eMobile not fulfilling statutory obligations

Tragedy

Warning: This is a long read, but it might be of interest just in case your handset ever fails under warranty.

I purchased a HTC One X on the Select Unlimited Half Price Offer in August. The WiFi signal was never particularly good (certainly inferior to the HTC Desire that it replaced), and by early December it was so poor that unless I was in the same room as the WiFi router, I wouldn't pick up a reliable signal (this also applied to Bluetooth, I couldn't use a bluetooth headset anymore as it would have frequent audio dropouts).
As a sidenote, I had also noticed that despite being (lovingly) protected by a leather flip case, the phone had developed a huge number of 'micro' scratches. These were invisible unless held up under a direct light but nevertheless, should not have occured and seem to be scratches on the oleophobic layer placed over the screen itself.

After a cursory google, it turned out that there was a manufacturing defect with this particular model and that HTC had finally caved in an announced it in June. There was an easy test to see if your phone was affected (squeeze the back of the phone where the antenna is and see if WiFi performance returns to normal) and sure enough, my phone had the defect.

I sent an e-mail to customer care on 16/12/2012 but as I was in Dublin City the following day, I dropped in to the eMobile store to have it sent off for repair.
Firstly, the supervisor informed me that it would take a minimum of 10 days and due to Christmas, this would be more likely closer to 15 days.
Secondly, the only temporary replacement phone that the supervisor could offer me was a battered old Nokia candybar with no smartphone features.
This was clearly unacceptable, and the supervisor agreed.

I decided to ring Customer Care to see what they could do. The first agent I spoke with said that it was nothing to do with them and it was up to the store.
I called back and asked to speak to a Supervisor and was informed they were all in a meeting (similar refrain to many posts on here) but that I would receive a callback within 40minutes, and at the latest by that evening.

17 days later I'm still waiting for the callback.

Late that evening I decided to e-mail Customer Care again, stating what had happened and why I felt it to be an unacceptable outcome (three weeks without a smartphone over Christmas?).

I have two current problems with the phone.
1) An issue with poor WiFi reception, a manufacturing defect acknowledged by HTC Europe (e.g. http://www.androidcentral.com/htc-acknowledges-wifi-hardware-issues-some-have-one-x ).
2) An issue with the phone's screen, which despite initially being protected by a screen protector and latterly by a leather flip case, has, despite my babying, still somehow managed to pick up 8 or 9 deep scratches that I can catch with my finger nail.

EU law states that it must be repaired within a reasonable period and without significant inconvenience to me. 2 weeks repair is not in any way reasonable for a commodity item such as a mobile phone, and being without a broadly comparable phone is rather inconvenient.

To be clear, I have no issue with it being repaired, but such a delay for a repair is unacceptable, as is the offer of a battered basic phone as substitute.

I then received this reply:

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for your reply and l am sorry to hear of your dissatisfaction regarding the handset repairs and loan phone. Please be advised that the handset will need to be examined by the engineer and they will give a recommendation based on the fault. Once they have provided this recommendation on whether they are able to repair your handset or not.

With regards to the loan phone, we apologise for the inconvenience caused by this and we are aware that your service may be affected by the functions of this handset. As a loyal customer, we are able to revise the charges on your invoice based on this period when you did not have your handset.

You may contact the fonefix on the number I provided in the previous email. Please see fonefix on website: http://www.mprc.ie/OnlineServices.aspx?newurl=onlineservices_vanilla/onlineservices.asp?mode=check_imei

I hope this information is useful and if you have any further queries please call customer care or email and we will be delighted to assist you.



Regards,

To which I duly responded with

Hi there,
As previously stated, neither repairer will handle HTC phones and all HTC phones are sent off to HTC for repair - either to Wicklow or the UK. I just called MPRC and they confirmed this, and once again stated that it would be 10 working days or longer (Christmas etc).

I understand that staff can not diagnose technical issues in store, and I understand that handsets outside the initial 28 day period must be assessed by a competent individual before a decision on repair or replacement is made.

However, once again, a minimum of 10 working days without the phone is not acceptable unless I am provided with a suitable alternative. 10 working days repair turnaround for a device such as a mobile phone does not constitute reasonable (when any repair is unlikely to take more than an hour or else be deemed uneconomic and a replacement issued), and emobile stores not stocking a sufficient quantity of courtesy phones for customers is also unreasonable.


