SOGA dispute iPhone
Discussion
I have this other thread running on the techie forum that gives the full saga but I'd appreciate some legal eagle advice for our approach to the next stage.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Further to last post at 14:03 on the other forum today, I have been pondering how to approach this. EE's argument under SOGA is that I have to prove a pre-existant fault. This is practically speaking impossible to do for microelectronics where the failure is likely to be buried deep within a chip. I would also argue that no corporation would deliberately supply faulty goods.
Therefore I'm curious as to how the courts establish this.
My view would be that the law is intended to cover anything that develops post sale that would not have been reasonably expected. In the case of a phone sold into a 24 month contract I suggest that would be the minimum term for it to be expected to be fully functional. Our argument with EE has been / will be the other parts of SOGA that state the item must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose etc.
In practice, over these 3 elements, is it all 3 must prevail or is one more important than another ?
My next step, given EE's attitude towards the diagnostic report from Apple's Genius Bar (that a letter from the manufacturer is not sufficient....) has been to take it to an independent repair agent (who are actually an approved Apple reseller but are not owned by Apple) and paid £25 for them to open the phone up and provide a report to a standard they would do for a Loss Adjuster or Insurance Company. I have taken this route to avoid giving it to EE (who's repair site has a vested interest in classifying the defect in their favour).
Would the courts look more favourably on an independent report or chastise me for not submitting to EE's request ?
I intend to write back to EE restating our view of SOGA with the new report attached before I lodge a Money Claim case.
Is there any case law established for this ?
Thanks
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Further to last post at 14:03 on the other forum today, I have been pondering how to approach this. EE's argument under SOGA is that I have to prove a pre-existant fault. This is practically speaking impossible to do for microelectronics where the failure is likely to be buried deep within a chip. I would also argue that no corporation would deliberately supply faulty goods.
Therefore I'm curious as to how the courts establish this.
My view would be that the law is intended to cover anything that develops post sale that would not have been reasonably expected. In the case of a phone sold into a 24 month contract I suggest that would be the minimum term for it to be expected to be fully functional. Our argument with EE has been / will be the other parts of SOGA that state the item must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose etc.
In practice, over these 3 elements, is it all 3 must prevail or is one more important than another ?
My next step, given EE's attitude towards the diagnostic report from Apple's Genius Bar (that a letter from the manufacturer is not sufficient....) has been to take it to an independent repair agent (who are actually an approved Apple reseller but are not owned by Apple) and paid £25 for them to open the phone up and provide a report to a standard they would do for a Loss Adjuster or Insurance Company. I have taken this route to avoid giving it to EE (who's repair site has a vested interest in classifying the defect in their favour).
Would the courts look more favourably on an independent report or chastise me for not submitting to EE's request ?
I intend to write back to EE restating our view of SOGA with the new report attached before I lodge a Money Claim case.
Is there any case law established for this ?
Thanks
I've not read your other thread, but my immediate thought is that if you want EE to consider repair/replacement/refund then you are going to have to give them the phone to investigate the fault themselves.
If they disagree with your expert and refuse to do anything then you have the choice to pursue via the county court or not.
If they disagree with your expert and refuse to do anything then you have the choice to pursue via the county court or not.
Is there a need for two thread for the same issues?
I'm surprised Apple didn't fix it, normally they are fine even when it's not purchased from them.
Even still I think you're making far more of this than you really need to. Send it off to EE or take it to their recommended repair centre and let them deal with it.
That would be so much easier and you will have a working phone or a replacement at the end of it.
I'm surprised Apple didn't fix it, normally they are fine even when it's not purchased from them.
Even still I think you're making far more of this than you really need to. Send it off to EE or take it to their recommended repair centre and let them deal with it.
That would be so much easier and you will have a working phone or a replacement at the end of it.
Driver101 said:
Is there a need for two thread for the same issues?
I'm surprised Apple didn't fix it, normally they are fine even when it's not purchased from them.
Even still I think you're making far more of this than you really need to. Send it off to EE or take it to their recommended repair centre and let them deal with it.
