What now?

maglite

I've had a problem with a phone operator,

they provided me with a fradulant repair report, i've check where they outlined the problem.

Brought them to court and got my claim,

not who can i bring this case to, i have a concern that they are using the claim of water damage adhoc with no grounding.

Gardaí, radio, NCA???

Random

You brought them to court, got your problem sorted and got compensation?

Doctor DooM

maglite wrote: »

I've had a problem with a phone operator,

they provided me with a fradulant repair report, i've check where they outlined the problem.

Brought them to court and got my claim,

not who can i bring this case to, i have a concern that they are using the claim of water damage adhoc with no grounding.

Gardaí, radio, NCA???

Need more info tbh. From what you say it just sounds like you're issue is resolved.

maglite

indeed my specific issue is resolved but i have a concern that this is a wider issue and from the way i have been treated i would not like to leave this issue die.

how many people do ye know that have got a phone back with the fault fo water damage, it is only because i opened the phone that i discovered that there was no damage. It is my belief that this is a wider issue and would like to carry it on.

Perhaps its childish but i hope ye see where i'm coming from.

Random

Firstly your phone operator doesn't repair the phone themselves so it would be the repair centre that they'd let the blame fall back on at the end of the day.

Where did the repair report say there was water damage? Did you get a photo?

Also, are you sure there was no damage to the phone as a result of moisture or liquid and the phone company didn't just decide to give you a new one to stop you whinging? I've seen it done before.

Court - do you mean the small claims court?

maglite

random wrote: »

Firstly your phone operator doesn't repair the phone themselves so it would be the repair centre that they'd let the blame fall back on at the end of the day.

No that was done by their indipendant contracter, who advertise the operator and their parent company on their site, and the returns dept for the operator is in their office

Where did the repair report say there was water damage? Did you get a photo?

Got a small blurry picture of the internals

Also, are you sure there was no damage to the phone as a result of moisture or liquid and the phone company didn't just decide to give you a new one to stop you whinging? I've seen it done before.

Not in the area that was outlined in the picture, the company has given me nothing, i had to resort to sherrifs attending their offices to secure the judgement

Court - do you mean the small claims court?

Yes

Doctor DooM

I cant speak for all operators, but the one I worked for never made this call, it was always the repair company who sent a highlighted pic of the issue.

I seriously doubt there is a conspiracy tbh, it's not in a repair companies interest to not repair a phone- they wont get paid!

Sam Vimes

i suppose i should explain this again.

a repair company gets paid by phone manufacturers for repairing phones. if a phone is water damaged, they don't get paid for repairing it. so they have paid somebody to ship it to them, paid somebody to examine it and produce a report and then paid somedoby to ship it back to the customer.

and for all this they received exactly zero euro. where is the incentive to pretend that a phone is water damaged when it isn't?

take a look at this link:
http://www.mprc.ie/

you see the machine in the bottom right of the page? that's the machine that finds water damage. i'd tend to trust it more than a glance from a person who doesn't know what they're looking for

i'm always amazed how everyone thinks they're the only person who's ever had a water damaged phone. trust me when i say that you're roughly the 100,000th person to have one this year and the 99,990th to insist that they didn't get it wet

i've seen people come in with phones that were still dripping wet insist that it had been nowhere near water

Doctor DooM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i suppose i should explain this again.

a repair company gets paid by phone manufacturers for repairing phones. if a phone is water damaged, they don't get paid for repairing it. so they have paid somebody to ship it to them, paid somebody to examine it and produce a report and then paid somedoby to ship it back to the customer.

and for all this they received exactly zero euro. where is the incentive to pretend that a phone is water damaged when it isn't?

take a look at this link:
http://www.mprc.ie/

you see the machine in the bottom right of the page? that's the machine that finds water damage. i'd tend to trust it more than a glance from a person who doesn't know what they're looking for

i'm always amazed how everyone thinks they're the only person who's ever had a water damaged phone. trust me when i say that you're roughly the 100,000th person to have one this year and the 999,990th to insist that they didn't get it wet

i've seen people come in with phones that were still dripping wet insist that it had been nowhere near water

QFT.

maglite

Sam Vimes wrote: »

take a look at this link:
http://www.mprc.ie/

have you seen the standard of picture that wonder has supplied?

i'd tend to trust it more than a glance from a person who doesn't know what they're looking for

That is your assumption that i do not know what i am looking for , it would be a false assumption

i'm always amazed.......... 99,990th to insist that they didn't get it wet

are you confirming my belief that they provide fradualant reports and that the percentage is 99.99%

i've seen people come in with phones that were still dripping wet insist that it had been nowhere near water

i saw a camel once, whats your point,


NOW, back to my original question, where can i go next?

My claims have not been contested my the operator, if i was mistaken do you think they would just give in to me?

Garth

Actually a good few companies do not contest small claims. Often their solicitors cost far more than simply paying out would.

maglite

yes and i can understand that costing,

however this company have contested claims in the past according to the registrar

axer

maglite wrote: »

I've had a problem with a phone operator,

they provided me with a fradulant repair report, i've check where they outlined the problem.

