Do I have any right to 3R's in this situation

Whiplashy

I was with the Three mobile network in January on bill pay and was eligible for an upgrade, so got a new phone. Got notification in May that they were changing the terms of my contract so I cancelled the contract without penalty, and got to keep the phone. I'm with a different network now. The phones battery life is gone shockingly bad in the last few weeks. Have to charge it about 3 times a day. Have I any comeback considering I only paid 5 bills towards it when it should have been 24? I'm guessing not, but just want to be sure.

L1011

I would find out the repair centre for the phone manufacturer and go there directly, as that's all 3 would do. Its likely to be SBE in Baldonnel who I do not hold in high regard but who do willingly take handsets direct from the customer.

Time

Whiplashy wrote: »

I was with the Three mobile network in January on bill pay and was eligible for an upgrade, so got a new phone. Got notification in May that they were changing the terms of my contract so I cancelled the contract without penalty, and got to keep the phone. I'm with a different network now. The phones battery life is gone shockingly bad in the last few weeks. Have to charge it about 3 times a day. Have I any comeback considering I only paid 5 bills towards it when it should have been 24? I'm guessing not, but just want to be sure.

In short yes, your consumer rights are separate from the contract that you entered into. What type phone is it?

Whiplashy

Time wrote: »

In short yes, your consumer rights are separate from the contract that you entered into. What type phone is it?

It's a HTC. I'm not even sure if I paid anything upfront for it or if the total payment was supposed to be on the bills.

Sonics2k

Whiplashy wrote: »

It's a HTC. I'm not even sure if I paid anything upfront for it or if the total payment was supposed to be on the bills.

Thankfully it's irrelevant. Contract or not, you still have the right to a replacement, repair or refund, but the choice is theirs on which is picked.

Whiplashy

Sonics2k wrote: »

Thankfully it's irrelevant. Contract or not, you still have the right to a replacement, repair or refund, but the choice is theirs on which is picked.

Is it three I should contact or HTC? If it's three I suppose I could try messaging them on here and see what they say. I'd have an answer then at least.

You can get on to HTC Support directly and arrange to have the phone sent for repair (via SBE as mentioned previously) as it will still be under warranty anyway.
However, have you tried doing a factory reset to see if it resolves the rapid battery drain? When you send it for repair, they are going to do this.

Whiplashy

Deleted User wrote: »

You can get on to HTC Support directly and arrange to have the phone sent for repair (via SBE as mentioned previously) as it will still be under warranty anyway.
However, have you tried doing a factory reset to see if it resolves the rapid battery drain? When you send it for repair, they are going to do this.

I don't have any proof of purchase unfortunately. I thought I might have an email from three about the order but nothing's showing up. I'll have to go with contacting three and hope they have something on file. I can see them laughing at me though! I'd leave it into the repair centre myself but I'm too far away. I'll try doing the factory reset before I contact three. Hadn't thought of that. I'm not very good with technology.

jimmycrackcorm

Whiplashy wrote: »

I don't have any proof of purchase unfortunately. I thought I might have an email from three about the order but nothing's showing up. I'll have to go with contacting three and hope they have something on file. I can see them laughing at me though! I'd leave it into the repair centre myself but I'm too far away. I'll try doing the factory reset before I contact three. Hadn't thought of that. I'm not very good with technology.

You should be able to take the phone into a Three shop and get them to send it for repair. Even though you are not on contract, you still have purchased it from them and they will have a record for the imei.

BeardySi

Tried resetting the battery cache? I've had lots of HTC's over the years and found it necessary to do this every few months with a few of them, or battery performance would fall off dramatically.

Former Former

TBH I don't think you're entitled to anything from Three. You chose to cancel your contract, therefore no contract of sales exists and so they don't have any obligations to you.

However, your phone would still be within the manufacturer's warranty so you're probably fine.

davo10

If the phone was a free upgrade and they have the option of the 3rs, then my guess is that as you are no longer their customer, they will opt for the refund, which of course is zero.

Xterminator

refund (of 0) is one of the 3 r's.

Sonics2k

Former Former wrote: »

TBH I don't think you're entitled to anything from Three. You chose to cancel your contract, therefore no contract of sales exists and so they don't have any obligations to you.

However, your phone would still be within the manufacturer's warranty so you're probably fine.

davo10 wrote: »

If the phone was a free upgrade and they have the option of the 3rs, then my guess is that as you are no longer their customer, they will opt for the refund, which of course is zero.

Please ignore both of these OP.

Cancelled contract or not, you still have your legal rights.

As you don't have a receipt, then go into the Three store you purchased it from and get a copy, they can send it off for repair for you, which is the most likely thing they'll do.

Three very rarely, if ever, will provide a loan phone as they are often stolen.

Source: I worked for O2 for 5 years, the law is the law no matter the company or contract.

Former Former

Sonics2k wrote: »

Please ignore both of these OP.

Cancelled contract or not, you still have your legal rights.

As you don't have a receipt, then go into the Three store you purchased it from and get a copy, they can send it off for repair for you, which is the most likely thing they'll do.

Three very rarely, if ever, will provide a loan phone as they are often stolen.

Source: I worked for O2 for 5 years, the law is the law no matter the company or contract.

They will more than likely send it off because the phone would still be under manufacturer's warranty and therefore no cost issue for them.

If it was the network who was taking the hit, it would be a different story.

The law is the law. If you choose to cancel a purchase contract, as the OP did, then you can't rely on that contract to enforce your rights.

davo10

Sonics2k wrote: »

Please ignore both of these OP.

