'd still be in this position. Given they sold me a phone with a manufacturing fault, perhaps I could have a case with them. I don't know.

Okell

VicariousThrills said:

Okell said:

@VicariousThrills

Apologies if I've missed this, but from whom did you buy the 'phone?

And if it was a known manufacturing fault, why did you get it fixed under warranty rather than exercising your statutory consumer rights against the seller?

... Although if I'd contacted them in the first instance presumably they would have had it fixed by a Google authorised repair programme in a similar way and I'd still be in this position. Given they sold me a phone with a manufacturing fault, perhaps I could have a case with them. I don't know.

Probably too late now, but if you'd gone to the retailer under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the retailer is only allowed one opportunity either to repair or to replace faulty goods.  if that repair or replacement fails you are then entitled to a refund from the retailer.

Unfortunatley, by cutting out the retailer in the frist place, you've left yourself no real alternative but to go back to them and try to get back to square one.  However, as you've already realised, they'd be entitled to say that the phone is no longer in the same condition in which they sold it to you, and it's no longer their problem.

VicariousThrills

Okell said:

Unfortunately, by cutting out the retailer in the frist place, you've left yourself no real alternative but to go back to them and try to get back to square one.  However, as you've already realised, they'd be entitled to say that the phone is no longer in the same condition in which they sold it to you, and it's no longer their problem.

That’s the bit I keep coming back to. I understand that if I’d gone to an unauthorised repair shop, Fonehouse could wash their hands of it. But this was a known manufacturing fault that Google themselves admitted and offered to fix through their own extended repair programme.

So it still feels like the underlying issue - the defective screen - means the phone wasn't of satisfactory quality when Fonehouse sold it to me. I acted reasonably by following the manufacturer's official process rather than trying to fix it in some dodgy local shop - though obviously I realise now it would have been simpler if I'd have gone straight to the retailer, I don't see how they could have fixed it without compromising IP68 either.

I suppose the question is whether the retailer's responsibility under the Consumer Rights Act definitely ends once the manufacturer steps in, even if the manufacturer’s repair leaves the product worse off.

Alderbank

VicariousThrills said:

Okell said:

Unfortunately, by cutting out the retailer in the frist place, you've left yourself no real alternative but to go back to them and try to get back to square one.  However, as you've already realised, they'd be entitled to say that the phone is no longer in the same condition in which they sold it to you, and it's no longer their problem.

I suppose the question is whether the retailer's responsibility under the Consumer Rights Act definitely ends once the manufacturer steps in, even if the manufacturer’s repair leaves the product worse off.

The trader's responsibility under the CRA is set at the moment the contract of sale is made. It never 'definitely ends' as long as you own the goods.

Some rights are time-bound, such as the short term right to reject, but most rights last as long as you own the goods. What changes over time is (1) the difficulty of proving your claim and (2) the quantum of whatever remedy is allowed by the Act.

If the goods don't conform to contract at the point of sale then the trader is in breach of the Act regardless of who does what to the goods afterwards. However your problem then becomes to show on balance of probabilities that the nonconformance had already occurred at the point of sale and has not arisen as the result of later activities.

Your remedy for goods that are repaired or replaced isn't to get what is effectively a brand new item. That's called  betterment. Your entitlement is to an item in roughly the same condition as a compliant item of the same age and use.

Almost all goods deteriorate by what is called wear and tear. It seems well accepted by all parties that the IP68 rating of all mobile phones declines steadily from new. You only have even the chance of a claim if you can show that the leakage across the seals of your phone is demonstratively less than that of the same model and age which has not been repaired. 

VicariousThrills

Thanks this is all very helpful.

Alderbank said:

If the goods don't conform to contract at the point of sale then the trader is in breach of the Act regardless of who does what to the goods afterwards. However your problem then becomes to show on balance of probabilities that the nonconformance had already occurred at the point of sale and has not arisen as the result of later activities.

Great - that shouldn't be too difficult as Google have stated that there's a manufacturing fault, and replaced the screen for free under this programme, i.e. that in my specific case this was the issue. So I don't think anyone is claiming otherwise.

Alderbank said:

You only have even the chance of a claim if you can show that the leakage across the seals of your phone is demonstratively less than that of the same model and age which has not been repaired. 

I don't think this is a stretch though, is it? In the chat the Google person said:

I can confirm that the IP68 rating is applied during the original factory assembly under strict, controlled conditions. When a device is disassembled for any repair, even by an authorized partner using official parts, the integrity of that factory-applied seal is compromised.

It seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between potential, slight degrading over time from general wear and tear, and deliberate disassembly which compromises the factory seal. No?

saajan_12

Okell said:

VicariousThrills said:

Okell said:

@VicariousThrills

Apologies if I've missed this, but from whom did you buy the 'phone?

And if it was a known manufacturing fault, why did you get it fixed under warranty rather than exercising your statutory consumer rights against the seller?

... Although if I'd contacted them in the first instance presumably they would have had it fixed by a Google authorised repair programme in a similar way and I'd still be in this position. Given they sold me a phone with a manufacturing fault, perhaps I could have a case with them. I don't know.

Probably too late now, but if you'd gone to the retailer under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the retailer is only allowed one opportunity either to repair or to replace faulty goods.  if that repair or replacement fails you are then entitled to a refund from the retailer.

Unfortunatley, by cutting out the retailer in the frist place, you've left yourself no real alternative but to go back to them and try to get back to square one.  However, as you've already realised, they'd be entitled to say that the phone is no longer in the same condition in which they sold it to you, and it's no longer their problem.

I had a similar manufacturing defect on my pixel phone, and had the same dilemma of insisting on a fix under consumer rights from the seller or the (easier) Google warranty claim. In practice I expect the fix would have been the same, ie the retailer would have given it to a similar Google authorised repair company, just one was done on the spot. 

If I did claim through the retailer, and they did the same fix, returning a phone which may / may not be waterproof.. I don't have damages as a result of it no longer being waterproof, until I actually drop it in water, at which point I expect it'll still be a debate over who's fault it was. 

Basically decided I was unlikely to get much out of insisting on the consumer rights, vs the ease of getting it done via the manufacturer. 

VicariousThrills

If I did claim through the retailer, and they did the same fix, returning a phone which may / may not be waterproof.. I don't have damages as a result of it no longer being waterproof, until I actually drop it in water, at which point I expect it'll still be a debate over who's fault it was. 

This is the weird bit, isn't it? In a hypothetical world, what is the chain of actions required to demonstrate that they removed the IP68 rating? Should I:

1. Record the phone surviving brief submersion in a glass of water the day of the repair.
2. Get the phone repaired.
3. Record myself submerging the phone immediately following repair and send them the video from step 1 if it's damaged?

Aside from how ridiculous this is, I don't feel like this would get me anywhere. If the phone didn't survive it would be because of water damage, which is explicitly not covered by the warranty. Having dealt with Google support now, I'm sure I'd just get lots of boilerplate answers telling me that, and no actual engagement.

So apart from choosing not to do the repair - which I might have done if I'd know in advance it could remove IP68 - is there any way that I could actually retain my phone's IP68 rating?

born_again

What outcome do you want?

Had you have gone via your bought from, would still be in the same situation. As they would just have sent it to google for the fix, you got by going direct.
Clearly they are not going to give out new phones after 18 months use. Even due to a screen fault.

How many times in that 18 months have you dropped the phone in fresh water to a maximum depth of 1.5 metres for up to 30 minutes?

Note IP 68 only states "water resistant" not "water proof"

In reality, even a new phone could fail due to poor manufacture process.

saajan_12

born_again said:

What outcome do you want?

Had you have gone via your bought from, would still be in the same situation. As they would just have sent it to google for the fix, you got by going direct.
Clearly they are not going to give out new phones after 18 months use. Even due to a screen fault.

How many times in that 18 months have you dropped the phone in fresh water to a maximum depth of 1.5 metres for up to 30 minutes?

Note IP 68 only states "water resistant" not "water proof"

In reality, even a new phone could fail due to poor manufacture process.

To be fair, no ones asking for a new phone, that's potentially Google's restriction if only new phones get properly sealed. 

"Even due to a screen fault" sounds minimising so to be clear, its a screen fault which renders the phone unusable for chunks of time every so often (~daily or more). Its not just a pink line, but the whole screen goes a green tint to the point and flikers so you can't make out light v dark pixels. 

Also I imagine <1.5mtr and <30 min covers most peoples accidental submersions in daily life from dropping momentarily in a sink, bath, even a pool.. So that does make quite the difference. 

VicariousThrills

born_again said:

What outcome do you want?

Clearly they are not going to give out new phones after 18 months use.

All I wanted was for them to repair their manufacturing error in a way which doesn't degrade existing features of the phone. I'm surprised at the way you've asked this. Do you think that's unreasonable?