Mobile Phone Assessment Fees

Forums › Off topic › Mobile Phone Assessment Fees

Yabanize

2351 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 583

#150629 28-Jul-2014 20:47

So I was reading the This page on the TDR Website. It says

TDR does not consider there is any ability for a Scheme Member to require the payment from a customer of a fee, prior to assessing a mobile phone for damage.

Yet telecom, 2degrees and skinny charge these anyway? WTF

Could someone from one of these telco's comment on this?

Andib

1395 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 974

ID Verified

Trusted

#1097468 28-Jul-2014 20:51

AFAIK the way they word it (or the last time I was looking into it) they aren't charging you a assessment fee prior to sending your phone away, They're taking a bond incase it comes back as no fault /user damage etc.

<#
.DISCLAIMER
Anything I post is my own and not the views of my past/present/future employer.
#>

michaelmurfy

meow
13579 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10910

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1097469 28-Jul-2014 20:55

When I was at Spark back in the day you'll always get people who gave you a phone which wouldn't power on and be like "yeah, it just happened" - you'll send it away and BANG $85.00 charged to the store from Telegistics for the repair.

The store still has to pay but the customer is now nowhere to be found - they don't want their liquid damaged phone back. Hence why a bond is charged to prevent that from happening, it also does a good job of sifting through the liars who know their phones are OOW and want to try their luck. If you have nothing to worry about then just pay the bond and get it back later.

Michael Murphy | https://murfy.nz
Referral Links: Quic Broadband (use R122101E7CV7Q for free setup)

Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by subscribing.
Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

johnr

19282 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2526
Inactive user

#1097472 28-Jul-2014 20:57

Fee and bond are 2 different things

Yabanize

2351 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 583

#1097473 28-Jul-2014 20:58

michaelmurfy: When I was at Spark back in the day you'll always get people who gave you a phone which wouldn't power on and be like "yeah, it just happened" - you'll send it away and BANG $85.00 charged to the store from Telegistics for the repair.

The store still has to pay but the customer is now nowhere to be found - they don't want their liquid damaged phone back. Hence why a bond is charged to prevent that from happening, it also does a good job of sifting through the liars who know their phones are OOW and want to try their luck. If you have nothing to worry about then just pay the bond and get it back later.

I see. But should even be doing it according to that TDR statement?

I don't think Vodafone does, and the CGA doesnt require it either

eXDee

4033 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1070

Trusted

#1097476 28-Jul-2014 21:03

I have heard from some that its the repair companies charging it and therefore the retailers are passing on the cost to the consumer in the form of a bond, until its determined that its definitely covered under warranty. I believe almost all retailers including the telcos are passing these off to an authorised repair agent for the manufacturer, like serviceplus or fonefix, so hence why it's same across the board. I can't verify this though
I also understand why they do it, lots of people break their phones then try and claim warranty, then refuse to pay the service charge on inspecting their warranty void device.

However, it's actually not outlined specifically in our consumer law. In addition to the TDR's advice, we have this discussion point from consumer affairs:
http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/legislation-policy/policy-reports-and-papers/discussion-papers/consumer-law-reform-a-discussion-paper/12.-consumer-guarantees/multipagedocumentsection.2010-06-11.6413180929/12.1.3-issue-bonds-to-assess-faulty-goods

Under the Consumer Guarantees Act, a remedy must be given if the product does not comply with the guarantees. Consumers need only prove to a civil standard (the balance of probabilities) that a retailer has breached a guarantee under the Consumer Guarantees Act, before they are entitled to a remedy. The problem is that some suppliers are not accepting responsibility for any faults particularly with mobile phones unless the phones are first sent away for assessment. This forces the consumer to bear the initial burden of the assessment through the supplier’s requirement of a bond. Of particular concern is when a bond is sought for an obvious fault with the good.

This essentially summarises the issue, and the takeaway is that a serious and obvious flaw to the average person that would be covered under CGA or Warranty, shouldn't really have a bond, but they are allowed to do this in general.