Phone bootlooped within warranty, should I deal with LG or NoelLeeming?

Forums › Off topic › Phone bootlooped within warranty, should I deal with LG or NoelLeeming?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

1014 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1963110 23-Feb-2018 17:51

dt:

cadman:

While I agree with your points, the charge is intended as a deterrent to those in society that, knowing full well they've wrecked it themselves, and instead of accepting responsibility for their actions and the consequences, will still try and claim there's a warranty related fault in the hope it slips through. These selfish mongrels are very hard to get money out of for the assessment when the goods are determined to be user damaged and ultimately that cost is carried by the supplier and passed onto honest people.

...the service agent charges a $55 inspection fee if the repair isn't covered under warranty, which they charge the retailer for and the retailer is to recover the the inspection costs from the customer.

Which is exactly what I said only in a different way.

Dial111

978 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1963121 23-Feb-2018 18:20

cadman:
dt:

cadman:

While I agree with your points, the charge is intended as a deterrent to those in society that, knowing full well they've wrecked it themselves, and instead of accepting responsibility for their actions and the consequences, will still try and claim there's a warranty related fault in the hope it slips through. These selfish mongrels are very hard to get money out of for the assessment when the goods are determined to be user damaged and ultimately that cost is carried by the supplier and passed onto honest people.

...the service agent charges a $55 inspection fee if the repair isn't covered under warranty, which they charge the retailer for and the retailer is to recover the the inspection costs from the customer.

Which is exactly what I said only in a different way.

Ahh that's not entirely true..

Your reasoning is the charge is a deterrent when in fact it's actually a charge to cover a cost, there's no secret agenda behind it at all. It can act as a deterrent but it's not intended to be one.

pctek

807 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1963155 23-Feb-2018 19:18

Taubin:. I contacted LG, and they want me to take it to some repair place in Mt. Wellington.

I see that Noel Leeming charges a refundable $55 fee to check phones and see if they are under warranty (this is a very well known issue).

NL if you want to go by CGA.

LG if you don't want the argument.

Personally I'd go with NL< talk to the manager and tell him bollocks to the fee and mention CGA...usually makes them stop farting around with you

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1963191 23-Feb-2018 20:43

Dial111:
cadman:

dt:

cadman:

While I agree with your points, the charge is intended as a deterrent to those in society that, knowing full well they've wrecked it themselves, and instead of accepting responsibility for their actions and the consequences, will still try and claim there's a warranty related fault in the hope it slips through. These selfish mongrels are very hard to get money out of for the assessment when the goods are determined to be user damaged and ultimately that cost is carried by the supplier and passed onto honest people.

...the service agent charges a $55 inspection fee if the repair isn't covered under warranty, which they charge the retailer for and the retailer is to recover the the inspection costs from the customer.

Which is exactly what I said only in a different way.

Ahh that's not entirely true..

Your reasoning is the charge is a deterrent when in fact it's actually a charge to cover a cost, there's no secret agenda behind it at all. It can act as a deterrent but it's not intended to be one.

It's intended as a deterrent by ensuring the dishonest have some skin in the game and therefore something to lose.

qwertee

709 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1963205 23-Feb-2018 22:11

In this vein, I had an LG G3 and an LG G4, both started with the bootloop symptoms. The G3 now doesnt turn on and if you connect the charger, it will

display a blue screen for a while at times.

They well over 2 years old and I approached LG and after about 3 chat sessions, passing the invoices and IMEI numbers,

they told me to send it to FoneFix.

I am waiting for FoneFix to assess.

cheers

lxsw20

3552 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1963233 23-Feb-2018 23:55

I used to work for the repair company of a major laptop brand in NZ. Our turn around time was 3 days for most consumer stuff, parts allowing. Retailers would wait until they had 3-4 to drop off/pick up before collecting, so it it would always take 2 weeks or so for the end user to get their laptop back from when they dropped it off to retailer.

jjnz1

1363 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1963284 24-Feb-2018 08:25

So for a faster turn around, go straight to a licenced repair agent.

Does that mean I could send an imported LG phone to a licenced repair agent and get it repaired under warranty too? I am assuming you don't need to show your Noel Leeming receipt?

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

gregmcc

2147 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1963296 24-Feb-2018 08:48

Take it to the retailer, that's why you paid retail so they deal with the problems.

Unless you agreed prior to the sale of the phone there should not be a $55 upfront payment, and no the store cannot add terms and conditions AFTER the sale, this includes stapling a bit of paper to the receipt to inform you of this $55 fee. I've also had the "store policy" excuse as well, store policy or not it can't override sale and purchase conditions.

Had a similar problem, a Samsung phone brought from VF, failed after 3 months, told to take it back to the nearest VF store, got told the $55 upfront payment, was told it was in the sale and purchase conditions, asked them to show me where, they couldn't, then it was the "store policy". My solution, attached contact details/account details and set a time frame of 2 weeks for repair, simply dropped it off in store and walked out, 2 weeks later after no contact rang VF and asked where it was. Got the usual run around, so simply told them, refund, repair or replace, you've had it for 2 weeks what is your choice, want an answer by 5pm next day or there will be a TDR complaint, sure enough next day got a call to uplift a new replacement phone.

Short story is, go armed with the facts and knowledge of the fair trading act, don't stand for the stores line of BS and stand up for your rights. Be fair, be firm, be be prepared to step it up to the next level if need be.

The store is in the retail game, if their retail margin isn't good enough to cover their costs, why should it be your problem

Dial111

978 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1963305 24-Feb-2018 09:25

cadman:
Dial111:
cadman:

dt:

cadman:

While I agree with your points, the charge is intended as a deterrent to those in society that, knowing full well they've wrecked it themselves, and instead of accepting responsibility for their actions and the consequences, will still try and claim there's a warranty related fault in the hope it slips through. These selfish mongrels are very hard to get money out of for the assessment when the goods are determined to be user damaged and ultimately that cost is carried by the supplier and passed onto honest people.

...the service agent charges a $55 inspection fee if the repair isn't covered under warranty, which they charge the retailer for and the retailer is to recover the the inspection costs from the customer.

Which is exactly what I said only in a different way.

Ahh that's not entirely true..

Your reasoning is the charge is a deterrent when in fact it's actually a charge to cover a cost, there's no secret agenda behind it at all. It can act as a deterrent but it's not intended to be one.

It's intended as a deterrent by ensuring the dishonest have some skin in the game and therefore something to lose.

Do you have a link to that claim, because as far as I can see, what your saying is only an opinion and not fact

Dial111

978 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1963309 24-Feb-2018 09:33

@cadman an inspection is just that, an inspection fee. It's not a deterrent fee, it's a cost to the repair agent for their time to assess and determine what is wrong.

-sauce: mate is owner operator for Dr Mobiles.

gregmcc

2147 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1963320 24-Feb-2018 10:05

Dial111: @cadman an inspection is just that, an inspection fee. It's not a deterrent fee, it's a cost to the repair agent for their time to assess and determine what is wrong.

-sauce: mate is owner operator for Dr Mobiles.

that's fair enough, but it's between the repair agent and the retailer, quite frequently the retailer does not have in place an agreement with the customer to make this charge before the phone is sent away for inspection. Again what it seems to come down to is the retailer isn't building enough margin in to their products to cover this sort of thing, this is not the consumers problem that the retailers can't get their numbers right

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1963672 25-Feb-2018 00:10

Dial111: @cadman an inspection is just that, an inspection fee. It's not a deterrent fee, it's a cost to the repair agent for their time to assess and determine what is wrong.

-sauce: mate is owner operator for Dr Mobiles.

I know what the fee covers. But it's used by the retailers at the time the phone is accepted as a deterrent to those who will try anything.

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1963673 25-Feb-2018 00:16

Dial111: Do you have a link to that claim, because as far as I can see, what your saying is only an opinion and not fact

No, I don't have a link to common sense.

It's not always required up front by the retailer. It didn't used to be required, ever, until after the fault was found to be non-warranty. But retailers found that people didn't want to pay and just abandoned the goods and the retailers were left out of pocket.

Pretty straight forward, eh?

Dial111

978 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1963688 25-Feb-2018 01:31

I don't think you quite understand how a business operates, let me reiterate, it is NOT intended as a deterrent because it is a COST regardless of the outcome to the repair agent. It doesn't matter if it's a phone, a TV or a microwave, the cost of time to inspect has to be passed back to someone.

Now at any stage of the process that the cost is passed back is irrelevant. Whether the retailer informs the customer before sending away or after it it has been inspected the cost is still there.

Now going back to you saying it's a deterrent. Who is the retailer trying deter because I bet they don't pick and choose who they inform that if not a warranty issue, you will be liable for the inspection fee. Teenagers, elderly, all walks of life I bet it's the same policy for all. You following yet?

Now I work in the tyre industry as a wholesaler, if my customer brings back a 3 month old impact gun saying it's lost grunt and can I send it away under warranty to be inspected I say sure, but if it's a fault caused by misuse you will be liable for the inspection fee and the repair if you choose so. If warranty, the cost is passed back to the manufacturer.

What you're failing to understand is, its not intended as a deterrent because it's a cost to the repair agent. If it deters people trying it on then ok great but regardless the cost goes to someone either way.

If you don't get it then it's obvious your either never going to get it or your too stubborn to realise that it's just part of the warranty procedure.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1963706 25-Feb-2018 07:52

Taubin:
Thanks everyone, I took it up to Noel Leeming. They didn't charge me a fee, which is good. They said they quote two weeks for repairs, but can't guarantee that. While I was talking to the lady, a guy came up for a pick up, looked over, and went "Booloop eh? My friend had a N5X that did that on him last week, LG gave him the runaround, good luck!" So I think I went the right way.

The place LG suggested to take it into was FoneFix. Probably not dodgy, but the name just sounded dodgy to me. A lot of places in the states that have names like that are super dodgy so I tend to avoid them. I also didn't want to have to find a way into Mt Wellington, it's not super far, but NL is much closer for me. Hopefully they'll be quick about it. Now I just have to find a cheap phone to use in the meantime, as my Nexus 5 is acting up as well (after being in the closet for nearly 2 years).

In a similar situation, I took my Huawei Mate 8 into NL’s for repair (weird dark patches on the screen). Still under warranty, they didn’t make me pay a bond, sent it off to Fonefix (they’re the authorised repairer for many brands - check their website), and had it back within the same week.

Since then I’ve dropped the phone and broke the screen - I used Fonefix again to ensure the warranty was retained. Sent in and returned by courier, again within a week.

So, yeah, I was happy with dealing directly with the retailer, plus have no probs recommending Fonefix.

That said, the screen’s developed the same problem, so I’ll be testing this service for a third time soon!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5