Consumer Guarantees Act + Harvey Norman + Nokia

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

BiDi

62 posts

Master Geek

#75743 22-Jan-2011 18:29

My daughter's cellphone (a Nokia 3120) no longer works because the on-off button has failed. She was managing to keep it alive using the alarm, which would wake the phone up, if it switched off for some reason. However, it was inevitable that sooner or later this method would fail and that happened when the battery went flat.

So today I took the phone in to Harvey Norman (Paraparaumu), where it was purchased. By change, the guy who sold the phone (Ben) was the first person we spoke to.

The phone was purchased in Dec 2009, so the 1-year warranty has expired. However, it seems a bit rich to suggest that the failure of the on-off button of a $300 phone is reasonable after only 13-14 months. (Also there are a lot of comments around the internet saying that extended guarantees are a waste of money.) So I suggested to Ben that it was reasonable to ask for it to be repaired.

Ben explained that the phone would need to be assessed by the repairer and that that would require $50 up-front from me (to be refunded if the repairer agreed to do it under warranty). I declined to pay. Ben showed me a standard Harvey Norman form which, among other things, states:

"Service Fee: Where ... goods need to be assessed before it can be determined whether you are entitled to a warranty repair or a remedy under the CGA a service fee is incurred. The service fee is payable when the goods are sent away for assessment."

Returning home, I discovered that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs website offers some relevant advice (see 'Can the trader charge me to check the goods?' www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/for-consumers/goods/warranties). It seems that the retailer is NOT entitled to ask me to pay, unless you were informed of this at the time of purchase (which did not happen).

Ben, to his credit, did agree to ask the repairer to waive the service fee. He is going to get back to me.

So, that is the story so far.

It seems that I have little leverage now: bringing an actual case to the Small Claims Tribunal would cost more than the phone's worth. So if they decide not to look at the phone, I'm stuffed. Right?

I'd be interested in advice about this.

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

536 posts

Ultimate Geek

#429961 22-Jan-2011 18:37

CGA will cover it. If they try any funny business print out the CGA, highlight the relevant sections and present it to him in person. Make a scene.

billgates

4705 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#429962 22-Jan-2011 18:37

If the phone has not been water damaged or impact damaged then I'd recommend to pay the bond. You will get the bond back once they repair it providing the above conditions are met. This was a standard practice at DSE when I worked there and 90% of the phones were repaired under warranty because they were genuine claims and customers got their bond back.

The reason why retail asks for bond is because prior to the 'bond' rule, customers with non-genuine claims would never come and collect their broken phones and DSE was still charged $50 odd from the repairer.

ps - don't make a scene at least. It will only make you look like a fool in front of every one. Ben sounds like a nice guy. I am sure he would offer you a reasonable deal.

Do whatever you want to do man.

DonGould

3892 posts

Uber Geek

#429963 22-Jan-2011 18:46

Great to see HVN showing some common sense.

While you're questioning the value for small claims, they're questioning the value of having to spend time/money dealing with the Ministry of Consumer Affairs to resolve a complaint from your that your rights have not been met.

I wouldn't be paying a service fee either in this case. They know what you do with a mobile phone. If they choose to sell products that don't stand up to the riggers of being a mobile phone then that's their choice - they get to loose money on CGA warranty claims.... unless your daughter has it exclusivly of her baby sitting business in which case it's not covered.

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

tardtasticx

3075 posts

Uber Geek

#429974 22-Jan-2011 19:36

I hope it works out better for you. When my $1400 laptop failed (we had also got the extended warrenty for $100 so total purchase on that date was $1500) after a few days we spent weeks trying to get HN to replace it outright. They wouldnt listen when we waved the CGA in their face and insisted that its HP's problem because they are the manufacture so we just dealt with HP from then on. I dont like HN one bit.

b0untypure1

1426 posts

Uber Geek

#429992 22-Jan-2011 20:11

billgates: If the phone has not been water damaged or impact damaged then I'd recommend to pay the bond. You will get the bond back once they repair it providing the above conditions are met. This was a standard practice at DSE when I worked there and 90% of the phones were repaired under warranty because they were genuine claims and customers got their bond back.

The reason why retail asks for bond is because prior to the 'bond' rule, customers with non-genuine claims would never come and collect their broken phones and DSE was still charged $50 odd from the repairer.

ps - don't make a scene at least. It will only make you look like a fool in front of every one. Ben sounds like a nice guy. I am sure he would offer you a reasonable deal.

+1

billgates has said it all.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#429994 22-Jan-2011 20:12

tardtasticx: I hope it works out better for you. When my $1400 laptop failed (we had also got the extended warrenty for $100 so total purchase on that date was $1500) after a few days we spent weeks trying to get HN to replace it outright. They wouldnt listen when we waved the CGA in their face and insisted that its HP's problem because they are the manufacture so we just dealt with HP from then on. I dont like HN one bit.

So wrong... It was their problem too.

savag3

188 posts

Master Geek

#430000 22-Jan-2011 20:25

freitasm:
tardtasticx: I hope it works out better for you. When my $1400 laptop failed (we had also got the extended warrenty for $100 so total purchase on that date was $1500) after a few days we spent weeks trying to get HN to replace it outright. They wouldnt listen when we waved the CGA in their face and insisted that its HP's problem because they are the manufacture so we just dealt with HP from then on. I dont like HN one bit.

So wrong... It was their problem too.

