Motorola Warranty

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81862616#Comment_81862616

Yes - I don't think the OP mentioned a warranty originally, only the CRA, and I don't think they mentioned sending it to Motorola themself

thehig

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81862616#Comment_81862616

Mistake in OP, Currys didn't send it I did

thehig

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81863032#Comment_81863032

The CRA presumption can only be rebutted with evidence, not an unreasoned classification.

A repair centre stating its physical damage without diagnostics, impact analysis, or explanation does not automatically establish that the goods conformed to contract at purchase.(This is the only information on my report, no pictures, no information, nothing. The minimum I'll get from this is evidence from the repair centre.

Even if minor trauma is present, the question remains whether the device should reasonably withstand normal handling. Foldable screens can fail from disproportionately small stress.

Balance of probabilities applies after evidence is presented, not instead of it

If evidence does get present by repair centre. I suspect this case won't go anywhere, but so far they haven't

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81863047#Comment_81863047

TBH, given you quoting of the CRA. Just take it back to Currys under CRA.

But given the recent "it was sent under warranty" yourself on advice of currys. If currys get a copy of the report that this is user damage. Given that is from the manufacture. You are going to have to prove it is not.

You seem to think that they should be telling you exactly what the problem is. They have said user damage, they do not have to spell out exactly what caused it. From their testing etc, they know it is not a manufacturing fault.

thehig

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81863166#Comment_81863166

Section 19(14) — Trader must prove goods conformed to contract

• Section 19(15) — Presumption of fault within 6 months
• Section 19(3) — CRA rights are in addition to warranty
• Section 9(1–2) — Goods must be of satisfactory quality
• Section 23(2) — Trader must justify refusal of repair

These are the legal foundations for my case from the CRA, a blank report from a company working for the manufacturer with no information isn't evidence or proof of misuse which Currys will need to demonstrate to reject my claim

born_again

So what proof do you think would be enough to prove user error/abuse?

thehig

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81863457#Comment_81863457

Probably a photo at minimum (they haven't even provided this)

sheramber

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81863605#Comment_81863605

A photo of the unresponsive screen and a report saying user damage?

visidigi

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81863609#Comment_81863609

I think this is a little unfair. The OP is asking for proof its user damage, if the screen is unresponsive and the device has zero damage to the original installed state then thats not going to be user damage - thats going to be the part failing.

e.g. the water indicators have triggered, the screen has a crack etc.

I'm with the OP - they have to demonstate why its user damage - lets face it, the warranty repair for these companies is no where near as profitable as out of warranty repairs.

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81863641#Comment_81863641

I think the problem is the OP came here seemingly under the impression that under the 6 month "reverse burden of proof" he had a slam dunk case unless Currys could provide conclusive proof that he had damaged the phone himself

I think what other posters (certainly me) have tried to point out to him is that (1) Curry's only need to establish on the balance of probabilities that the phone was fault free whan they sold it to the him, it doesn't have to be conclusive; (2) that a report from a phone repairer can be admitted as evidence that the damage, on the balance of probabailities, is post-sale; and (3) Currys don't have to prove that the OP himself damaged it - just that it was, on the balance of probabilities, OK when they sold it.

The OP seems - or seemed - to believe that the result of the repairer's investigation of the phone on its own ("broken/physical damage") could not amount to evidence. Other posters have pointed out that it might not be as straightforward as that and that a court could well accept it as evidence

I'm certainly not commenting on whether the fault in the OP's phone was more or less likely to be present when he bought it. I'm simply suggesting he might be naive to just write off the repairer's report as not being evidence or proof of anything

(I'm not certain but the OP seems to be relying on the fact that what he's been told of the repairer's report is just a conclusion - "broken/physical damage" - and that a conclusion can't be evidence without knowing what that conclusion is based on. I don't know if that is right or not, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the repaier could produce a full report showing what their conclusion is based on. Or maybe they can't. Only they know for sure)