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

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2004853 30-Apr-2018 09:16

Now if we want to go down the "serious" problems (can't be fixed).

You can legally:

keep the product and claim compensation for the loss in value
reject the product and get an identical replacement
reject the product and ask for a full refund.

A credit note is not the same as providing a cash refund. If you have rejected products because of a serious problem and asked for a refund, you don't have to accept a credit note or an exchange of products instead of cash.

A problem with products is serious if:

a reasonable consumer would not have bought the products if they had known about the fault
products are significantly different from their description, sample, or demonstration model
products are not fit for their normal or specific purpose and cannot easily be put right
the products are unsafe.

Some relevant factors to look at when deciding if a fault is serious or not include:

if you have only had the products for a short time then the fault is more likely to be serious
the more expensive a product is, the more likely it is that the fault may be serious
any claims made in the advertising, packaging or made by the seller
if there have been any other faults -then this fault is more likely to be serious.

A series of minor faults which on their own are not substantial, may become substantial if together they add up to a loss of confidence in the reliability of a product.

The retailer must give you enough information to be able to make an informed choice about the remedies. If you choose to reject the products this must be done within a reasonable time, from the date when you should have been aware of a defect.

*****************************

Now the retailer/manufacturer is calling it minor, you are calling it major.

You have 2 ways you can go, pick up the phone and test to see if the issue is still there, keep all you emails etc with noels, if it happens again then I would expect them to do a refund.

Otherwise https://www.disputestribunal.govt.nz/how-to-make-a-claim/ <-- I personally don't think you will win this however but depends on the person on the day or noels will think its "to much trouble"

dryburn

430 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2004861 30-Apr-2018 09:36

Thanks Tripp,

You have added some valuable info.

I'll wait for their reply and then accept the repair.

What would be the case after the warranty has expired?

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2004865 30-Apr-2018 09:44

dryburn:

Thanks Tripp,

You have added some valuable info.

I'll wait for their reply and then accept the repair.

What would be the case after the warranty has expired?

How long until it expires? when did you purchase the phone?

Most people think a phone should last up to 3 years, depending on the price of the device.

Google does 3 years of updates as well.

If it was me, if the same issue returned in the next 3 months i would take it back and ask for a refund or replacement.

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2004870 30-Apr-2018 09:50

dryburn:

Thanks Tripp,

You have added some valuable info.

I'll wait for their reply and then accept the repair.

What would be the case after the warranty has expired?

Never say you are "accepting" anything. Take it home, see if it's working as expected. If it is fixed then "yay" if not then just take it back, explain it still has the same issue and that you would now like a refund or replacement (noels tend to refund as they won't be able to get a nexus 6p anymore). If they say no they need to send it off for testing again, ask to talk to the manager, quote part of the CGA if he/she says no then ask to speak to the area manager.

dryburn

430 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2004874 30-Apr-2018 09:54

standard warranty expires soon but have an extra year with noel leeming, so I should be cover if there is anything else goes wrong

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2004894 30-Apr-2018 10:07

dryburn:

standard warranty expires soon but have an extra year with noel leeming, so I should be cover if there is anything else goes wrong

Should be fine then. Did you buy an extended warranty for it? As that could be a whole new ball game. If so check the paper work from them as I have seen some with "replacement" and not a fix.

Personally i think any phone over 1k should really last 5 years. If it was me i would "try" it on up till 5 years. But I only keep phones for 6 months so never had the issue of an old phone.

dryburn

430 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2004914 30-Apr-2018 10:27

Yip it's extended warranty with noels, but wouldn't I be covered by CGA?

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2004930 30-Apr-2018 11:00

dryburn:

Yip it's extended warranty with noels, but wouldn't I be covered by CGA?

You do but read the paper work on the extended warranty as they can have it that the product is replaced under the extended warranty and not sent off for repair etc.

Don't get me wrong I hate extended warranties that shops try and sell you as the CGA covers you anyway but 1 of the selling points to them is that they "may" offer you extra when it comes to them fixing it vs replacing it.

Just read the paperwork for the extended warranty and see what it says.

