Consumer Guarantees Act + Harvey Norman + Nokia

Forums › Off topic › Consumer Guarantees Act + Harvey Norman + Nokia

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 8

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#432637 29-Jan-2011 18:47

BiDi: OK

Once again, I'd be interested in any advice or opinions.

Oh, and thanks to all who responded to the first posting!

When you say it looks well used, does this mean that it has been dropped and has external damage? I am not sure if they have shock indicators in them, however if it doesn't look in good condition, this may work against you, rather than it looking in mint condition. If it has been dropped it probably wouldn't be covered even if it was within the warranty period. If it has been dropped, something inside may have moved, causing the button to stop working. It does sound like an unusual problem. What model of phone is it, because you could google the model and problem to see if anyone else has had the problem.

Dunnersfella

4100 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887

#432648 29-Jan-2011 19:03

If the exterior condition of the phone is poor - I believe you may well be pushing against the current here.
Lesson to be learned - buy a phone that can have a case, so if something goes wrong you can remove the case and it looks perfect... that takes out any too'ing and fro'ing.

Unfortunately, the customer will always believe that the phone has been perfectly looked after (even if it hasn't) and the store will think the phone hasn't been (even if it has).

BrentR

1315 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 75

Trusted

#432665 29-Jan-2011 20:01

Hi BiDi,

The fault described sounds as though more than usual pressure has been applied to the power switch which has in turn pushed it off the PCB. As such, this is usually determined as impact damage.

Could you please PM me the handset details

IMEI
Repair job numbers (if any)

I'll have a look at the repair notes and confirm for you.

Brent

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

#432667 29-Jan-2011 20:11

SHOCKING! The Nokia rep is on deck, but here the hell is the HN rep?

Great to see a vendor stepping up to back up representation on their product, but what crap retail service.

Perhaps they'd like me to spend my next $4k with someone else?

A mobile phone that doesn't stand up to the riggers of a teenager for two years?!

/wonders off shaking head.

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

snig

4 posts

Wannabe Geek

#432668 29-Jan-2011 20:29

BiDi: OK

A week has gone by. HM did not get back in touch, as promised. So I went into the store today, located Ben and got their current position on our phone.

Ben said that Nokia are not prepared to extend the 12-month warranty on the phone to cover this fault. He also said that, based on his description of the phone to them (over the phone), Nokia say they are unlikely to cover the repair under CGA.

It is fair to say that the phone looks well-used. However, the on-off switch is recessed at the top of the phone, making it almost impossible to damage by impact. My daughter says that it used to feel firm, then one day it went all soft, like a spring had moved out of place. Based on that it sounds like a clear mechanical failure, rather than damage. (We did tell HN this story)

So, it's back to $50 up-front or nothing again.

I showed Ben a print-out from the Consumer Affairs web that says they cannot charge to check the goods (see my original post). Ben pointed out that the $50 is not a 'charge' it is a sort of bond, held by HN. It will be refunded if Nokia agrees to cover the cost, but not otherwise. His point is: it is not a charge.

So, what to do next? I think I need to try to ask Consumer Affairs if HN are within their rights.

Ben also suggested that I could send the phone directly to Nokia, which would mean there is no need to pay $50. Hmmmm, the CGA says that the retailer should take charge. It sounds like a fob-off to me.

The delay of course plays against us. Anyone with a teenage daughter will now that it is a cruel and unusual punishment to be deprived of one's cellphone.

Once again, I'd be interested in any advice or opinions.

Oh, and thanks to all who responded to the first posting!

Why didn't you take the phone in for repair when the button first failed?

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#432746 30-Jan-2011 08:05

DonGould: SHOCKING! The Nokia rep is on deck, but here the hell is the HN rep?

Great to see a vendor stepping up to back up representation on their product, but what crap retail service.

Perhaps they'd like me to spend my next $4k with someone else?

A mobile phone that doesn't stand up to the riggers of a teenager for two years?!

/wonders off shaking head.

The consumer has demanded smaller and ever lighter cell phones. This has resulted in the internals of these devices being incredibly delicate as one would expect from miniaturization.