If this could be escalated up the line, I would appreciate it.
Cheers,
Kevin

Now, this is where it starts getting interesting. The issue was indeed escalated, and I hear back from the first member of the Customer Care Administration Team

Hi Kevin,

Thank you for your email.

I am sorry to hear of the difficulties you have experienced with your handset.

Unfortunately, when a customer experiences a fault with a handset, we advise our customer to visit an eMobile store. One of our Customer Care representatives will then send the handset to our mobile phone repair company to be repaired. In this instance, our Customer Care representatives offer you a replacement handset. We have no control over the make and model of handset we have available to offer you for this temporary time period.

I understand that you have been advised that our mobile phone repair company have informed you that you will need to send your phone directly to HTC in order for your handset to be repaired. I am sorry that this will take up to 10 working days in order for the issue to be resolved. You would need to contact HTC directly and enquire if this time frame could be sooner.

I hope this information has been of assistance to your query.

Regards,

Now, I'm sure people can spot a number of issues with this mail.

Firstly, eMobile state that they have no control over what model of handset they have available to offer as a temporary replacement. What? Aren't eMobile the ones providing the replacement? Don't eMobile sell mobile phones? Don't they have any number of new phones in stock so that in an emergency they can provide one of these? Apparently not...

Secondly, eMobile seem to think how long a repair takes is the manufacturer's responsibility. Strange that, seeing as how it's eMobile who have the legal obligation to repair the phone.

I duly went and asked for the issue to be escalated again, and e-mailed ccm@eircom.ie (the complaints address) while cc'ing customer care.

I received this interesting reply back from another member of the Customer Care Administration Team:

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for your email and my apologies for any inconvenience caused.

eMobile provide customers with the network (Sim Card) in which to make calls and texts, we do not provide the warranty or repair time frame for handsets, these are provided by third parties (Handset Manufacturers).

When handsets are faulty or in need of repair these handsets at the request of the manufacturer need to be sent away for assesment and it is at the discretion of the manufacturer in regards to whether the repair is free of charge, if a repair will be made or whether they will send out a replacement handset.

All handsets are covered under the 24 month manufacturer warranty issued by the manufacturer of the handset and not eMobile.

Substitute handsets are offered in store to customers who require to send there handsets off for repair.

Please note that the stores are unable to gaurantee availability of substitute handsets and the make, model and type of handset available.

Please feel free to take a look at the following link below in regards to our terms and conditions of service surrounding the repair of handsets.

http://www.emobile.ie/terms/

So. Apparently I didn't buy my HTC One X from eMobile? I only bought the sim card. And it cost €189.

Further, we have a second member of the 'Administration Team' following the laughably incorrect view that eMobile have no responsibility vis-à-vis the handset, warranty and repairing it. Apparently eMobile believe they operate in a country where the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act doesn't exist and where Ireland hasn't brought into law the European Communities (Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees) Regulations 2003.

I asked that either the issue be escalated further or that eMobile state definitively that they believe that neither the Sale of Goods Act or the EC Regulations 2003 apply to eMobile's operations and received this reply:

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for your email.

It is standard industry practice that faulty handsets are required to be sent to the manufacturer or repair center and that this can take up to 10 working days.

As previously advised you can bring the handset directly into Fonefix who will be able to fix your phone within 3 hours for a fee of 15 EUR.

I have forwarded on your query to our Complaints Team who will be in contact with you.

Please see the section below which is taken from the terms and conditions of your service under Section 8 which can be viewed on our website www.emobile.ie.

So. It doesn't matter what statutory rights consumers have. It doesn't matter what legislation exists. 'Standard industry practice' trumps all that!

Also, (although it doesn't apply in my case as neither MPRC or Fonefix repair HTC phones) if one wishes to have the quick repair service that eMobile promises it will deliver in their repair policy and that they should provide by law, one must pay a 'handling charge' even though one's phone is fully warrantied and by law, the consumer must not pay if the fault is not of their causing.

Lastly, apparently their vague T&Cs about repairs - which for the record, consist of the following "Repairs: If your phone is faulty and is older than 28 days, you will be entitled to a free repair as long as your phone is within its manufacturer's warranty.

For the duration that your device is being repaired with eMobile, eMobile will use reasonable efforts to maintain the security of your information, but you acknowledge that eMobile is not liable or responsible for any inadvertent loss or damage to (or to any other materials notified above not to be included as part of the repairs process), or any caused through the necessary repairs process (which may include deletion of information). It is your responsibility to remove and save in advance of sending your phone / broadband for repair." means they can just wave their hands and say it isn't their responsibility or their fault that repair times are ludicrously long and that they won't provide a suitable stock of replacement phones in the meantime.

