CEX Sold me a Fake iPhone and will likely refuse a refund.

visidigi

jasonwatkins said:

visidigi said:

So a couple of things... 

CeX checked the CCTV - but does that CCTV show the phone as turned on? I mean visually of course a clone is difficult to spot, but if they didn't power it up and they didn't have it turned on during the acceptance then they have no proof what they sold you was actually a iPhone that functions the way an iPhone should.

If the IMEI is on the device and on your receipt, they can't surely say you are returning a different device?

The IMEI being registered as an 17PM is probably because the IMEI has been cloned on to a copy phone.

I do wonder, what in the CCTV the store is relying on, it doesn't sound like it was turned on/tested properly before being accepted - which is odd, as last time I traded into CeX they tested the heck out of the device.

Yes I’m equally as bemused as to what this CCTV is meant to show as I can’t imagine it’s any kind of specific close up of the screen.

To clarify though, the device settings show two separate IMEI numbers, one for “front” and one for “back” and neither of them match the IMEI number on the box or the receipt.

The IMEI number on the receipt does match the one on the box.

i do also wonder if they logged the serial number of the phone during this “testing” procedure.  That does come back as a valid, activated iPhone 17 PM so if they have and it matches the number on the device then it blows up their argument that I switched it.

Right so that makes me think....ask the store if they have sold that phone to someone before you who returned it for a refund. If they have that would suggest that they have actually sold you a swapped unit, where the previous purchaser has had a change of mind and returned the phone, but not the exact device, and not fully tested/checked it.

It could even have been a slight of hand thing in store while letting someone try a handset. These clones are very convincing, even more so if neither are turned on when inspected by a buyer.

This is the only way I can see them selling you a phone with a box and matching receipt IMEI but the device being different.

To those questioning why you would buy a nearly new from CeX - they actually give a 5 year warranty, which is far greater than buying from Apple Direct - so if you're willing to take the punt with CeX that is, as some have mentioned the OP's perogative.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

I struggle to see how the OP can take this forward with the retailer and provide sufficient evidence that the "not as it seems" phone is the actual phone the CEX store provided to the OP rather than the CEX counter-position that the OP did the swap to the "not as it seems" phone.

The possible options for S75 claim via the finance will also seemingly fail for the same reason.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/19

(14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

If I were OP I'd ask for a replacement under the CRA and quote the above. 

Trader is the expert so they should have checked the phone before selling it and, given the risk with such an item, documented such by way of photographic proof. 

PHK

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I struggle to see how the OP can take this forward with the retailer and provide sufficient evidence that the "not as it seems" phone is the actual phone the CEX store provided to the OP rather than the CEX counter-position that the OP did the swap to the "not as it seems" phone.

The possible options for S75 claim via the finance will also seemingly fail for the same reason.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/19

(14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

If I were OP I'd ask for a replacement under the CRA and quote the above. 

Trader is the expert so they should have checked the phone before selling it and, given the risk with such an item, documented such by way of photographic proof. 

I agree with you. 

The OP doesn't have to prove anything. 

If the retailer doesn't believe the OP then it's up to them to prove in court  the device they sold conformed to the contract. 

There are a lot of posts here which come down to criticism of the OPs choice of purchase or that they trusted the retailer. That's not MSE behaviour. 

poppy10_2

jasonwatkins said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

Is the assertion here that this is actually counterfeit hardware or a 1TB phone fraudulently sold as a 2TB one?

You are right, of course, you've done all kinds of wrong in this purchase - there's little point in listing how it should have gone.

The store will argue that the phone they sold you is not the phone you are seeking to return. I'm not seeing how you can counter this. Either the store management is complicit in the fraud or they have an employee who has swapped out the original legit phone with the one you bought. 

I'm not seeing any solution here other than Small Claims, either the threat of such or an actual judicial process where your word would need to be believed over that of the retailer.

I didn't know that CeX had a franchise model, does that mean that the claim is against CeXcorp or the individual franchisee? 

It's basically both.  It was sold as a 2TB phone and it was only 1TB in the settings and it's also a Chinese clone with an Android operating system skinned to look like iOS.

It won't even be a 1TB android phone. The storage capacity of these clone phones is always faked, as with USB drives and micro SD cards. It'll be a 32GB capacity phone at most. 

You still haven't explained why you would willingly hand over £1800 for a second hand phone you didn't bother to even turn on to see if it was working, when the brand new model is available from Apple for £1999. Ten per cent saving for a second hand phone hardly seems worth it even if it was a genuine item

Grumpy_chap

PHK said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I struggle to see how the OP can take this forward with the retailer and provide sufficient evidence that the "not as it seems" phone is the actual phone the CEX store provided to the OP rather than the CEX counter-position that the OP did the swap to the "not as it seems" phone.

The possible options for S75 claim via the finance will also seemingly fail for the same reason.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/19

(14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

If I were OP I'd ask for a replacement under the CRA and quote the above. 

Trader is the expert so they should have checked the phone before selling it and, given the risk with such an item, documented such by way of photographic proof. 

I agree with you. 

The OP doesn't have to prove anything. 

If the retailer doesn't believe the OP then it's up to them to prove in court  the device they sold conformed to the contract. 

