Service denied as Apple technicians claim my iPhone has a Non-Apple screen

Forums › Apple iOS and devices › Service denied as Apple technicians claim my iPhone has a Non-Apple screen

1 | 2 | 3

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1860517 7-Sep-2017 19:10

mattwnz:

sbiddle:

Based upon this there could well exist the possibility the phone does have a 3rd party screen - installed when you got the replacement phone.

I'd be straight to the disputes tribunal lodging action claiming they supplied you with a replacement phone that had fake parts. It's up to them to prove they didn't.

As they purchased it in OZ, would they be covered by the DT in NZ? I mean , who do they have the contract with and are actually taking to the DT? If it is Apple, wouldn't it be Apple Australia?

It's the NZ repair centre that repaired it (and replaced it) therefore I don't see any reason why you couldn't take lodge a claim against them.

Sam91

620 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 183

#1860537 7-Sep-2017 19:57

I'm guessing it would be quite lucrative as an AASP to use third party screens instead of genuine screens. That could be one explanation, but I doubt an AASP would do that because of the risk involved.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1860553 7-Sep-2017 20:41

mattwnz:

Were you supplied with a refurbished phone originally by Apple, after you had the battery problems? If so, how would you know as a consumer, if that had been fitted with another screen, that possibily may not match the codes? Was the actual replacement an authorised Apple replacement that APple sent you, or one provided by the dealer? This is one fear I have with refurbished replacements, instead of getting a new replacement, because you don't really know what has been done to it.

Also is the test they are doing, a software test on the hardware, that is detecting this. Or are they physically looking at the phone and can see it has had the screen replaced? Maybe they need to supply you with photos of why they are detecting it as a non apple screen. As could be refurbished, how do you know that a refurbished phone won't perform differently with these tests, if it has had parts swapped in it?

Apple Refurbished are good. They are not a new phone, but have had screen replaced, case if scratches (although they do say might be the odd mark), fully tested (unlike new manufactures) and in a brown box,not the super cool Apple packaging. Its like buying a new car with 2500km on it, and pages of service details.

I'd have to point the finger at staff, not Apple

Disclosure. I used to be an Apple Fanboy, but way past that now. But they are good in this respect, ask any Apple owner that has had a an issue.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1860556 7-Sep-2017 20:45

sbiddle:

mattwnz:

sbiddle:

Based upon this there could well exist the possibility the phone does have a 3rd party screen - installed when you got the replacement phone.

I'd be straight to the disputes tribunal lodging action claiming they supplied you with a replacement phone that had fake parts. It's up to them to prove they didn't.

As they purchased it in OZ, would they be covered by the DT in NZ? I mean , who do they have the contract with and are actually taking to the DT? If it is Apple, wouldn't it be Apple Australia?

It's the NZ repair centre that repaired it (and replaced it) therefore I don't see any reason why you couldn't take lodge a claim against them.

I agree, but the difference between an AASP with an Apple screen and a dodgy screen is quite huge. Its not like 10/10 vs 9/10. Summit aint right!

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557
Inactive user

#1860612 8-Sep-2017 00:07

It's not really relevant unless the aftermarket screen is actually causing the fault. The CGA has your back on this. Tell them you're going to lodge a claim with the Disputes Tribunal - if they don't budge, then do it.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 537
Inactive user

#1861021 8-Sep-2017 16:03

cadman:

It's not really relevant unless the aftermarket screen is actually causing the fault. The CGA has your back on this. Tell them you're going to lodge a claim with the Disputes Tribunal - if they don't budge, then do it.

CGA doesn't apply to items not purchased in NZ, you'd have a hard time with this. I would be going back to the company that supplier the original replacement. This seem to be not quite right.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

RunningMan

9189 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4842

#1861049 8-Sep-2017 17:11

dickytim:

CGA doesn't apply to items not purchased in NZ, you'd have a hard time with this. I would be going back to the company that supplier the original replacement. This seem to be not quite right.

But it would almost certainly apply to the previous service repair carried out in New Zealand, which is where the issue seems to have arisen.

CYaBro

4708 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1182

ID Verified

Trusted

#1861061 8-Sep-2017 18:21

RunningMan:

dickytim:

CGA doesn't apply to items not purchased in NZ, you'd have a hard time with this. I would be going back to the company that supplier the original replacement. This seem to be not quite right.

But it would almost certainly apply to the previous service repair carried out in New Zealand, which is where the issue seems to have arisen.

The original iPhone was bought in Australia, so only Australian Consumer law applies to it, and it would have to be in Australia to get this coverage.

The iPhone was replaced under warranty here in NZ, but there was no cost to the customer, and the original warranty and country of purchase, and any original country of purchase consumer law coverage, are transferred over to the replacement iPhone.

So why would any NZ consumer laws now apply?

No different if they had been in the USA or any other country, and got the iPhone replaced under Apple's warranty.

Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

SirHumphreyAppleby

2942 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1863

#1861062 8-Sep-2017 18:33

CYaBro:

The iPhone was replaced under warranty here in NZ, but there was no cost to the customer, and the original warranty and country of purchase, and any original country of purchase consumer law coverage, are transferred over to the replacement iPhone.

So why would any NZ consumer laws now apply?

The warranty is irrelevant. The Consumer Guarantees Act applies to both products and services, including those provided free of charge. Service carried out in New Zealand, or via a New Zealand agent, would be subject to the CGA.

