Faulty Handsets Introduction This webpage sets out our main considerations when investigating complaints about faulty handsets. Our jurisdiction Mobile providers are required to offer alternative dispute resolution for complaints that concern how a customer accesses and uses their network. This includes complaints about billing, network coverage and sales. Handsets are often included alongside contracts and the price is included in the overall monthly cost. However, mobile providers are not required to offer alternative dispute resolution for complaints that solely concern a mobile handset. Most mobile providers allow us to consider these complaints, but a small number have decided not to do so. If you are unsure if your communications provider offers alternative dispute resolution for handset complaints, you can contact our enquiry team for advice. What to do when your handset is faulty If your handset develops a fault, we recommend that you report it to your provider as soon as possible. Your communications provider will likely ask you to perform some basic tests, and may ask you to send the handset to it for repair. If it is necessary to send your handset away, some companies will provide customers with a loan handset. However, loan handsets are subject to availability and there is usually no requirement to provide one. Warranties When we review complaints about faulty handsets, we consider both the legal and regulatory obligations of the communications provider, as well as the terms and conditions of the contract. The legal obligations include consideration of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The protection provided by a warranty is in addition to the rights provided by the Consumer Rights Act. Customers can choose to pursue a claim by either route. A warranty means that if a fault develops during the warranty period, you will be entitled to a free repair or replacement. However, the nature of the fault is important, as warranties do not cover faults caused by mis-use or accidental damage. Outside of a warranty, the company may still offer a repair but the service is likely to be chargeable. Many manufacturers will provide a warranty that covers the length of the agreement (a maximum of 24 months) but some will not. A communications provider is not required to offer a warranty that lasts the full length of the contract.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 The Consumer Rights Act 2015 came into force on 1 October 2015, superseding the Sale of Goods Act. The Sale of Goods Act still applies to all purchases made prior to 1 October 2015. It is important to note that our service is not the same as a court of law. We are not able to determine if a communications provider has broken the law. However, we will use the principles of the Consumer Rights Act to aid our decision making when appropriate. The Act states that all goods must be of satisfactory quality and applies to the retailer, not the manufacturer. This means your rights are against the company that sold you the mobile, not the company that made it. It does not mean a retailer cannot refer you to a manufacturer, as this can sometimes bring about a quicker resolution. However, it does mean you have the right to insist the retailer deals with the matter on your behalf if you wish. If you believe the company has supplied faulty equipment, you may have a claim under the Act. The Act does not provide redress for fair wear and tear, misuse or accidental damage, or if you change your mind. Under the Act, you have 30 days to reject goods if they are faulty. This is known as the right to reject. After this time, there is no automatic right to a refund. If any fault develops up to six months after purchase, it is assumed inherent to the product. This means it was present at the time of delivery. It is up to the company to prove this was not the case and that the goods were of satisfactory quality when it sold them. The company will usually ask for an opportunity to inspect the goods, and may complete an investigation before deciding whether it accepts it provided a faulty product. After six months, the burden of proof changes and it is up to you to prove that the goods were not of satisfactory quality when purchased. To do this, you will usually need to provide evidence from an independent specialist or the manufacturer. If it is accepted that the goods are faulty, then you are entitled to have them repaired or replaced. The company is not required to replace a faulty handset with a brand new handset, as it is acceptable to provide a like for like replacement. The Act states that you must allow the company one attempt to repair or replace the item. If a repair or replacement is not possible, or the attempt at repair fails, or the first replacement also turns out to be defective, you have a further right to reject the goods for a full refund (up to six months) or partial refund (after six months). You also have up to six years (five in Scotland) to make a claim under the Act. Decision making principles With this in mind, we have general principles that we apply when investigating complaints about faulty handsets: We expect customers to report faults promptly and allow reasonable attempts at a resolution. This may involve following technical advice given over the telephone or
allowing an attempt to physically repair the handset. If a customer refused to allow their mobile provider an opportunity to fix the fault, we would be unlikely to criticise the company. We expect communications providers to investigate complaints about faulty handsets appropriately. We expect all companies to follow the terms and conditions of their contracts and comply with all legal and regulatory responsibilities. If available, we would expect a communications provider to supply a loan phone during any repair. However, we accept there is no requirement to do so. If there is a dispute concerning whether or not a fault should be covered by the warranty, we will consider the terms of the warranty and the nature of the problem. We would expect a communications provider to supply any engineer s reports from its repair centre. We would also consider any evidence the customer can provide, such as reports from independent specialists or the manufacturer. If a customer has reported faults with their handset in the past, we will consider if this is a recurring fault or a new issue. If the problem is recurring, we will consider why previous attempts at resolution have failed. We may recommend an alternative remedy, such as providing a different handset or allowing cancellation of the contract. Occasionally, we encounter instances when a customer has approached a manufacturer directly to report a fault, and the manufacturer has supplied a replacement handset. We consider that if this replacement were to become faulty, the responsibility would lie with the manufacturer and not the communications provider. Case studies Below are two case studies of complaints we have recently investigated. They demonstrate the approach we take to different types of faulty handset complaints and outline the decisions we reached. 1. The complaint The customer s handset suffered from an electrical fault. The customer contacted their communications provider who told the customer to contact the handset manufacturer directly. The customer did this and the manufacturer arranged to repair the phone. While the customer waited for the repair, they made several visits to different stores to obtain a loan handset. The manufacturer returned the handset after three weeks but the fault remained. The customer then contacted the communications provider again, who sent the handset for a further repair and was able to resolve the matter within a week. The customer asked for a goodwill award due to the time and trouble experienced along with a letter of apology. The company s position
The company said it could not find any evidence whereby it told the customer to contact the manufacturer directly, but it confirmed the manufacturer had reported the phone was beyond economical repair. When the customer contacted the company, it diagnosed and repaired the handset within a week. It accepted the customer did not have the handset for three weeks while it was with the manufacturer, but stated this was out if its control. Our decision We explained the customer s rights in line with the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The customer was one year and five months into their 24 month contract with the company. Therefore, the customer would not have been entitled to return the phone for a new replacement, or their money back, as it fell outside of the 30 day returns policy. However, the handset was still covered by the manufacturer s warranty, which was 24 months. We accepted the customer contacted a number of stores before they were able to obtain a loan phone. We considered the company s terms and conditions, but there was no obligation for the company to provide a replacement phone during a repair. We could see the main delay was due to the manufacturer and not the communications provider. We noted the company resolved the issue within one week whereas the manufacturer retained the handset for three weeks without repairing the fault. While the company had previously applied a credit to the account as a gesture of goodwill, we recommended an additional award due to the inconvenience caused. We accepted that the company informed the customer to contact the manufacturer to facilitate the repair, which caused a delay in resolving the issue. In addition, our award acknowledged that the company failed to manage the customer s expectations concerning the availability of a loan phone. 2. The complaint The customer visited the provider s retail store as their handset made calls when the handset was in their pocket. The store advisor attempted to resolve the issue but instead caused the handset to lock permanently. The company provided the customer with a loan handset while it fixed the issue. When the company returned the handset, the issue was fixed but the customer found that it had cleared all data from the handset. Therefore, the customer asked for a financial award due to the time and trouble caused. The company s position The company explained that an investigation by its complaint team found that the store advisor caused the customer s handset to lock permanently. The company sent the handset for repair but in doing so, the handset s memory and data would need to be wiped from the device in order to complete a factory reset and remove the permanent lock. It applied a 200 credit to the account due to the incorrect action and inconvenience caused. Our decision
We accepted the customer had experienced a significant shortfall in service due to the store advisor incorrectly locking the customer s handset. We could not confirm what was discussed in-store regarding the data that was held on the handset prior to the company sending the handset away for repair. It is reasonable to suggest the company would inform the customer to make sure that they back up their contacts, photos or anything else they may want to keep before sending the handset for repair. We were satisfied that given the incorrect action taken by the company and inconvenience caused, the complaint did warrant a financial award. However, we considered the goodwill credit already applied to the customer s account was reasonable in this instance.