That would be so much easier and you will have a working phone or a replacement at the end of it.
I started on the other forum to see if anyone had any similar technical/ownership experience, now its more about legalities. Sorry to clog up valuable cyberspace.I'm surprised Apple didn't fix it, normally they are fine even when it's not purchased from them.
Even still I think you're making far more of this than you really need to. Send it off to EE or take it to their recommended repair centre and let them deal with it.
That would be so much easier and you will have a working phone or a replacement at the end of it.
I could just give up and swallow £600 of cost 2 months out of warranty but don't see why I should. EE's attitude from the start has just been 'buy a new phone'. The repair route is a red herring, Apple have already confirmed the motherboard isn't repairable.
Let EE see that for themselves.
My phone, Galaxy S5, recently developed a faulty. I went back to the EE store and they were happy to deal with it. It's almost 2 years old now.
They were happy to send it off for repair, but did warn it would take upto 2 weeks.
The other suggestion was to drive 15 miles to a repair centre. Two hours later my phone was fixed and I was more than happy.
My phone, Galaxy S5, recently developed a faulty. I went back to the EE store and they were happy to deal with it. It's almost 2 years old now.
They were happy to send it off for repair, but did warn it would take upto 2 weeks.
The other suggestion was to drive 15 miles to a repair centre. Two hours later my phone was fixed and I was more than happy.
Speed 3 said:
I could just give up and swallow £600 of cost 2 months out of warranty but don't see why I should.
Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment - why is the 2 months significant? 2 months is still 2 months longer than Apple have decided they expect a given manufactured product to function for, otherwise they'd offer a longer warranty, wouldn't they?
That being said now that you're out of warranty in order to claim on SOGA the burden is on you to prove the fault was pre-existing. The debate about whether it's "fair" that it failed after "only" 2 months, 2 weeks or 2 days after the expiry of the warranty is academic really once you're at the point where Apple and EE aren't willing to offer any good will.
FWIW I've claimed via SOGA for a failed Lenovo laptop but it required me paying for an engineer to do a report etc and was - if I'm honest - a time consuming and irritating affair.
I was forced to get a bit arsey with a retailer about my daughters iPod which was a bit out of Apple warranty. Being a portable item it needs to be robust enough for its purpose I.e. To be carried about and get a bit more abuse than a non portable item European Law gives you up to 6 years protection. Give them some earache, find and quote the law or see them in court (which they won't do as it would cost them more than the value of the phone in lost time). Gather evidence from plenty of online reviews small claims will be a breeze, not that it will get that far.
Have you tried visiting a real Apple Store as opposed to a re-seller? It may be worth taking it to one. I had an issue with an IPhone4s that was out of warranty and had stopped making calls - the shop swapped for a reconditioned one free of charge.
There is a chance that they will be able to provide you with a reconditioned IPhone6 free of charge or at a greatly discounted price.
There is a chance that they will be able to provide you with a reconditioned IPhone6 free of charge or at a greatly discounted price.
jesusbuiltmycar said:
Have you tried visiting a real Apple Store as opposed to a re-seller? It may be worth taking it to one. I had an issue with an IPhone4s that was out of warranty and had stopped making calls - the shop swapped for a reconditioned one free of charge.
There is a chance that they will be able to provide you with a reconditioned IPhone6 free of charge or at a greatly discounted price.
Per the other thread, yes I did, they weren't interested, said the problem lay with EE.There is a chance that they will be able to provide you with a reconditioned IPhone6 free of charge or at a greatly discounted price.
elanfan said:
I was forced to get a bit arsey with a retailer about my daughters iPod which was a bit out of Apple warranty. Being a portable item it needs to be robust enough for its purpose I.e. To be carried about and get a bit more abuse than a non portable item European Law gives you up to 6 years protection. Give them some earache, find and quote the law or see them in court (which they won't do as it would cost them more than the value of the phone in lost time). Gather evidence from plenty of online reviews small claims will be a breeze, not that it will get that far.
EU law not applicable in this case, SOGA still in force at the back end of 2014 when the contract executed. I suspect the superceding law was amended to cover off areas like this.Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff