o2 3 repairs in 90 days policy

[Anonymous]

Sale of Goods act 1979

48B Repair or replacement of the goods:

(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer may require the seller—

(a)to repair the goods, or

(b)to replace the goods.

(2)If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—

(a)repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;

Just a little piece of legislation for all o2 customers to have a look at......

Significant inconvenience to the buyer is having to take you phone back 4 times since January, having someone tell you the first time "doesn't count" or "we do offer you a loan phone" (which doesn't have any of the facilities you continued your contract for), then telling you when you excercise your legal right to ask for a replacement or refund that it is "company policy to attempt three repairs within a 90 day period before replacing the hanset"

It is the consumer / buyers decision (within reason) whether they wish to have the phone replaced NOT o2.

o2, you need to rethink your policy please as I no longer have any desire to remain a customer when both my contracts expire in October after having used your services for over a decade.

I believe (and so agree both a solicitor and a magistrate) that this policy contravenes the above Act in both DEMANDING three opportunities to repair a phone under warranty and trying to change the nature of that warranty by adding a time limit of 90 days to a repair attempt.

If I had the time or the money I would challenge your policy in court but I have better things to do. You seem to be playing the odds with your customers and that seems to me to be more of an "**** You" attitude that a "Can Do" one with regards to customer services.

The odds of me remaining a customer of yours after October: zero to infinity.........

[Rycal]

The Sale Of Goods Act covers handset faults as opposed to issues which may have occured from general wear and tear, the issue is that after such a period of time (as you state your contract is up in October im guessing you have had your contract over 18 months) it is incredibly difficult to prove that the fault was caused by a manufacturing defect.

A lot of people have misconceptions regarding this act. First of all that they quote that the act states they are entitled to a refund within a reasonable period of time. This is true however that reasonable period of time is decided by the company and that period is 14 days. After 14 days and up to 6 months if the product develops a fault it is up to the retailer to prove that the fault was caused by the consumer, if they cannot then they have to issue either a replacement or a repair. The standard proceedure here for O2 is to send the phone away for repair, they do not legally have to replace the handset HOWEVER they do have a policy in place that after 3 repairs (or 2 within 30 days) you can request a replacement handset. After 6 months the law changes and it is up to the consumer to prove to the retailer that there was an issue with the handset when they bought it, which is near impossible to do. Its not easy to explain this which leads to my final point and that is that the main issue here appears to be the lack of understanding the SoGA. If you go back to your store and start quoting it most advisors will simply tell you what they have been trained to tell you (and the SoGA is not part of that training), however if you were to take the case higher up the chain and go direct to O2 head-office then you are more likely to find yourself dealing with people who are familiar with the Act.

[Anonymous]

The Sales of Goods Act is their to protect both the seller and buyer.

So is Trading Standards.

As a Customer Service Manager a few years ago when a customer stated they had contacted these bodies I always contacted them myself to clarify how we stood as a business and that our proposal for resolution was fair and legal.

Trading Standards would also confirm if a person of that name had lodged a comlaint too !

When a person has committed to a long term contract or has purchased an expensive smartphone its reasonable to expect good support which includes a fast repair or replacement. 

[Anonymous]

Thank you, very tactfully put.

However, you do not have to prove that a fault existed when you bought the product, only that it develops a fault during the two year warranty and that that fault has not been caused by obvious handset "trauma".

I do apreciate your feedback, and I feel sure that, if you were familiar with my current situation, and agree that the act is there to regulate and protect both parties to a contract, you would perhaps also agree that I deserve better. 

[adamtemp64]

(breaks self imposed posting ban)

good tips here about the soga and you do have to prove after 6 months that the fault was present at time of reciept http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8253915.stm

Proof it existed could be by pointing to forums etc showing it was a manufacturing issue etc

Do not confuse the extra protection a manufacturer warranty gives over the soga, two different things.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps you could re post with what resolution has been reached in your case.

This would help current and future members who are or may find themselves in a similar situation.