Ya right.

Anyway, the relevant sections of legislation are as follows:

(5) Where the remedy of repair or replacement is provided the repair or replacement shall be completed within a reasonable time and without any significant inconvenience to the consumer, taking account of the nature of the goods and the purpose for which the consumer required them.

(6) In paragraphs (2) and (3) “free of charge” means free of the costs that must necessarily be incurred to bring the goods into conformity, including the cost of carriage postage, labour and materials.

(7) The consumer may require an appropriate reduction of the price or have the contract rescinded if —

(a) the consumer is entitled to neither repair nor replacement, or

(b) the seller has not completed the repair or replacement within a reasonable time, or

(c) the seller has not completed the repair or replacement without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

The relevance of the Sale of Goods Act is that a customer's contract is with the vendor and the not the manufacturer, despite what eMobile think.

I'm still waiting for an answer from the Eircom Complaints Department (it's been 7 working days and apparently it takes a minimum of 10) but I don't hold out any hope based on the correspondence so far. It's quite clear that eMobile have a deliberate policy whereby they are knowingly refusing to honour their statutory obligations to customers because it saves them money - and I can't see the complaints department suddenly seeing 'sense' and completely turning around company policy.

I'm seeking legal advice from a solicitor acquaintance before deciding on the District Court (as I'm seeking to have the contract rescinded due to breach of condition and eMobile entering the contract in bad faith, and to have some damages awarded) or the Small Claims Court.

A friend (who used to be a boards.ie member) had similar issues with Meteor. HTC Desire failed under warranty (again, a common failure linked back to a manufacturing defect) and he ended up waiting over six weeks for a repair while being given a non-smartphone as a replacement.

So again, sorry for the long post and hopefully this will be of interest to some people. I will of course keep this thread updated about any future outcomes.

whippet

I'm a little confused as to why you titled your post as you have. As far as I can make out eMobile are fulfilling their statutory obligations?

Your handset is faulty and they are offering a repair. The repair will take up to 10 working days and they are offering you another handset as a temp replacement.

While not ideal from your angle it is more than enough from a mobile provider

Nonoperational

They've offered to fix your phone in 1.5-2 weeks, give you a replacement while it's away and you are taking them to court? Jesus.

godtabh

Sounds like you are making an issue out of this to get out of your contract.

10 days for a repair is reasonable but from your point of view not ideal.

eMobile wont give you a brand new state of the art phone while yours is being repaired. I dont think it is reasonable to expect this. They are giving you a replacement phone with no charges to your account while you have this phone. Seems very reasonable to me.

I also dont think emobile are ignoring their responsibilities. Maybe they havent worded it great but sounds to me like they are following SOP.

lifeandtimes

Tragedy wrote: »

Now, I'm sure people can spot a number of issues with this mail.

Firstly, eMobile state that they have no control over what model of handset they have available to offer as a temporary replacement. What? Aren't eMobile the ones providing the replacement? Don't eMobile sell mobile phones? Don't they have any number of new phones in stock so that in an emergency they can provide one of these? Apparently not...

.

Ehm I think they may have been referring themselves in customer care and not eMobile in a whole.
Also I don’t think they would give you another smart phone, how do they not know you’ll just leg it with the new phone and forget the old phone all together, not saying you would but its plausible from their point of view seeing as its faulty

But also they are repairing your phone which is what they are supposed to do and have also given you another phone and are not charging you for the time you dont have it,sound pretty decent in my opinion

mathepac

@Tragedy, thank you for the detailed post.

It seems to have prompted the response I got on a number of occasions when I posted in the Motors forum about the lack of compliance (or even outright contempt) motor traders show for consumers and consumer legislation in Ireland with their so-called warranties.

It'll take a few consumers suing large organisations before the penny drops that their size does not entitle them to ignore the law.

I'll be very interested to hear future developments.

Well done.

Just as an aside: You'd think eircom could afford to hire people with a sound grasp of good grammatical business English to type emails.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

OP, your post makes it sound like you want a way out of your contract.

eMobile have offered to repair your phone within a reasonable timeframe. During the holidays it can take a little longer due to staff being on holidays. They have also offered you a replacement handset for the duration of the repair period. What is the problem?

foggy_lad

Your handset is faulty and the retailer is offering to repair it which is fulfilling their obligation under the Sale of goods act.

