Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3
25472 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5274

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Subscriber

  Reply # 1860517 7-Sep-2017 19:10
Send private message quote this post

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.

 

 


490 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 126

Subscriber

  Reply # 1860537 7-Sep-2017 19:57
Send private message quote this post

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.

 
 
 
 


9798 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1518

Trusted

  Reply # 1860553 7-Sep-2017 20:41
Send private message quote this post

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.  


9798 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1518

Trusted

  Reply # 1860556 7-Sep-2017 20:45
Send private message quote this post

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!


670 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 404


  Reply # 1860612 8-Sep-2017 00:07
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

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.





"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
- John Stuart Mill


2377 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 491


  Reply # 1861021 8-Sep-2017 16:03
Send private message quote this post

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.





I know a little more than nothing but not much...

4410 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1245


  Reply # 1861049 8-Sep-2017 17:11
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

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.


2788 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 226


  Reply # 1861061 8-Sep-2017 18:21
Send private message quote this post

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.





343 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 103


  Reply # 1861062 8-Sep-2017 18:33
Send private message quote this post

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.


4410 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1245


  Reply # 1861065 8-Sep-2017 18:35
Send private message quote this post

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.


13235 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1565


  Reply # 1861067 8-Sep-2017 18:39
Send private message quote this post

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.


343 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 103


  Reply # 1861070 8-Sep-2017 18:44
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

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).


670 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 404


  Reply # 1861085 8-Sep-2017 20:49
Send private message quote this post

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.

 





"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
- John Stuart Mill




6 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 4


  Reply # 1861118 9-Sep-2017 01:46
4 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

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 :)


2215 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 219


  Reply # 1861124 9-Sep-2017 06:46
Send private message quote this post

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
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Vocus New Zealand on the block as Aussies bail
Posted 23-Oct-2017 17:06


Vodafone TV — television in the cloud
Posted 17-Oct-2017 19:29


Nokia 8 review: Classy midrange pure Android phone
Posted 16-Oct-2017 07:27


Why carriers might want to embrace Commerce Commission study, MVNOs
Posted 13-Oct-2017 09:42


Fitbit launches Ionic, its health and fitness smartwatch
Posted 12-Oct-2017 15:52


Xero launches machine learning automation to improve coding accuracy for small businesses
Posted 12-Oct-2017 15:45


Bank of New Zealand uses Intel AI to detect financial crime
Posted 12-Oct-2017 15:39


Sony launches Xperia XZ1, a smartphone with real-time 3D capture
Posted 11-Oct-2017 10:26


Notes on Nokia’s phone comeback
Posted 10-Oct-2017 10:06


Air New Zealand begins Inflight Wi-Fi rollout
Posted 9-Oct-2017 20:16


The latest mobile phones in perspective
Posted 9-Oct-2017 18:34


Review: Acronis True Image 2018 — serious backup
Posted 8-Oct-2017 11:22


Lenovo launches ThinkPad Anniversary Edition 25
Posted 7-Oct-2017 23:16


Less fone, more tech as Vodafone gets brand make-over
Posted 6-Oct-2017 08:16


API Talent Achieves AWS MSP Partner Status
Posted 5-Oct-2017 21:20



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.