Brought them to court and got my claim,

not who can i bring this case to, i have a concern that they are using the claim of water damage adhoc with no grounding.

Gardaí, radio, NCA???

If it is the case that the repairer was wrong then it could be just a mistake. In order to make any case of something larger you would need proof i.e. many customers that have been told water damage when you have proof it wasn't.

I have a feeling you are not going to be able to have such proof thus your presumption that many others have also been incorrectly refused repair due to water damage is only that - a presumption without proof thus useless.

Sam Vimes

maglite wrote: »

have you seen the standard of picture that wonder has supplied?

that wonder doesn't take pictures. they use a camera for that. and yes, those pictures they supply are useless.

maglite wrote: »

That is your assumption that i do not know what i am looking for , it would be a false assumption

in what way is it a false assumption? do you have the equipment to be able to find any evidence of moisture damage in the phone, or have you just looked at it?

maglite wrote: »

are you confirming my belief that they provide fradualant reports and that the percentage is 99.99%

no, i'm confirming that 99.99% of people were wrong when they said their phone never got wet.

maglite wrote: »

i saw a camel once, whats your point,

again, my point is that people tend to either think they never got their phone wet when they did, or simply lie

maglite wrote: »

NOW, back to my original question, where can i go next?

you can get proof that the report was fraudulent. do you have proof? can you satisfactorily explain why a company is instructing it's employees to cost the company money by lying to customers. where is the incentive?

maglite wrote: »

My claims have not been contested my the operator, if i was mistaken do you think they would just give in to me?

a new phone costs considerably less than a solicitor and is a lot less hassle and bad publicity

maglite

Axer;

it could be a mistake, but if it were would you not think they would offer some remedy rather than be brought through the courts?, agreed i have no proof, buit that is why i'm not sueing through the district court and getting the guards to press charges.

I'm meerly looking for advice as i FEEL that they are doing this on a frequent basis.


Sam;

you seem very pro phone company, do you have a professioal relationship?
you ask fo rproof, the onus on them is to show that the damage they claim is there.
If they were worried about cost they would not contest any claim, rather than cherry picking ones where they did not lie.


What equipment do you have in mind?

board om

all it takes is for someone to have their phone in the bathroom when they take a shower for it to get water damaged, or leave it in their car over night, or use it out in the rain, or leave it in their pocket while its raining. in other words there a hudreds of ways for a phone to get water damaged. it doesnt have to be dropped into a sink of water, or dropped in a puddle for it to happen. it can quite as easily happen through moisture. and it doesnt have to break straight away either. it could get wet and be absolutley fine but then a few months later it could start to have problems. so for someone to state that the are 100% sure that their phone is not water damaged is a difficult statement to make as there is always a chance that it could be. i dont beleive for one minute that the repair compaines are doing this maliciously as they stand to gain nothing from doing it. in fact they actually gain more by repairing the phone as they get paid for that.

regardng your claim, of course it makes more sense for them to give you a new phone that go to court, that is just common sense. as most people know whern it comes to something like this it is nearly always cheaper for a company to settle the case than let it go to court. without having the machinery they use for detecting moisture damage you cant 100% be sure that the phone is not water damaged. and even if it was a mistake, people make mistkes. that doesnt mean there is a conspiracy to tell people their phones are water damaged when they are not. it just means that someone made an error.

Sam Vimes

maglite wrote: »

Sam;

you seem very pro phone company, do you have a professioal relationship?

i used to work in a phone shop and every day there'd be a new person insisting their phone never got wet. they'd shout and threaten and say they'd call joe duffy etc etc etc. they pissed me off. i remember one particular guy threw his phone at me and stormed off. then i took the back off and the circuit board was covered in crap. it was obviously his own fault but people don't like to admit that

maglite wrote: »

you ask fo rproof, the onus on them is to show that the damage they claim is there.

well when you're accusing them on a public forum of maliciously lying to people on a massive scale, i'd say the onus is on you because you can be sued for slander

maglite wrote: »

If they were worried about cost they would not contest any claim, rather than cherry picking ones where they did not lie.

i've never heard of them contesting one tbh. and you're assuming the company is one unit. whether or not they contest it depends on whoever happens to open the letter telling them about the case

maglite wrote: »

What equipment do you have in mind?

well i don't know exactly what they use and neither do you. but i think it's safe to assume it's more effective than a glance at the visible parts of the phone and a belief that you never had it near moisture


and you still haven't explained why they'd lie. what do they have to gain from it?

Doctor DooM

maglite wrote: »

Axer;

it could be a mistake, but if it were would you not think they would offer some remedy rather than be brought through the courts?, agreed i have no proof, buit that is why i'm not sueing through the district court and getting the guards to press charges.

I'm meerly looking for advice as i FEEL that they are doing this on a frequent basis.


Sam;

you seem very pro phone company, do you have a professioal relationship?
you ask fo rproof, the onus on them is to show that the damage they claim is there.
If they were worried about cost they would not contest any claim, rather than cherry picking ones where they did not lie.


What equipment do you have in mind?

Once again:

The companies that repair phones DO NOT GET PAID if they do not repair a phone. It is not in their interest to send a phone back water damaged if it can be avoided.

This means that if these companies were to do what you feel they are doing they would go out of business.

Phone networks don't repair phones themselves, they contract to repair companies who make their money off the warranty.

Sales assistants hate recieving water damaged returns to the shop because it always leads to a fight. I once had a customer who's phone's contacts had actually coroded blue from liquid damaged and was still insisting they'd never gotten it wet.

FYI I did work in a phone shop, but I don't now. These are merely the facts of the situation from someone who has seen the workings from the inside.

axer

maglite wrote: »

Axer;

it could be a mistake, but if it were would you not think they would offer some remedy rather than be brought through the courts?, agreed i have no proof, buit that is why i'm not sueing through the district court and getting the guards to press charges.

Sometimes it is easier to just replace something than argue. It would probably cost more to get an engineers report etc. Your not going to the Gardai as it is not a criminal matter thus they would tell you to f'uck off. You could go through the courts but like you said you are only making it up i.e. you do not have ANY proof whatsoever. Did they even respond to your claim?

maglite wrote: »

I'm meerly looking for advice as i FEEL that they are doing this on a frequent basis.

You feel they are doing it on a frequent basis? WTF? Is it just a feeling you get? Have you been psychic for long?

If you do not have any proof that a) the repair company/mobile operators are regularly lying to customers about water damage or b) that you were lied to about water damage when in fact you have proof that your phone was NOT water damaged then what have you? a feeling? Yes, please go to the highest authority with your feeling. Ring that idiot Joooooeee Duuffy with your feeling, let the world know you have a feeling!

I feel you won't get far!

maglite

let me bow down to the superior knowledge of the sales assistants.

Sam;

who is going to sue me? and for what?
Their legal dept told me they had precedence in the courts, that suggests that they have been there before
You see the thing is i have a very good idea of what they could use, but i dont know if they bother using it. And i would have access to most of what they could use.

SDooM;
are you basing your assumption that they dont get paid on the bills that are returned to your store, they are not a charity and if they do not charge for each inspection it would be down to a close professional relationship with the operator, or they are essentially the same company

Axer;

I have a report from an independent repair company, and have pictures and resistance results from they which PROVE my phone is not damaged,


now i would ask you that unless you can provide productive answer stay out of the tread and if you have a absolute desire to bicker with my my pm box is waiting

Doctor DooM

maglite wrote: »

let me bow down to the superior knowledge of the sales assistants.

Sam;

who is going to sue me? and for what?
Their legal dept told me they had precedence in the courts, that suggests that they have been there before
You see the thing is i have a very good idea of what they could use, but i dont know if they bother using it. And i would have access to most of what they could use.

SDooM;
are you basing your assumption that they dont get paid on the bills that are returned to your store, they are not a charity and if they do not charge for each inspection it would be down to a close professional relationship with the operator, or they are essentially the same company

I am not making an assumption, I know how the system works, as does Sam, which is why we have been repeating ourselves here.

They are completely seperate companies. In my time with O2, they changed their repair comany 3 times. There is no "special" relationship at all. In fact, you will get the same service yourself if you walk into a repair shop with a warranty repair as O2 or meteor or whoever will get sending them in.

If a Nokia phone stops working in warranty, Nokia pay for the repair. not the network company.

If a phone is rendered unusuable through liquid damage, it is classed as customer damage and is labelled as BER, Beyond Econical Repair.

If a wet phone is repaired, despite being out of warranty, it is likely to corrode from the inside out again: No reputable repair shop will even offer a customer to repair a phone they believe to be wet.

Once again:

There is no profit for a repair company to render a phone BER.

Repair companies are in no way associated with phone networks.

Repair companies make their profit from repair in warranty phones from the manufacturers, or from the customer.

There is no charity in returning a BER phone, is is financially inviable to repair and by definition has been customer damaged.

That said, a simple mistake might have been made in your case, or as other people have said, it might have been less bother to just give you what you want.

axer

maglite wrote: »

Axer;

I have a report from an independent repair company, and have pictures and resistance results from they which PROVE my phone is not damaged,


now i would ask you that unless you can provide productive answer stay out of the tread and if you have a absolute desire to bicker with my my pm box is waiting

You have proof that they may have made a mistake with your phone - not that they lie regularly to customers regarding water damage. You have received your remedy so what is your problem. Do you want them imprisoned for the mistake?

craichoe

maglite wrote: »

I've had a problem with a phone operator,

they provided me with a fradulant repair report, i've check where they outlined the problem.

Brought them to court and got my claim,

not who can i bring this case to, i have a concern that they are using the claim of water damage adhoc with no grounding.

Gardaí, radio, NCA???

Sounds like you need to have a rant to someone, i recon you should ring your mam and tell her all about it.