If the handset could be repaired or even examined by the Fone-Fix companies in Ireland it would save time and you would get it back possible within 5 days but it must be sent back to the manufacturer which again is only the retailer complying with the repair by getting the most competent people to do the job, the fact that it may take longer, even as long as 15 days is not unreasonable!

You are not entitled to any replacement handset during any repair period!

whippet

mathepac wrote: »

It'll take a few consumers suing large organisations before the penny drops that their size does not entitle them to ignore the law.

.

could you please refer us to the law which you believe eMobile have ignored based on the details given by the OP.

What really annoys me is the assumption of a certain section of consumers feel that they are entitled to everything and anything and this is justifiable as companies are 'large' .... companies are there to make money and customers can choose to deal with them or not

Nonoperational

The law works both ways. If something is broken your entitled to it being fixed. It says nowhere in the law that you are entitled to flick your heels together and have a replacement appear instantly. It's annoying that it's broken, but sometimes these things happen. I would regard the offer of sending it away to be fixed as reasonable. If it was an ongoing issue, or if it was unsuccessfully repaired before then it may be different.

mathepac

whippet wrote: »

could you please refer us to the law which you believe eMobile have ignored based on the details given by the OP. ...

Delighted to oblige. As the OP's comprehensive post included this information in bold, I think it's fair to assume you didn't read the excellent post in full. Here you go :-

"(5) Where the remedy of repair or replacement is provided the repair or replacement shall be completed within a reasonable time and without any significant inconvenience to the consumer, taking account of the nature of the goods and the purpose for which the consumer required them."

whippet wrote: »

...
What really annoys me is the assumption of a certain section of consumers feel that they are entitled to everything and anything and this is justifiable as companies are 'large' .... companies are there to make money and customers can choose to deal with them or not

Your post sounds like that of a disgruntled shop-keeper.

I was staying with family over Christmas and a fairly expensive present stopped working on St Stephen's Day. I rang the tech support line (in the UK), described the symptoms and the remedies I had tried and was issued with a "return goods authorisation" as the item in question was broken.

I drove to the shop (a UK multiple) and joined the queue at the customer service desk. A young man (teens) was being told by a rather rude man behind the desk that "It's Boxing Day maite, innit, we don't do returns on Boxing day or when the sales are on; company policy, maite, innit?"

The young man turned to leave and I asked him if he could wait a minute. I presented my broken item and listened to the same speil from the man behind the counter. I asked him if he could show me where on the documents I had brought in (receipt, support documentation, warranty card, tech docs) it was written that I could not have a replacement because it happened to be "Boxing Day". His response was "It don't matter maite, it's company policy, innit." I then asked to see the manager who presented himself after a short delay.

I stated my case to the manager and said it was news to me that company policy took precedence over Irish / EU consumer law. I was offered an immediate replacement or refund. I took the replacement, as did the young man who had been ahead of me in the queue when I intervened on his behalf.

The replacement item has worked flawlessly, but it's worrying that so many people working in retail outlets (and those spending money with them) don't know the basics.

HTH

Cabaal

OP, offered to send the phone off for repair, thats all they have to do. They don't have to give you a loan phone thats equal to the phone that's being sent off!

Either take the phone they offer, don't or bitch and moan and waste your time with small claims were they'll likely look upon your case as a unreasonable customer.

mathepac

Cabaal wrote: »

OP, offered to send the phone off for repair, thats all they have to do. ..

Not according to my reading of the law as a lay-person. They must also avoid inconveniencing the consumer

Cabaal wrote: »

... Either take the phone they offer, don't or bitch and moan and waste your time with small claims were they'll likely look upon your case as a unreasonable customer.

Since when did attempting to exercise one's consumer rights amount to bitching and moaning?

whippet

mathepac wrote: »

Delighted to oblige. As the OP's comprehensive post included this information in bold, I think it's fair to assume you didn't read the excellent post in full. Here you go :-

"(5) Where the remedy of repair or replacement is provided the repair or replacement shall be completed within a reasonable time and without any significant inconvenience to the consumer, taking account of the nature of the goods and the purpose for which the consumer required them."
Your post sounds like that of a disgruntled shop-keeper.

As I thought, you have actually interpreted the law incorrectly or you are trying to justify something that isn't required under the law.

What you have quoted has a couple of important points:

- Where the remedy of repair or replacement is provided the repair or replacement shall be completed within a reasonable time
This is subject to what a 'reasonable' person may deem 'reasonable' .. for a repair to an specialist electronic device that is over a year old 10 days would be 'reasonable' .. however, vice versa, to an unreasonable person this would be unreasonable - hence why the courts always use the interpretation of a reasonable person.