Although they are mobile phones they are precision instruments and as such have to be treated same. They are not play things.

This is why impact damage voids the warranty and appropriately so and why there is warnings about usage in quickly changing humidity zones that can create internal moisture issues. The main boards in these devices are incredibly thin and delicate.

Teens should use their phones in Cases but they don't as the "cool police" has deemed it un-cool to do so .

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

#432762 30-Jan-2011 10:33

KiwiNZ: Teens should use their phones in Cases but they don't as the "cool police" has deemed it un-cool to do so .

The rules are simple.

The product is required to be fit for purpose or don't sell it. Simple.

You can blar blar on all day about the tech reasons or excuses but they simply are not relevant.

If the seller knows the state of the product (which they should before selling it) and they choose to sell it to a teen, knowing how the teen will use it (as pointed out by you) then it's the sellers problem when it ends in tears (in this case HN).

The seller in this case should just suck it up, get the stupid thing fixed - perhaps just a replacement to a more appropriate phone and move on.

If the vendor in this case had half a brain then he'd just replace the phone in this case then come back on list and point out how they've backed up their retailer (beyond the call of duty) and win one for their brand.

In this case HN are looking like pricks and so is the vendor.

This is exactly the sort of crap that the CGA was designed to circumvent.

D

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

BiDi

72 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 3

#432769 30-Jan-2011 10:52

Thanks for your replies, I appreciate it.

Brent (at Nokia): Thanks for taking an interest. The phone is a model 3120c-1c, IMEI-356851029688674. It has never been sent for repairs before.

What you say sounds plausible. My daughter described having to push harder one day to get the phone to turn on. After that, the button felt different and did not work. She assures me that this had nothing to do with the phone being dropped.

I don't think what she did is unreasonable: she pushed on the button to make it work. What else would she do? She's not so strong, either. Certainly, there is no way with this phone that the on-off switch can be forced inward during a simple fall: it is well protected by design.

KiwiNZ: Yes, these small phones are truly marvelous pieces of manufacturing technology. However, they are marketed to consumers who, for the most part, don't know or care about that -- and why should they? My daughter certainly doesn't, despite my many and varied attempts to open her eyes to how amazing this stuff really is.

The CGA says that the consumer deserves a fair go. It is also fair to say that teenagers are a significant part of the market. So, I would think that the phones should be engineered to take a bit of use (we are after all celebrating how clever those engineers are, right?). Certainly, her previous phone (a Sanyo) never faltered in 3 years (we gave it away still working) and, being younger, she did not look after that phone well. She really took much better care with this Nokia and its dead already, after only 13 months.

Snig: Why didn't we take the phone in when the button failed? Well, hindsight is a wonderful thing. My daughter didn't tell us about the problem straight away. Her priority was, of course, to stay in contact with her friends. She figured that by setting the alarm she could reactivate the phone within 24 hours, if it should switch off. That worked fine until January. Then we realised what was going on. I think she will now have learned about the importance of warranties.

Everyone: the phone is displaying signs of surface wear, not signs of a hammering. It probably will have been dropped a few times, but I suspect not from a great height, nor onto anything very hard. It is looking scratched and scuffed, that's all.

It would be nice to convince her to use a carry case, but these things are fashion accessories too, you know. Cases have come and gone. The market knows that, they sell lots of cutes cases don't they? If the phone needs to be treated with kid gloves, then it's not suitable for teenagers, IMO. As I said before, her previous Sanyo really impressed me with its reliability. That's what you expect from a good brand phone.

I'm really glad to see Nokia joining the discussion. It would be great to hear from Harvey Norman too.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#432777 30-Jan-2011 11:11

DonGould:
KiwiNZ: Teens should use their phones in Cases but they don't as the "cool police" has deemed it un-cool to do so .

The rules are simple.

The product is required to be fit for purpose or don't sell it. Simple.

You can blar blar on all day about the tech reasons or excuses but they simply are not relevant.