RunningMan

9189 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4842

#1861065 8-Sep-2017 18:35

CYaBro:

[snip]

The original iPhone was bought in Australia, so only Australian Consumer law applies to it, and it would have to be in Australia to get this coverage.

The iPhone was replaced under warranty here in NZ, but there was no cost to the customer, and the original warranty and country of purchase, and any original country of purchase consumer law coverage, are transferred over to the replacement iPhone.

So why would any NZ consumer laws now apply?

Because the replacement (or repair) in NZ would be considered a service. It's not just physical goods covered by the CGA, but as goods have also been supplied, those should also be covered.

As a service provider, the service being provided, as well as goods supplied should be covered.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1861067 8-Sep-2017 18:39

SirHumphreyAppleby:

CYaBro:

The iPhone was replaced under warranty here in NZ, but there was no cost to the customer, and the original warranty and country of purchase, and any original country of purchase consumer law coverage, are transferred over to the replacement iPhone.

So why would any NZ consumer laws now apply?

The warranty is irrelevant. The Consumer Guarantees Act applies to both products and services, including those provided free of charge. Service carried out in New Zealand, or via a New Zealand agent, would be subject to the CGA.

Although wouldn't the contract be between Apple Australia, and the service centre for that repair? eg Does the OP have a contact with the repair centre, or did Apple Australia have this contract? Does the OP have any contract documentation on the repair? I think it is an interesting situation.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

SirHumphreyAppleby

2942 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1863

#1861070 8-Sep-2017 18:44

mattwnz:

Although wouldn't the contract be between Apple Australia, and the service centre for that repair? eg Does the OP have a contact with the repair centre, or did Apple Australia have this contract? Does the OP have any contract documentation on the repair? I think it is an interesting situation.

There would be contracts between the service centre and Apple, a contract between the service centre and the OP, and potentially a duty of care between Apple and the OP (the situation is not dissimilar to Donoghue v Stevenson).

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557
Inactive user

#1861085 8-Sep-2017 20:49

dickytim:

cadman:

It's not really relevant unless the aftermarket screen is actually causing the fault. The CGA has your back on this. Tell them you're going to lodge a claim with the Disputes Tribunal - if they don't budge, then do it.

CGA doesn't apply to items not purchased in NZ, you'd have a hard time with this. I would be going back to the company that supplier the original replacement. This seem to be not quite right.

It was supplied in Auckland.

vas96:

I have an iPhone 6s that I had received as a replacement due to my previous devices having battery issues. It was last replaced in October 2016 at an Apple Authorised Service Provider in Auckland.

vas96

6 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 4

#1861118 9-Sep-2017 01:46

Alright time for an update!

Thanks to @CYaBro he was able to look up my case details on Apple’s system and the suspected reason why the technician thinks my phone has a Non-Apple screen is because of a simple sticker that was out of place! With his suggestion that if this is their only reason, then it isn’t sufficient evidence to determine my device has a non-Apple display on it. After this I decided to complain further and had a talk with Apple Customer Relations who said they will reopen my case and look into this again.

I still wasn’t too convinced that this would get me anywhere as I have been going through this issue for the past 2 weeks with Apple Customer Relations, all which ended with nobody believing me. So I thought emailing Tim Cook would be a good option (I’ve done a lot of research and many people who experienced complicated issues like mine had theirs resolved by a simple email to the big players at Apple). I thought my case was reasonable so I wrote a detailed email expressing my extreme disappointment and everything that has happened for the past 2 weeks. Today afternoon I received a surprising call from his executive team who mentioned Tim Cook read my email and had brought this to their attention as he found my case quite concerning (not sure how true this is, but if so then I’m amazed!).

The executive team were very nice and understanding, seem to believe my situation and they realise that there is a possibility something could have gone wrong on their end. They told me that they will thoroughly investigate on this matter with the Authorised Service Provider and the Apple Engineering team and have promised to get back to me with a resolution next week.

It’s great that my case has been heard by someone at Apple HQ and that something is actually happening.

I could’ve given up a long time ago but I’d hate the fact that I’m being falsely accused of having tampered with my phone, especially when I’m very certain this couldn’t have happened whilst the phone was in my possession. I’m aware Apple Products purchased in Australia/New Zealand are backed by a minimum 2 year warranty (I know for sure it is in Australia under our consumer law) and even if I ever did actually crack my phone’s screen I would have gone straight to Apple and paid the premium to get it fixed (unless its an old device then it’s worthwhile to consider cheaper alternatives).

As many have suggested, I could have taken this up legally further but as a student I really have no clue and to just think about it all does scare me a little (as I have never been through a situation like this before). My family/friends kept insisting to just sell of the phone and move on but I really wanted to try my best and prove my point that I had never tampered with my phone whilst it was under my ownership. But thanks everyone for your replies - this is the first time I’m posting something on a forum and I can see how useful it is to hear others opinions.

Will keep everyone informed :)

Bung

6734 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2927

Subscriber

#1861124 9-Sep-2017 06:46

I did a search for 3rd party screens and found that there have been other cases like this. If replacement phones are refurbs it is quite possible that the genuine parts are a different batch to the production that got here as new retail. Some differences might be expected. You'd hope that something more concrete than "sticker position" would be used as evidence. In the US apparently 3rd party screen repairs don't void warranty if the fault is unrelated.

1 | 2 | 3