- ithout any significant inconvenience to the consumer, taking account of the nature of the goods and the purpose for which the consumer required them
To offset the 'significant' inconvenience the seller offered a replacement handset in the interim and offered to suspend any related charges for services that the customer may not be able to access.
Again, to a 'reasonable' person this is a reasonable solution, unfortunately unreasonable people won't.

with respect to the rest of your post, I wouldn't really take any credence from it as generally when I hear people tell these types of stories and especially how you tell it the facts tend to get embellished a little and more often than not waver from the truth.

Cabaal

mathepac wrote: »

Not according to my reading of the law as a lay-person.

Ok, by your reasoning if you buy a iMac from apple and it needs to be repaired you expect Apple to furnish you with a suitable replacement while your iMac is being replaced so you are not inconvenienced....such a belief is utter nonsense.
:rolleyes:

They don't have to do this, you are reading it wrong.

They must also avoid inconveniencing the consumer
Since when did attempting to exercise one's consumer rights amount to bitching and moaning?

Exercising rights is one thing...provided you actually understand your rights.

Getting it arse ways and then expecting a company to provide stuff they legally don't have to is, means you are being unreasonable and you are bitching and moaning.

mathepac

whippet wrote: »

As I thought, you have actually interpreted the law incorrectly or you are trying to justify something that isn't required under the law.

What you have quoted has a couple of important points:

- Where the remedy of repair or replacement is provided the repair or replacement shall be completed within a reasonable time
This is subject to what a 'reasonable' person may deem 'reasonable' .. for a repair to an specialist electronic device that is over a year old 10 days would be 'reasonable' .. however, vice versa, to an unreasonable person this would be unreasonable - hence why the courts always use the interpretation of a reasonable person.

....

So maybe you need to read the OP again carefully. The phone was purchased about 6 months ago, August 2012. To a reasonable person, complex and expensive electronic devices should function for more than 6 months.

I notice you also want to be the arbiter of what is reasonable, which kind of makes nonsense of you mentioning the courts.

whippet wrote: »

...
- ithout any significant inconvenience to the consumer, taking account of the nature of the goods and the purpose for which the consumer required them
To offset the 'significant' inconvenience the seller offered a replacement handset in the interim and offered to suspend any related charges for services that the customer may not be able to access.
Again, to a 'reasonable' person this is a reasonable solution, unfortunately unreasonable people won't. ...

Again, not knowing all the facts and circumstances, I would be inclined to take OP's word for he/she regarded as significant inconvenience rather than accuse him/her of having unreasonable expectations of a 6 month old phone.

whippet wrote: »

... with respect to the rest of your post, I wouldn't really take any credence from it as generally when I hear people tell these types of stories and especially how you tell it the facts tend to get embellished a little and more often than not waver from the truth.

Is that an accusation that I'm lying or exaggerating? Please don't judge other people's input by your apparent acceptance of low levels of completeness and accuracy.

I guess we all have the right to be regarded and treated respectfully. It's a pity the courtesy has not been extended to the OP or to me.

melekalikimaka

i'd be interested to see how this goes, to me the op is in the wrong but sure ya never know

whippet

mathepac wrote: »

So maybe you need to read the OP again carefully. The phone was purchased about 6 months ago, August 2012. To a reasonable person, complex and expensive electronic devices should function for more than 6 months.

Indeed I did mis-read the OPs time scale, however the crux of my argument is the same. I never once mentioned that the device should not be expected to last 12 or 6 months, what I was discussing is how the seller is expected to deal with a defective device

mathepac wrote: »

I notice you also want to be the arbiter of what is reasonable, which kind of makes nonsense of you mentioning the courts.
Again, not knowing all the facts and circumstances, I would be inclined to take OP's word for he/she regarded as significant inconvenience rather than accuse him/her of having unreasonable expectations of a 6 month old phone.

I am giving my opinion as to what I see it reasonable, which seems to be agreeable to most of the contributors to this thread. Either the OP accepts our opinion of chooses to take it to court and then it is the Judge who will be the final judge; I was also trying to explain how a judge will more than likely come to their decision - based on the premise of the 'reasonable person'

mathepac wrote: »

Is that and accusation that I'm lying or exaggerating? Please don't judge other people's input by your apparent acceptance of low levels of completeness and accuracy.

Actually, your little story does not really have any relevance to this thread and I usually take stories like this with a pinch of salt. Reminds me of the amount of times I hear of a 20 yard free kick that turns in to a 45 yard belter by closing time on a saturday night.

mathepac wrote: »

I guess we all have the right to be regarded and treated respectfully. It's a pity the courtesy has not been extended to the OP or to me.

I agree .. and this courtesy should also be extended to retailers and others in business.

mathepac

whippet wrote: »

Indeed I did mis-read the OPs time scale, however the crux of my argument is the same. ...

My point is that the "newness" of the phone alters the interpretation of "reasonableness" and "inconvenience" and also the time within which the purchaser might expect resolution.

As the time between purchase and discarding / recycling the old technology grows, the greater the inconvenience for the user. If it was 2/3 days it might be reasonable to expect the customer to take a technological step backwards to get something fixed / replaced and the time taken to resolve the problem might be less critical.

whippet wrote: »

... which seems to be agreeable to most of the contributors to this thread. ...

Which is completely irrelevant IMHO, either you have a well-formed opinion of your own and can support it or you don't.

whippet wrote: »

... Either the OP accepts our opinion of chooses to take it to court and then it is the Judge who will be the final judge; I was also trying to explain how a judge will more than likely come to their decision - based on the premise of the 'reasonable person' ...

I see, it's now "our opinion". I believe the OP has enough to warrant consulting a solicitor, whose view of a judicial definition of "reasonable" will be a tad more accurate than yours or mine.

whippet wrote: »

... Actually, your little story does not really have any relevance to this thread ...

In your opinion of course. In my opinion it is very relevant as it illustrates how consumers can be treated by staff in retail outlets unless the consumer is armed with knowledge of consumer law and determination not to be dismissed by an offhand "company policy, init maite".

whippet wrote: »

... Actually, your little story does not really have any relevance to this thread and I usually take stories like this with a pinch of salt. Reminds me of the amount of times I hear of a 20 yard free kick that turns in to a 45 yard belter by closing time on a saturday night. ...

I can't account for how your life experiences to-date have influenced your views on people you haven't met, but as I don't drink, don't go to pubs and haven't played any sports for a while, your methods of judging my "little story" have no relevance whatsoever. If the story was being related by one of you drunken, footballing aquaintaces on a Saturday night fair enough; I don't fit into that category.

whippet wrote: »

... I agree .. and this courtesy should also be extended to retailers and others in business.

Point out to me where that happened.

whippet

mathepac wrote: »

My point is that the "newness" of the phone alters the interpretation of "reasonableness" and "inconvenience" and also the time within which the purchaser might expect resolution.

As the time between purchase and discarding / recycling the old technology grows, the greater the inconvenience for the user. If it was 2/3 days it might be reasonable to expect the customer to take a technological step backwards to get something fixed / replaced and the time taken to resolve the problem might be less critical.

Which is completely irrelevant IMHO, either you have a well-formed opinion of your own and can support it or you don't.
I see, it's now "our opinion". I believe the OP has enough to warrant consulting a solicitor, whose view of a judicial definition of "reasonable" will be a tad more accurate than yours or mine.
In your opinion of course. In my opinion it is very relevant as it illustrates how consumers can be treated by staff in retail outlets unless the consumer is armed with knowledge of consumer law and determination not to be dismissed by an offhand "company policy, init maite".
I can't account for how your life experiences to-date have influenced your views on people you haven't met, but as I don't drink, don't go to pubs and haven't played any sports for a while, your methods of judging my "little story" have no relevance whatsoever. If the story was being related by one of you drunken, footballing aquaintaces on a Saturday night fair enough; I don't fit into that category.
Point out to me where that happened.

I reckon I'll leave this thread with this comment ...

I believe the retailer has been reasonable in their offering and the OP is being unreasonable in their request.

Should the OP wish to take a legal action that is of course their choice but I wouldn't recommend it.

As for your input mathepac ... My interpretation of your opinion is that of being unreasonable and nothing you have said has changed my opinion.

When two reasonable parties can't come to an agreement that is where legal argument comes in to play and more often than not costs everybody money.

dudara

Posters - just a reminder to stay civil, and to stick to offering advice to the OP, rather than turning it into a discussion between yourselves.

dudara

Wicklowandy

To be fair, certain people pop up on a lot of threads purely looking to be contrary and unwilling to listen to reasoned argument, with a hostile overtone.

dudara

Wicklowandy On topic posts please only

dudara

the_syco

Tragedy wrote: »

by early December it was so poor that unless I was in the same room as the WiFi router, I wouldn't pick up a reliable signal (this also applied to Bluetooth, I couldn't use a bluetooth headset anymore as it would have frequent audio dropouts).

