![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
PaulBrislen: I've seen this a lot - they charge the fee up front because you'll be amazed how many people drop their phone in the toilet (or similar) and then try to dry it off and take it in for repair "under warranty".
When told their $200 is out of warranty and will cost at least $200 to repair, they typically don't bother. Yet the agent is out of pocket for the cost of the assessment (which they have to pay regardless).
alasta:PaulBrislen: I've seen this a lot - they charge the fee up front because you'll be amazed how many people drop their phone in the toilet (or similar) and then try to dry it off and take it in for repair "under warranty".
When told their $200 is out of warranty and will cost at least $200 to repair, they typically don't bother. Yet the agent is out of pocket for the cost of the assessment (which they have to pay regardless).
The flip side of this is that the consumer may pay the $50 assessment fee in good faith and then be told that their device is liquid or impact damaged when in fact it was not. You only have to look at the numerous reports here of devices being falsely reported by the repairer as liquid or impact damaged.
Either way, one of the two parties is bearing some risk here. Why should it necessarily have to be the consumer?
Generally known online as OpenMedia, now working for Red Hat APAC as a Technology Evangelist and Portfolio Architect. Still playing with MythTV and digital media on the side.
alasta: Tell them that you can't afford to pay the bond and that you do not expect to forfeit your consumer rights simply because of your inability to pay it. Stand up to them, and if they refuse then they are being unfair and unreasonable.
Ham: Yeah, as I said before... I know why, and it's only $50. I just wanted to get others opinions
PaulBrislen: I've seen this a lot - they charge the fee up front because you'll be amazed how many people drop their phone in the toilet (or similar) and then try to dry it off and take it in for repair "under warranty".
When told their $200 is out of warranty and will cost at least $200 to repair, they typically don't bother. Yet the agent is out of pocket for the cost of the assessment (which they have to pay regardless).
This way at least they aren't out for the fee.
Cheers
Paul
PaulBrislen: I've seen this a lot - they charge the fee up front because you'll be amazed how many people drop their phone in the toilet (or similar) and then try to dry it off and take it in for repair "under warranty".
When told their $200 is out of warranty and will cost at least $200 to repair, they typically don't bother. Yet the agent is out of pocket for the cost of the assessment (which they have to pay regardless).
This way at least they aren't out for the fee.
Cheers
Paul
Kyanar:PaulBrislen: I've seen this a lot - they charge the fee up front because you'll be amazed how many people drop their phone in the toilet (or similar) and then try to dry it off and take it in for repair "under warranty".
When told their $200 is out of warranty and will cost at least $200 to repair, they typically don't bother. Yet the agent is out of pocket for the cost of the assessment (which they have to pay regardless).
This way at least they aren't out for the fee.
Cheers
Paul
Sorry Paul, and you billgates, but tough kibbles. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs (who enforce the CGA) and Consumer's Institute are both of the opinion that it is not OK to charge an assessment fee for repairs that the supplier is obliged to undertake under law. Heck, you aren't even required to go through "assessment" processes, if you can provide suitable proof that the fault is probably covered under the CGA - to the place of purchase, not the repair agent.
Also, "water damage" is not an acceptable side-step of the supplier's obligations if the phone has been used normally (so leaving it in the car overnight or using it with sweaty hands and it dying of "water damage" is covered by law and must be fixed or remedied free of charge).
Kyanar:
The Ministry of Consumer Affairs (who enforce the CGA) and Consumer's Institute are both of the opinion that it is not OK to charge an assessment fee
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |