Paying a bond to get your phone serviced?

Forums › Mobile handsets › Paying a bond to get your phone serviced?

1 | 2 | 3

462 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 13

# 252388 1-Sep-2009 19:54

I understand why they do it, and it's not that bigger deal. Just doesn't seem right to me...

And I'm interested to know what the law is

alasta

4327 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 880

Trusted

Subscriber

# 252390 1-Sep-2009 20:05

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?

billgates

3918 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

# 252423 1-Sep-2009 22:34

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?

How many reports have you seen of false accusations made by mobile repair agents claiming the phone was damaged by liquid or impact?

Seriously the number of fake warranty claims outweigh the number of people whose phone is genuinely at fault but have been told it's their fault.

I know MFR always take pics of liquid damaged phone so if someone requests to see a pic, they are shown one.

Do whatever you want to do man.

openmedia

2095 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 187

Trusted

# 252523 2-Sep-2009 12:04

I've known several people who have been informed that their phones have liquid damage when it wasn't the case. The Manufacturer (Nokia) asserted that the phone must have been used in a high humidity environment and refused to fix it.

Humid environment could mean a hot day in Auckland 5 minutes after it rained.

Generally known online as OpenMedia, now working for Red Hat APAC a Technology Evangelist and Product Manager. Still playing with MythTV and digital media on the side.

tonyhughes

Hawkes Bay
8477 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 252525 2-Sep-2009 12:16

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.

+1

Do not pay.

If it is under warranty, the RETAILER is obliged to make good.

Go hard or go home :o)

jaymz

1088 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 66

# 252535 2-Sep-2009 12:40

I had a similar thing with Leading Edge communications, but they did not make me pay, they just took my details and said that if the phone was damaged by water (which it hadn't) they would make me pay the $50 to get the phone back. Turns out it was a hardware issue that was covered under the warranty.

I know most new phones these days have white litmus paper stuck to various parts of the phone, it will turn red if it comes in contact with water and i mean a fully submergement in water. They put this measure in place so that retailers can quickly see if it is water damage before putting the phone in for warranty repairs (note the paper is normally under the battery)

If it doesnt say anywhere in the consumer acts about paying or not paying a bond then they don't really have a leg to stand on. Was there any fine print on the reciept when you brought the phone?

Ham

462 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 13

# 252547 2-Sep-2009 13:00

Shouldn't matter.. I don't think you can "contract out" of the CGA

Also it's meant to be a "splash resistant" model. Sonyericsson C702

Ham

462 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 13

# 252551 2-Sep-2009 13:06

Also if you don't legally need to give them a deposit then they are in breach of the Fair Trading Act in misguiding people about their rights and are liable for a hefty fine from the Consumer's Institute... Surely a big reputable company like Noel Leemings would have researched this?

jaymz

1088 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 66

# 252553 2-Sep-2009 13:08

Yeah, i'm no legal buff so i really don't know.

Maybe you will need to ask Noel Lemming why you have to pay $50 and get clarification from them about it.

I agree with you that it doesnt seem fair, but if the phone is faulty due to no fault of your own then there won't be anything to worry about.

The other option is to go with alasta's suggestion, surely they can't force you to pay if you can't afford it.

Ham

462 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 13

# 252554 2-Sep-2009 13:10

Yeah, as I said before... I know why, and it's only $50. I just wanted to get others opinions

Behodar

6633 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1322

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 252555 2-Sep-2009 13:17

My XT phone failed last month and the local Leading Edge said that (Telegistics?) policy is to take a bond. In my particular case it was waived as the guy had seen the same problem before and knew that it wasn't my own doing.

Ragnor

8033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 390

Trusted

# 252629 2-Sep-2009 16:00

Ham: Yeah, as I said before... I know why, and it's only $50. I just wanted to get others opinions

Your best bet would be to pose this question to consumer.org.nz or your local cab.org.nz if you are not a consumer member.

Kyanar

3082 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 500

Trusted

Subscriber

# 252687 2-Sep-2009 18:17

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).

I finally have fibre! Had to leave the country to get it though.

Aaroona

Human
2908 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 98

Subscriber

# 253041 3-Sep-2009 21:40

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

I have to agree with Paul here.

It was the same process with MFR and other providers (for other electronics as well).

The fee usually weeds out the people trying to get a replacement phone for damage that was caused by the owner.

I wouldnt worry too much about it. If your phone is very much faulty as a manufacturer defect, then theres no issue.

Just one thing to note; personally, before sending my items away for repair - I take photos of the condition they are in (and with cellphones, I take a photo of the moisture thing near the battery).

Call me paranoid, but I have had some bad experiences in the past. This has insured that there is no foul play.
I understand that this is offtopic and im sorry for that, but i just thought i'd let you know.

Bottom line is - If its broke, and you didnt do it, pay the bond. They'll only give it back anyway.
Hey, when you go to pick it up, that money for the bond will buy you lunch to celebrate ;)

Aaroona

Human
2908 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 98

Subscriber

# 253045 3-Sep-2009 21:46

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).

I understand what you're saying here, however, how do you distinguish between accidental water damage, and that of being left in a car overnight? - If the water label is changed colour, they wont service it.

I could easily "accidentally" spill a little bit of water on my phone, kill it, and say well, i left it in the car..

Does that entitle me to a "free" repair? or new phone?

Call me crazy, but I for one dont mind paying the bond. I've never had an issue paying it when ive needed to, and I still don't have an issue with it now, talking about it.

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

This maybe me just being nit picking, but is it actually law, or is it just simply opinion? Because there is a large difference (I havent personally looked into it, but would be interesting to know)

1 | 2 | 3