If the seller knows the state of the product (which they should before selling it) and they choose to sell it to a teen, knowing how the teen will use it (as pointed out by you) then it's the sellers problem when it ends in tears (in this case HN).

The seller in this case should just suck it up, get the stupid thing fixed - perhaps just a replacement to a more appropriate phone and move on.

If the vendor in this case had half a brain then he'd just replace the phone in this case then come back on list and point out how they've backed up their retailer (beyond the call of duty) and win one for their brand.

In this case HN are looking like pricks and so is the vendor.

This is exactly the sort of crap that the CGA was designed to circumvent.

D

I don't necessarily agree with that. The CGA is not there for people to milk for an indefinite period of time when somethings goes wrong with a product which you seem to be suggesting it is. Should I be able to claim my E71 under the CGA because after 3 years it's now falling apart? Quite frankly the answer is no. Should I be able to take a pair of shoes back to a retailer because the soles are worn after a year of being worn every day? Common sence would say the answer is no.

Mobile phones have a hard life with an average life expectancy (depending on exactly who's stats you believe) of no more than 18 months. A phone that's well worn would possibly not even be covered by a warranty within the 12 month period if it has suffered any form of impact damage, in which case why should the CGA cover a person?

SteveON

1916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 105

#432778 30-Jan-2011 11:13

KiwiNZ: The consumer has demanded smaller and ever lighter cell phones. ?

I dont agree, we want more power but i cant stand the new phones where the buttons need a pin to push.

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 164

#432808 30-Jan-2011 12:45

sbiddle: I don't necessarily agree with that. The CGA is not there for people to milk for an indefinite period of time when somethings goes wrong with a product which you seem to be suggesting it is.

No. The act uses the term 'reasonable'.

The purpose of the CGA is not to provide a vehicle for consumers to milk support from retailers for ever.

sbiddle: Should I be able to claim my E71 under the CGA because after 3 years it's now falling apart? Quite frankly the answer is no.

If the E71 was sold to you as a robust phone and you explained that you expect it to last for 5 years when you purchased it then yes. A CGA claim is quite valid as the product is not fit for the purpose that you made clear it was intended.

In this example the support don't fall back on the vendor, but the retailer who told you that it would be fine for 5 years and took your money three years ago.

sbiddle: Should I be able to take a pair of shoes back to a retailer because the soles are worn after a year of being worn every day? Common sence would say the answer is no.

Again, if you'd made clear that you expect to be wearing the shoes every day and it is obvious that you are a 115kg guy with size 8 feet, and expected the shoes to give you 2 years of service and the retailer took your money off you 12 months ago, then yes. You can return the shoes to have them refunded, repaired or replaced to give you the 24 months of service you expected or the product is not fit for the purpose for which you purchased it.

sbiddle: Mobile phones have a hard life with an average life expectancy (depending on exactly who's stats you believe) of no more than 18 months.

My wifes last phone just died after 18 months. It's in pristine condition. My last phone died after 3 years, it looks like a wreck! In our case both phones were purchased for commerical use so CGA does not apply - both were Nokia 6234 purchased on the same day from the same store. Both failed with software/radio faults.

sbiddle: A phone that's well worn would possibly not even be covered by a warranty within the 12 month period if it has suffered any form of impact damage, in which case why should the CGA cover a person?

Yes in this case the CGA covers the phone but not the manufacture warranty because it's clear the phone was not fit for the purpose that it was sold.

These are issues that retailers have to consider when setting margins on consumer products if they want to stay in business.

The key measure here is 'fit for purpose'.

In this instance the OP has purchased a phone for his teenage daughter. HN does not have to sell a phone to the OP, but if they choose to then they should confirm the purpose of the phone and fit a product that suits, not just sell the flashest product on the shelf that makes the teen look cool, because it may come back to haunt them.

In this case it's also going to haunt the vendor who has sold me a truck load of phones in the past and I don't see why they don't just suck it up and sort this one out promptly and report back to list.

D

Promote New Zealand - Get yourself a .kiwi.nz domain name!!!