Were either of these devices supplied by eMobile? If not, please do not mention them in court, as I doubt eMobile support 3rd party electronics.

goz83

foggy_lad wrote: »

Your handset is faulty and the retailer is offering to repair it which is fulfilling their obligation under the Sale of goods act.

If the handset could be repaired or even examined by the Fone-Fix companies in Ireland it would save time and you would get it back possible within 5 days but it must be sent back to the manufacturer which again is only the retailer complying with the repair by getting the most competent people to do the job, the fact that it may take longer, even as long as 15 days is not unreasonable!

You are not entitled to any replacement handset during any repair period!

That's thin ice there. So, the seller (eMobile) sells a product at a discounted price, subject to the customer signing a contractual agreement to avail of their services, which are accessed via the product sold. If the product is faulty, through no fault of the consumer and no similar replacement is offered, well then it causes a significant inconvenience to that consumer, who may not be able to access some of the services being paid for, namely wi-fi services. Sounds a bit dodge to me.

Now imagine UPC, or SKY is your TV provider and a problem occurs with your Hi-DEF digital recorder box. You frequently use all the extra functions and you even use your smartphone to start recording shows on your box, when you're out of the house. The fault happens randomly after say 2 months and it was well looked after, with good ventialtion etc etc. They tell you a repair/replacement will take about 3 weeks, because the box manufacturer is based in.....Greece. They offer you a first generation box they had handy in the local installers van, with the most advanced feature being that it has a remote control. They say the box is not their problem, that the manufacturer is responsible and they only sell you a service. Sound fair? Sound similar?

antodeco

The legal service for eMobile is a communications company. If they offer a temporary replacement that can still avail of this service (calls/texts/Internet) then they are covered legally. If they cannot provide all of that service, you are entitled to not pay for that part of the service. Again, eMobile have stated that you do not need to pay for the services you can't use. As far as I can see, eMobile are being 100% complient and even going out of their way in comparison to a lot of other service providers out there.

Tragedy

Quick chat with Solicitor and his Barrister, seemed supportive and confident of my position but suggest I explore all other avenues before court due to significant costs and time involvement. Also opined that it's a shame my issue is a handset one as otherwise I could make a complaint to ComReg which would likely have an actual effect on eMobile's responses.

whippet wrote: »

I'm a little confused as to why you titled your post as you have. As far as I can make out eMobile are fulfilling their statutory obligations?

Your handset is faulty and they are offering a repair. The repair will take up to 10 working days and they are offering you another handset as a temp replacement.

While not ideal from your angle it is more than enough from a mobile provider

I quite clearly stated why I believe emobile aren't fulfilling their statutory obligations. Taking in to account the nature of the goods in question (a mobile phone) and how intrinsic it is to individuals and their daily life, a 2-3 week repair is a bit different than repairing a kettle (although in fairness, any time I've had a kettle break I've just been offered a replacement there and then).

Nonoperational wrote: »

They've offered to fix your phone in 1.5-2 weeks, give you a replacement while it's away and you are taking them to court? Jesus.

2-3 weeks, over Christmas. I have a copy of the HTC internal PDF for the repair of this manufacturing defect, apparently it takes less than an hour and An Post offer next day delivery within Ireland. How does 2 working days for delivery to and from HTC in Wicklow and a 1 hour repair = potentially 15 working days and a minimum of 10?

How is tacking on 12.9 working days reasonable? It's not my issue or problem if HTC's repair centre has too few staff to cope with the level of repairs.

godtabh wrote: »

Sounds like you are making an issue out of this to get out of your contract.

Show me a contract in Ireland for unlimited calls, texts, landline calls and 15gb internet for an effective price of €20 per month (when the subsidised phone is taken out of the equation) and I'll agree that I'm doing it to get out of a contract.

10 days for a repair is reasonable but from your point of view not ideal.

See above.

eMobile wont give you a brand new state of the art phone while yours is being repaired.

That's their choice - but to be clear, I only asked for a broadly comparable phone. I don't care if it's a mid range smartphone rather than a flagship handset like mine, but a non-smartphone is categorically not a substitute for a smartphone.

I dont think it is reasonable to expect this.

