Motorola Warranty

thehig

Hi all, looking for some guidance on a warranty/consumer rights issue.

I bought a Motorola Razr 60 Ultra from Currys/Carphone Warehouse in September, so it’s under 6 months old. A few weeks ago the screen suddenly developed white streaks, fuzzy green distortion and became unresponsive. There’s no crack, no drop, no visible damage. The only thing I can think of is normal pocket pressure, but nothing excessive.

Currys sent it to SBE (Motorola’s repair partner). SBE have now rejected it as “broken/physical damage” and issued a repair quote for £251, or £30 just to return it unrepaired. They haven’t provided any evidence of damage beyond that label.

From what I understand:

• Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, because the phone is under 6 months old, the burden of proof is on the retailer (Currys), not me.
• I don’t have to prove I didn’t damage it — Currys must prove that I did.
• Internal screen failure with no crack is often an inherent fault, especially on foldables.
• Normal pocket pressure counts as normal use, not misuse.
• SBE’s “physical damage” label isn’t evidence unless they can show actual signs of misuse.
• My contract for the handset is with Currys, not Motorola, so Currys are the ones legally responsible for resolving this.

My intention is to push Currys to take responsibility under the Consumer Rights Act, instruct SBE to return the device without charge, and either repair or replace it unless they can provide proper evidence of misuse. I’m expecting Motorola/SBE to double down, so I’m planning to escalate through Currys’ complaints process, and if needed, go to Citizens Advice and ADR.

Before I do that, I’d appreciate any input from people who’ve dealt with Currys/SBE/Motorola on similar cases, or anyone who can confirm whether my understanding of the law is correct and whether I’m approaching this the right way.

Thanks in advance.

Ergates

"I don’t have to prove I didn’t damage it — Currys must prove that I did."

Yes, but - a report from a 3rd party phone repair engineer saying it's physical damage is evidence that you did.

"SBE’s “physical damage” label isn’t evidence unless they can show actual signs of misuse."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. A phone repair engineer has inspected the phone and concluded that it has suffered physical damage. What more evidence are you expecting?

thehig

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81861937#Comment_81861937

Under the Consumer Rights Act, a retailer can only reject a claim within 6 months if they can prove misuse. A repair centre’s opinion is not proof unless it’s supported by objective evidence like photos of cracks, impact points, bending, liquid ingress, etc.(there won't be any of this)

SBE’s physical damage label is extremely broad & often applied to internal screen failures with no visible damage. Without actual evidence of misuse, Currys cannot rely on that alone to deny my statutory rights

Ergates

" A repair centre’s opinion is not proof unless it’s supported by objective evidence like photos of cracks, impact points, bending, liquid ingress"

Is it not? Upon what basis are you making that assertion?

"SBE’s physical damage label is extremely broad & often applied to internal screen failures with no visible damage."

Say's who?

Bear in mind that this isn't a criminal case. Therefore, if this goes to court, it doesn't have to be proved "beyond all reasonable doubt" just "on balance of probability".

If Currys have a report from someone who's job it is to repair phones, then their opinion on the matter would probably be accepted as that of an expert. And if that report says "The phone has been damaged" then the court is probably going to accept that. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.

The long and the short of it is: Currys have a report that says that you broke the phone. On that basis, they're not responsible for repairing or replacing it. If you dispute the findings in that report then you're going to have to get the phone back and take it to a different phone repair place to get a second opinion. OR gather sufficient other evidence that the original report is unreliable or incorrect.

thehig

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81861975#Comment_81861975

"Is it not, upon what basis are you making this assertion?"

I’m basing it on how the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is applied in practice in disputes & ADR/small claims cases. Within the first 6 months, the retailer has to prove misuse, not just assert it. A repair centre’s opinion can form part of that, but on its own without photos, diagnostics or clear evidence of impact/bending/liquid it’s treated as an assertion, not conclusive proof. Courts and ADR generally expect objective evidence, not just a one‑line “physical damage” label from a contractor working for the manufacturer.

"Says who"

Based on the pattern of cases reported across MoneySavingExpert, Reddit (r/LegalAdviceUK, r/UKPersonalFinance, r/Android) &Trustpilot. There are many examples where SBE classified internal screen failures especially on flip phones as physical damage even when there was no visible external damage.

I’m not saying they’re always wrong, only that the label is broad and often applied to faults that aren’t caused by misuse. That’s why objective evidence is needed rather than the label alone

"If Currys have a report from someone who's job it is to repair phones, then their opinion on the matter would probably be accepted as that of an expert. And if that report says "The phone has been damaged" then the court is 

probably

 going to accept that. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary"

What your saying here is the opposite to what the consumer rights act says, the burden of proof isn't on me to prove I didn't misuse it, it's on them.

flaneurs_lobster

I never take out accidental damage insurance for any gadget - with the sole exception of my folding phone (mine's the Samsung).

The technology is such that there is a reasonable chance that a flexible glass screen will suffer some kind of damage or failure, it's the nature of the thing. And the hinge is difficult to protect with a cover without restricting the folding mechanism.

If you are spending a grand on this kind of phone, £8/mth is probably a reasonable running cost.

thehig

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81862036#Comment_81862036

Words of wisdom here, I absolutely wish I'd took out the extended warranty.

But I didn't, will from now on, I'm just left attempting to fight this & see were I can get

Ergates

What your saying here is the opposite to what the consumer rights act says, the burden of proof isn't on me to prove I didn't misuse it, it's on them.

No, what I'm saying is that any decision in court on a dispute like this would be based on balance of probability. What the balance of probability is will be decided by what evidence is provided by both sides.

On their side they have a professional phone repair engineer who says "In my professional opinion this phone has been damaged"

On your side you have "I didn't damage it, honest guv"

So, yes, they do have to prove (on balance of probability) that you damaged it. But that's exactly what they've done in the absence of anything else you can provide. It's not likely that reddit posts will be taken into consideration.

If you believe that your word will be taken over the word of the phone repair person, then go ahead and start proceedings. Personally I'd suggest you take steps to gather more supporting evidence for your side of the case - e.g. a second opinion from a different phone repair person.

thehig

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81862054#Comment_81862054

Balance of probabilities only applies after the retailer has provided evidence to rebut the legal presumption in the first 6 months.

Under the Consumer Rights Act, the fault is legally presumed to be inherent unless the retailer can prove misuse with objective evidence. A repair centre’s opinion is not evidence unless it’s supported by diagnostics, photos, or visible signs of damage.

Given they havnt supplied anything of this nature, does raise suspicions

So the burden isn’t on me to disprove their opinion it’s on the retailer to provide actual proof

Okell

@thehig - "…What your saying here is the opposite to what the consumer rights act says, the burden of proof isn't on me to prove I didn't misuse it, it's on them"

In the case of faults that arise within 6 months of purchase, what the CRA actually does is create a rebuttable presumption in the consumer's favour that the item was faulty at purchase.

The trader can rebut that presumption by, for example, presenting evidence that the item has been misused by the consumer or otherwise suffered damage since purchase.

As @Ergates says, the trader only has to "establish" that it has been misused or damaged since purchase on the balance of possibilities, not beyond doubt.

thehig

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81862097#Comment_81862097

My point is, the quote I got doesn't do this, so far they havnt Established it's been misused or damaged by me