There are a lot of posts here which come down to criticism of the OPs choice of purchase or that they trusted the retailer. That's not MSE behaviour. 

The issue here is that the retailer will present their evidence as per the receipt and the box that the phone provided was the one with IMEI "xxx" and that the phone the OP is returning is a different phone with IMEI "yyy".

No consumer rights extend to "goods not conforming" if the goods being returned are seemingly an entirely different item. 

In the case of a mobile phone, the limitation of "goods not conforming" might well be "box said 2TB but the actual phone was 1TB".

In this case, it would appear as though *someone* has been the victim of a crime and that *someone* should be reporting this as such to the Police.

Ergates

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I struggle to see how the OP can take this forward with the retailer and provide sufficient evidence that the "not as it seems" phone is the actual phone the CEX store provided to the OP rather than the CEX counter-position that the OP did the swap to the "not as it seems" phone.

The possible options for S75 claim via the finance will also seemingly fail for the same reason.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/19

(14)For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

If I were OP I'd ask for a replacement under the CRA and quote the above. 

Trader is the expert so they should have checked the phone before selling it and, given the risk with such an item, documented such by way of photographic proof. 

I don't think this will make any difference.   The retailer has clearly decided that OP is lying in an attempt to defraud them (despite what they might say) and clearly believes they have sufficient evidence to prove this.  No amount of rewording of the claim against them is going to change their minds on this key point.

Unless the OP can convince them that their evidence is either suspect or insufficient then I think their only option is legal action.   This will then come down to who the court believes.  It *sounds* like the OP would have a good case but a) IANAL and b) we're only getting OP's version of events here - so... who knows.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

I guess it’s a bit like a retailer saying something was in the parcel during packing, who is to say it wasn’t swapped/removed after or as the case may be here no one checked the actual phone. 

Would normally be a bit skeptical on something like this but I think a long term poster is very unlikely to post under the guise of trying to do a dodgy swap on a phone  

Letter before action to who ever the contract is with might prompt more of a response than given in store.

Ergates

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Would normally be a bit skeptical on something like this but I think a long term poster is very unlikely to post under the guise of trying to do a dodgy swap on a phone  

I think the court-case equivalent of this would form part of the case for the OP.  On balance of probability - would someone trying it on go as far as taking the retailer to court?

I'd say - probably not.   But maybe it happens all the time - who knows.  (Certainly not me)

jasonwatkins

Just to update, I did post about this on Reddit and I've received rather a lot of responses !

One in particular said that they'd had experience in chargeback cases and that the main thing I'd need is to get someone "with expertise" to write a note or email confirming that the phone is fake and that that should be sufficient proof to initiate a chargeback claim.

Someone else who apparently worked at a CEX franchise said that there would be an actual copy of the testing record for the phone which would have been signed by the person testing it and that I should request it but I'm not so sure the store would just hand it over.

I did start to think earlier on that maybe the fact that CEX had this phone on sale does mean that the store are telling the truth and that they did actually buy in a legitimate iPhone.

I've sold enough phones to CEX myself over the years to know how it works with them testing them and how they would often look for the tiniest of imperfections as a way of grading it down so they wouldn't have to pay you as much.

If they had followed the correct testing procedure on the device I have then it would have immediately been identified as a fake clone and it would have been rejected on the spot.

The fact it was bought in suggests that it had been passed by the tester.

Obviously that then opens up a few conspiracy theories that the tester knew it was fake and signed it off anyway or that a member of staff switched it out before it was given to me.

I've opened a complaints case with Resolver UK as well as CEX are apparently active with them.  I figured doing it that way would at least have an email trail to keep track of.

powerful_Rogue

jasonwatkins said:

Just to update, I did post about this on Reddit and I've received rather a lot of responses !

One in particular said that they'd had experience in chargeback cases and that the main thing I'd need is to get someone "with expertise" to write a note or email confirming that the phone is fake and that that should be sufficient proof to initiate a chargeback claim.

Someone else who apparently worked at a CEX franchise said that there would be an actual copy of the testing record for the phone which would have been signed by the person testing it and that I should request it but I'm not so sure the store would just hand it over.

I did start to think earlier on that maybe the fact that CEX had this phone on sale does mean that the store are telling the truth and that they did actually buy in a legitimate iPhone.

I've sold enough phones to CEX myself over the years to know how it works with them testing them and how they would often look for the tiniest of imperfections as a way of grading it down so they wouldn't have to pay you as much.

If they had followed the correct testing procedure on the device I have then it would have immediately been identified as a fake clone and it would have been rejected on the spot.

The fact it was bought in suggests that it had been passed by the tester.

Obviously that then opens up a few conspiracy theories that the tester knew it was fake and signed it off anyway or that a member of staff switched it out before it was given to me.

I've opened a complaints case with Resolver UK as well as CEX are apparently active with them.  I figured doing it that way would at least have an email trail to keep track of.

Pointless.

We don't act on your behalf and we don't take control of your complaint. Instead, we’ve set out to make it as easy as possible for you to get results.

Resolver is just a message forwarding system. No different to you contact CEX and having an email paper trail.