Faulty Mobile Phone

Xp132476

Hello All,

I'm after a bit of advice in regards to a new mobile phone, that has been faulty since purchase. The purchase was made directly with the manufacturer - Motorola in this case.

I raised a support ticket with Motorola within 30 days advising them of the faulty device. Whilst this would have given me the opportunity to request a full refund, I have requested a replacement device, which I am within my rights to do.

However, Motorola seem fixed on the solution whereby I return the phone and accessories for a refund of £450 (this was an introductory deal price). They then suggest I buy the phone and accessories again, which are now priced at £700. Just the £250 increase.

Despite my repeated stating of UK Consumer Rights Act 2015, Motorola will not budge and refuse to engage with my right to request a replacement of the mobile phone.

At this point, I am considering raising a claim with small claims court for the sum of £700 so I can then replace the device at no cost to myself. But I wanted to see if anyone more experienced has any thoughts before I start the small claims procedure.

Thank you.

Ayr_Rage

From my reading of the CRA you are entitled to a full refund for faulty goods which Motorola have offered.

You can request a repair or replacement but I cannot see that Motorola are compelled to accept your request.

TadleyBaggie

If you paid £450, it would be quite unreasonable to expect to get a refund/claim of £700. I think that Motorola has satisfied the CRA by offering a full refund.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81877356#Comment_81877356

If a refund is acceptable to OP then £450 would be the figure, rather than £700, but the consumer has the right to elect repair or replacement instead, and this is being denied by the trader….

Ayr_Rage

@eskbanker according to Which the retailer is not compelled by law to offer repair or replacement in the first 30 days.

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act-aKJYx8n5KiSl

Your right to a repair or replacement

You can state your preference, but the retailer can normally choose whichever would be cheapest or easier for it to do.

If the attempt at a repair or replacement is unsuccessful, you can then claim a refund or a price reduction if you wish to keep the product.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81877431#Comment_81877431

I believe that's reflecting CRA s23(3) and (4) regarding the retailer's choice between repair or replacement if one of those two options is disproportionate relative to the other.

Ergates

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81877312#Comment_81877312

No. Under the CRA the retailer is obliged to offer a repair OR replacement. The retailer can only insist on a refund if neither of these is possible.

If came to court I suspect that a retailer could probably successfully argue for a refund if a repair/replacement would be disproportionately costly (e.g. costing thousands of pounds to replace an item that was originally bought for £100), but this isn't actually supported by a very strict interpretation of the CRA.

From what we see on here, it's not uncommon for a retailer to jump straight to refund, and in most cases it's probably not worth litigating. However, in this case, where the retailer is essentially saying "we'll refund, just buy them again" then clearly the product is still available for sale, which means there is no reason for them to not offer a replacement.

Ectophile

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81877578#Comment_81877578

It's a lot more nuanced than you make out. Have a read of the actual law, not someone's interpretation of it:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/23

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

The consumer is entitled to repair / replace yet where that doesn’t occur the second tier remedy is final right to reject / price reduction.

There is however nothing to stop OP claiming damages, in contract the party suffering the breach should be in the position they would have had been in had the breach not occurred.

OP would need something to show the phone is faulty as the party making the claim but I assume a company like Motorola aren’t going to court over £250, which leads to the main point, CS have a script and will stick to it, OP have a look on the CEO email website and see if there is a contract email for a higher up level of customer service, (or ask ChatGPT to look for one).

Ergates

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81877803#Comment_81877803

"Have a read of the actual law,"
I have read it, why assume otherwise?

(3)The consumer cannot require the trader to repair or replace the goods if that remedy (the repair or the replacement)—

(a)is impossible, or

(b)is disproportionate compared to the other of those remedies.

(4)Either of those remedies is disproportionate compared to the other if it imposes costs on the trader which, compared to those imposed by the other, are unreasonable, taking into account—

(a)the value which the goods would have if they conformed to the contract,

(b)the significance of the lack of conformity, and

(c)whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

The law states that the consumer cannot insist on a repair OVER a replacement, or a replacement OVER a repair, if one would be disproportionately costly compared to the other. i.e. if a replacement would cost £1000 but a repair would be £100, then the consumer cannot insist on a replacement.

However, there is nothing in there that allows a retailer to refuse to do either (i.e. insist on a refund)- unless neither is possible. However, "possible" in this context has limitations. If a retailer (and it's usual suppliers) do not have an item in stock then they can say replacement is not possible - they'd not be expected to go trawling through ebay .

Xp132476

Thank you all for the replies, it is interesting reading on different interpretations of CRA.

I have had another update on my original support case, again they are passing this off again for TNT to organise a collection from me. No regard shown for repair or replacement options.

Having not had a reply off the original support case in around a month, a week ago I raised a new support case. Again quoting CRA and what I would like to see happen (replacement) although at this point a repair would be considered. In this new support case I gave a 14 day ultimatum before seeking legal advice. This clock still has around 7 days to go.

I do have legal advice via my AA membership so I will also consult with them. In any case, I have created a HM Courts & Tribunals account in case I need it 😉