It's reasonable to expect a broadly comparable replacement if for some reason their repair process is so inefficient and slow that it takes 10-15 days. If you brought your 4 month old car in to the garage due to the headlights not working and they told you it would take 10-15 days to have a look at it and in the meantime you could have a moped, how would you feel?

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Ehm I think they may have been referring themselves in customer care and not eMobile in a whole.

So if the store, customer care e-mail, customer care phone, and customer care administration team have no control over replacement phones...who do you suggest does? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Also I don’t think they would give you another smart phone, how do they not know you’ll just leg it with the new phone and forget the old phone all together, not saying you would but its plausible from their point of view seeing as its faulty

Yes, that's plausible seeing as how you need to provide them with a copy of your driving license or passport to sign a new contract

@Cabaal, unfortunately you seem to be an example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

As for why I'm doing this? I love the phone (anyone who has handled this model will understand why), I got a pretty damn good deal when I bought it, one I won't get anywhere near as good if I have to buy now, eMobile signal/reception has generally been fine. But when, through no fault of my own, an issue occurs and I'm met with stonewalls and "Well this is standard industry practice" instead of...you know, actually being helped - I start to get principled. That and the fact that my girlfriend is 3 months into an 18 month contract with eMobile and that if her handset breaks, she has to go through this - gives me a decent incentive to not back down.

PS: It was less than 4 months old when I first notified eMobile of the handset issues and brought it in for repair - I don't know where people are getting 6 months.
PPS: As it's a smartphone, I use it extensively for (among others) college applications. All my college e-mails go straight to the handset, I use it for managing my schedule, assignment deadlines, group meetings etc. All my college work goes on to a dropbox account that synchronizes with my phone which enables me to bring my work from College computer labs to my home computer to anywhere I might be visiting or staying, to read and review notes and lectures on the bus on the way into town etc, etc. It is a huge inconvenience to be without a smartphone - I can assure you having been completely without one for the last 3 weeks.

mathepac

Tragedy wrote: »

Quick chat with Solicitor and his Barrister, seemed supportive and confident of my position but suggest I explore all other avenues before court due to significant costs and time involvement. ...

Good news on the legal front anyway although it's a shame you might have to go that route.

Thanks for the update. It must be good to hear your judgement is supported by expert legal opinion.

dudara

I must admit to be a little surprised that your solicitor agrees with you on this - though I suppose he'll earn his fee either way.

Personally, I'm inclined to think that eMobile are being OK about this. They have offered to repair, and they have offered another handset. It may not be a smartphone, but you'll still have a telephone and they have offered not to charge you for data etc during this time. If you send your laptop in for repair, do you get another laptop in the meantime?

Repair turnarounds can take longer than you think. The repair itself may only be an hour's job - but what about all the other repairs that the centre must handle? Your phone will be a in a queue for repair. Hence they cover their backsides with XX working days for turnaround.

Yes - it's a little sucky that you'll be without your smartphone for a period, but I think this issue essentially comes down to your expectations versus eMobile.

I'll be very curious to see how this goes

Tragedy

dudara wrote: »

If you send your laptop in for repair, do you get another laptop in the meantime?

Just because a business doesn't do something, does that mean they legally shouldn't?

I have personal experience of temporary replacement tvs and cars *shrug*.

Repair turnarounds can take longer than you think. The repair itself may only be an hour's job - but what about all the other repairs that the centre must handle? Your phone will be a in a queue for repair. Hence they cover their backsides with XX working days for turnaround.

Repair turnaround is wholly as a result of how they decide to operate repairs. Letting the amount of repairs build up to a 8-10day waiting list is their decision, there isn't a (non-economic) reason that they can't have the waiting list be same day, 1 day, 2 day. Legislation suggests that when a implies that when a good is faulty through no fault of the consumer, they shouldn't suffer from business decisions made by the vendor (or their repair company).

The key part here is the 'reasonable' part. Is having a 2 working week backlog of repairs reasonable? Is having a 1 working week? Is there a valid reason that they continue to operate at such a backlog?

Is my being able to airmail it to Taiwan and back (where it was manufactured) faster than a <1hour repair can be performed in Ireland reasonable?

Yes - it's a little sucky that you'll be without your smartphone for a period, but I think this issue essentially comes down to your expectations versus eMobile.

It comes down to how 'reasonable' repair duration and 'significant' inconvenience is assessed in the case of a smartphone, not down to the expectations of anyone!

whippet

Let us know when you have gone down the legal route, as I'm quite interested to see how this one pans out