Check out mine - i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz - don@i.am.a.can.do.kiwi.nz

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

Dunnersfella

4100 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887

#432943 30-Jan-2011 20:50

Can the OP please put up pictures of the phone so the condition can be judged fairly by all in the discussion?
If it was me, and I was confident that the phone would not fail an inspection by the repairer, I'd happily hand over $50 bond (to me, not a contradiction of the act) - knowing full well it would be refunded. :-)
If however I had a reason to doubt the outcome... well I'd probably try to kick up a fuss too...

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557

#432981 30-Jan-2011 22:50

Dunnersfella: Can the OP please put up pictures of the phone so the condition can be judged fairly by all in the discussion?
If it was me, and I was confident that the phone would not fail an inspection by the repairer, I'd happily hand over $50 bond (to me, not a contradiction of the act) - knowing full well it would be refunded. :-)
If however I had a reason to doubt the outcome... well I'd probably try to kick up a fuss too...

If thats the case why doesnt the repairer take the client to the tribunal for the cost of repairs??

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#432992 31-Jan-2011 00:00

DonGould:

In this instance the OP has purchased a phone for his teenage daughter. HN does not have to sell a phone to the OP, but if they choose to then they should confirm the purpose of the phone and fit a product that suits, not just sell the flashest product on the shelf that makes the teen look cool, because it may come back to haunt them.

In this case it's also going to haunt the vendor who has sold me a truck load of phones in the past and I don't see why they don't just suck it up and sort this one out promptly and report back to list.

D

I don't agree with that point. When does a retailer ever ask someone what they intent to use a purchase for. I would tell them to mind their own business if they asked me. However if the OP has specifically asked the seller for their choice of phone for that specific purpose, then this point would be valid. But in many cases people just shop around, will go into the cheapest store, pick up the phone and take it to the checkout, and they are off.

I have to say that I dropped my phone once, and it began to malfunction from then on. Because I had dropped it, I didn't bother to try to get it repaired under the CGA, becuase I knew it had been dropped and they would probably be able to tell this from the indicators inside the phone. It is like saying a notebook screen should be designed to be knocked around because it is a portable computer, but we all know that if you press down on the screen it will crack.

nigelj

856 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 125

#433000 31-Jan-2011 01:28

mattwnz:
I don't agree with that point. When does a retailer ever ask someone what they intent to use a purchase for. I would tell them to mind their own business if they asked me. However if the OP has specifically asked the seller for their choice of phone for that specific purpose, then this point would be valid. But in many cases people just shop around, will go into the cheapest store, pick up the phone and take it to the checkout, and they are off.

In which case the retailer would have a really good defence "But you wouldn't tell us what you wanted to use your phone for, you just said 'give me this one', how can we be sure it's fit for your purpose", how they can document such a thing is another question. (Edit: in fact, a store should have reasonable grounds, that unless told by the customer, to accept it'd receive a standard usage, which for a lot of phones, would include the school playground (excepting purely business phones like the Blackberry of course))

I think the easiest way to look at is, is (in my opinion), if it's for generic use (run of the mill, take it to work with you, take it for a jog, maybe the odd trip to the beach in summer (not in the water though) in the car etc) then it should be safe to assume that the phone should last for: Manufactures' warranty, + maximum reasonable extended warranty offered on the device (if is offering an extra 2 year warranty, then I'd accept their judgement that the phone I'm buying should under reasonable use, last 3 years).

I'd also say, that in this case... "fit for the purpose" doesn't really come in to question, I think the OP's complaint falls more towards "of reasonable quality" how many button cycles was this phone's power button rated at, surely more than a couple of years worth of occassional power on/off + profile changes. (Take for instance, a generic looking push switch - http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=450-1374-ND data sheet says Life Expectancy up to ~60k cycles. I'd expect a phones power switch to at least cope with a 10th/20th of that.

I've had a similar problem with an older Nokia where the power button will only work if it's pushed in a particular way, because it seems the spring has jumped out of place.

The key thing is, the CGA is all subjective, and if you have major issues, you either have to bite the bullet or go to Small Claims to get a ruling.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 8