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek

#2005208 30-Apr-2018 14:31

tripp:

You must give the retailer the opportunity to:

repair the products within a reasonable time

Failure of substantial character provision from the CGA and entitlement to reject goods overrides that opinion piece.

tripp:

The retailer can repair/replace/refund. First pick is theirs.

It most certainly is not.

Consumer's option.

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2005236 30-Apr-2018 14:56

TonyR1973:

tripp:

You must give the retailer the opportunity to:

repair the products within a reasonable time

Failure of substantial character provision from the CGA and entitlement to reject goods overrides that opinion piece.

tripp:

The retailer can repair/replace/refund. First pick is theirs.

It most certainly is not.

Section 19 (Requirement to remedy) covers the repair/replace/refund

Section 22 (which you have titled entitlement to reject goods) is manner on rejecting goods which covers returning of good on rejection not your entitlement to reject

Section 21 is "Failure of substantial character" Which covers things like "yes this phone can fly you to work" when it can not. Or unfit for purpose, in this case the nexus 6p would fall under this if it would not charge, would not turn on etc as it's not "fit for purpose".

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2005238 30-Apr-2018 14:59

TonyR1973:

It most certainly is not.

Consumer's option.

(2)

Where the failure can be remedied, the consumer may—

(a)

require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time in accordance with section 19:

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2005241 30-Apr-2018 15:03

Anyone following this you can get all the info here

https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/help-product-service/retail-products/returns-refunds-repairs/faulty-products/

It's a .govt.nz site and you don't need to be a lawyer to understand it.

The CGA is here

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0091/24.0/whole.html#DLM312822

It does have some wording that can "create confusion".

TonyR1973

199 posts

Master Geek

#2005368 30-Apr-2018 17:58

tripp:

TonyR1973:

It most certainly is not.

Consumer's option.

(2)

Where the failure can be remedied, the consumer may—

(a)

require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time in accordance with section 19:

Again, you're ignoring the consumer's right to reject goods, at their sole discretion, in the case of a failure of substantial character, when "the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure" which isn't dependent only on whether they CAN be repaired or not. It is also NOT a requirement that the goods have that fault at the time of purchase.

18 Options against suppliers where goods do not comply with guarantees

"...the consumer may exercise the following remedies.

subject to section 20, reject the goods in accordance with section 22."

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2005372 30-Apr-2018 18:14

TonyR1973:

tripp:

TonyR1973:

It most certainly is not.

Consumer's option.

(2)

Where the failure can be remedied, the consumer may—

(a)

require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time in accordance with section 19:

Again, you're ignoring the consumer's right to reject goods, at their sole discretion, in the case of a failure of substantial character, when "the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure" which isn't dependent only on whether they CAN be repaired or not. It is also NOT a requirement that the goods have that fault at the time of purchase.

18 Options against suppliers where goods do not comply with guarantees

"...the consumer may exercise the following remedies.

subject to section 20, reject the goods in accordance with section 22."

Are you even reading the section you are quoting? section 20 is losing the rights to reject goods.

Once again the links are above, it's a government page which says the following

***********

The problem can be fixed and is not serious (minor)

You must give the retailer the opportunity to:

repair the products within a reasonable time and free of charge
replace products of an identical type and value within a reasonable time. You only have to pay the difference if you choose a replacement of greater value
refund the value of the products in full, in the same form as your original payment

**************

You are saying is that "any fault" is a "serious" fault which is just not the case.

Your "the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure"

Is covered by section C

(c)

the goods are substantially unfit for a purpose for which goods of the type in question are commonly supplied or, where section 8(1) applies, the goods are unfit for a particular purpose made known to the supplier or represented by the supplier to be a purpose for which the goods would be fit, and the goods cannot easily and within a reasonable time be remedied to make them fit for such purpose; or

(d)

the goods are not of acceptable quality within the meaning of section 7 because they are unsafe.

Meaning if they can't be fixed you can reject the goods. If they can be fixed to be "fit for purpose" then it's acceptable. However if they break again for the same reason then you can reject.

Anyway, I am not going to play this game anymore. If anyone thinks that their issue is "serious" and the company does not agree then they will need to take it to the DT and let them sort it out. Just know there is a cost to doing that.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5