Exactly. When this happens to people they should send a complaint to the Commerce Commission. If they get enough complaints they will probably prosecute someone.

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.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#430115 23-Jan-2011 09:09

savag3:
freitasm:
tardtasticx: I hope it works out better for you. When my $1400 laptop failed (we had also got the extended warrenty for $100 so total purchase on that date was $1500) after a few days we spent weeks trying to get HN to replace it outright. They wouldnt listen when we waved the CGA in their face and insisted that its HP's problem because they are the manufacture so we just dealt with HP from then on. I dont like HN one bit.

So wrong... It was their problem too.

Exactly. When this happens to people they should send a complaint to the Commerce Commission. If they get enough complaints they will probably prosecute someone.

I'd suggest that The Ministry of Consumer Affairs should be your first point of call since the claim would be under the Consumer Guarantee's Act, which is covered by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, not the Commerce Commission. I don't think a case like the one above really involves a breach of the Fair Trading Act (tghat the Com Com enforce).

savag3

188 posts

Master Geek

#430133 23-Jan-2011 10:44

Misrepresenting a consumer's legal rights is an offence under the Fair Trading Act which is enforced by the Commerce Commission.

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#430373 23-Jan-2011 23:23

That sounds like a long shot, is this being advertised or just a oneoff statement from a salesrep responding under pressure to a customer? Anyhow it would still be a civil case and thats what Disputes Tribunal is for.

Unfortunately cell phone repairers have to put up with their share of BS too I guess, and the manufacturer might eventually cover some of the costs to keep their reputation. There is still the implied warrantee of merchantable quality under CGA, so I suspect it will get fixed for low/no cost if it looks to be a manufacturing defect.

Time to find a new industry!

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#430377 23-Jan-2011 23:36

billgates: If the phone has not been water damaged or impact damaged then I'd recommend to pay the bond. You will get the bond back once they repair it providing the above conditions are met. This was a standard practice at DSE when I worked there and 90% of the phones were repaired under warranty because they were genuine claims and customers got their bond back.

The reason why retail asks for bond is because prior to the 'bond' rule, customers with non-genuine claims would never come and collect their broken phones and DSE was still charged $50 odd from the repairer.

ps - don't make a scene at least. It will only make you look like a fool in front of every one. Ben sounds like a nice guy. I am sure he would offer you a reasonable deal.

The problem is often you don't know whether the phones moisture sensors have been activated or not. I believe these sensors they place in the openings (eg down the headphone hole and the usb inlet) of the phone could be activated by condensation/humidity and sweat from the hand, from normal usage. So even if the phone isn't water damaged, the moisture sensor may have been activated, and your warranty may then be void. You are also taking the repair agents word for it. I had a friend who's iphone battery wasn't lasting and it was still under warranty. He returned it to the shop, who sent it to the repair agent, and they said it was water damaged and it wouldn't be covered. The phone worked perfectly, in mint condition, but the battery was failing. My friend totally denies it has ever got wet, but what can you do. He has still go the phone a year later, and replaced the battery and it is now fine.

tardtasticx

3075 posts

Uber Geek

#430405 24-Jan-2011 01:01

mattwnz:
billgates: If the phone has not been water damaged or impact damaged then I'd recommend to pay the bond. You will get the bond back once they repair it providing the above conditions are met. This was a standard practice at DSE when I worked there and 90% of the phones were repaired under warranty because they were genuine claims and customers got their bond back.

The reason why retail asks for bond is because prior to the 'bond' rule, customers with non-genuine claims would never come and collect their broken phones and DSE was still charged $50 odd from the repairer.

ps - don't make a scene at least. It will only make you look like a fool in front of every one. Ben sounds like a nice guy. I am sure he would offer you a reasonable deal.

The problem is often you don't know whether the phones moisture sensors have been activated or not. I believe these sensors they place in the openings (eg down the headphone hole and the usb inlet) of the phone could be activated by condensation/humidity and sweat from the hand, from normal usage. So even if the phone isn't water damaged, the moisture sensor may have been activated, and your warranty may then be void. You are also taking the repair agents word for it. I had a friend who's iphone battery wasn't lasting and it was still under warranty. He returned it to the shop, who sent it to the repair agent, and they said it was water damaged and it wouldn't be covered. The phone worked perfectly, in mint condition, but the battery was failing. My friend totally denies it has ever got wet, but what can you do. He has still go the phone a year later, and replaced the battery and it is now fine.

They need to make better water sensors. When my SE got replaced, I already had a new phone and put the replacement in the draw. Never used it until one day my new phones bat dyed so I had to take the SE with me. The headpiece was broken. Vodafone said it was water damaged, but fixed it out of goodwill but voided my warranty. A few nasty phone calls later got me no where so I sold it on trade me as water damaged but working and got $50 for it :(

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#430427 24-Jan-2011 08:31

savag3: Misrepresenting a consumer's legal rights is an offence under the Fair Trading Act which is enforced by the Commerce Commission.

But the Commerce Commission won't help get the phone fixed. Court action lodged under the CGA will.

BiDi

62 posts

Master Geek

#432611 29-Jan-2011 17:44

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!

tardtasticx

3075 posts

Uber Geek

#432615 29-Jan-2011 17:48

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!

I'd just keep pushing HN until they realize they're obliged to do it. If not, threaten to take court action. From what I've heard, that usually makes them cave in.

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