Cancelled contract or not, you still have your legal rights.

As you don't have a receipt, then go into the Three store you purchased it from and get a copy, they can send it off for repair for you, which is the most likely thing they'll do.

Three very rarely, if ever, will provide a loan phone as they are often stolen.

Source: I worked for O2 for 5 years, the law is the law no matter the company or contract.

That is certainly an interesting post.

If the ops receipt says €0.00 for the phone, are you saying only two rather than three of the R's apply? I'd certainly like to see the link to the SOGaS Act which says that.

A claim to the SCC would also be enlightening, the op would be paying €25 and looking for a refund on a zero priced item.

But you know best cause you worked with O2 for 5 years and the law is indeed the law.

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

That is certainly an interesting post.

If the ops receipt says €0.00 for the phone, are you saying only two rather than three of the R's apply? I'd certainly like to see the link to the SOGaS Act which says that.

A claim to the SCC would also be enlightening, the op would be paying €25 and looking for a refund on a zero priced item.

But you know best cause you worked with O2 for 5 years and the law is indeed the law.

Threes receipts show the PAYG/unsubsidised cost of the phone, and then the amount removed for taking out a contract - up to the entire cost of the phone.

They insist this means the phone is free (and is why they ended up giving away piles of phones when they tried their stroke with the roaming) but SCC judgements do not generally agree.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

Threes receipts show the PAYG/unsubsidised cost of the phone, and then the amount removed for taking out a contract - up to the entire cost of the phone.

They insist this means the phone is free (and is why they ended up giving away piles of phones when they tried their stroke with the roaming) but SCC judgements do not generally agree.

I can see how much that would be a fact during a contract, the two go hand in hand and the price of the service contract includes the price of the phone. In the ops case he/she ended the contract after 4 months, hardly a timeframe whereby he could claim he/she "paid" for the phone so effectively he had the service for 4 months and got the phone for free.

I certainly would not claim to be an expert on the SCC but my understanding is you can't by an item for €50 and then claim it cost you €500 in the SCC. If you paid zero for an item, can you make a profit on it in the SCC? If you buy a phone on sale for €100 can you seek an award for the full €300 price?

Which judgements award costs higher than the consumer paid for an item?

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

I can see how much that would be a fact during a contract, the two go hand in hand and the price of the service contract includes the price of the phone. In the ops case he/she ended the contract after 4 months, hardly a timeframe whereby he could claim he/she "paid" for the phone so effectively he had the service for 4 months and got the phone for free.

I certainly would not claim to be an expert on the SCC but my understanding is you can't by an item for €50 and then claim it cost you €500 in the SCC. If you paid zero for an item, can you make a profit on it in the SCC? If you buy a phone on sale for €100 can you seek an award for the full €300 price?

Which judgements award costs higher than the consumer paid for an item?

Definitely a very awkward question, which is likely to vary judge by judge. Can see no reason to not be able to claim 5/24ths at the very least.

This is why I suggested going straight to the repairer, who will use the manufacturer warranty.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

Definitely a very awkward question, which is likely to vary judge by judge. Can see no reason to not be able to claim 5/24ths at the very least.

This is why I suggested going straight to the repairer, who will use the manufacturer warranty.

But the 5/24 paid would also have included call/text/SMS services used by op. If the judge owns a mobile phone, he/she would have a pretty acute insight into this, I think the op was lucky when they told him/her to keep the phone after such a short period, this suggests it isn't worth much.

If you profit from the SCC above what you actually paid, it'd be a great way to make a handy living.

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

But the 5/24 paid would also have included call/text/SMS services used by op. If the judge owns a mobile phone, he/she would have a pretty acute insight into this, I think the op was lucky when they told him/her to keep the phone after such a short period, this suggests it isn't worth much.

If you profit from the SCC above what you actually paid, it'd be a great way to make a handy living.

Its 5/24ths of the term that had the phone provided for "free" regardless of what usage of the call bundle there is.

Three handed over €800+ phones that were single figure days in to 24 month contracts when that price change was announced - lengthy thread on it here. I got a ~€350 phone about two thirds of the way through; small fry compared to what others were getting. Their claims that the phone is free backfired entirely.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

Its 5/24ths of the term that had the phone provided for "free" regardless of what usage of the call bundle there is.

Three handed over €800+ phones that were single figure days in to 24 month contracts when that price change was announced - lengthy thread on it here. I got a ~€350 phone about two thirds of the way through; small fry compared to what others were getting. Their claims that the phone is free backfired entirely.

Were you still in contract? Can you link to your SCC case?

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

Were you still in contract? Can you link to your SCC case?

I was. It wasn't an SCC decision - Three decided to change contract terms and let everyone keep their phones. There's a huge thread on the Bargain Alerts forum on it. People with iPhone 6+'s basically new from the box and 23 months 30 days left walked with them for free. One of the biggest corporate cockups ever - and it has hit their turnover extensively

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

I was. It wasn't an SCC decision - Three decided to change contract terms and let everyone keep their phones.

Ya see, what you've said there is very misleading. The op is not in contract, and you don't have a SCC judgement to back up what you are posting (earlier post you said there were judgements to back up your viewpoint about free handsets "judgements don't generally agree") What you got was a gesture of goodwill for an exiting customer, that is a very different to the ops situation.

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

Ya see, what you've said there is very misleading. The op is not in contract, and you don't have a SCC judgement to back up what you are posting (earlier post you said there were judgements to back up your viewpoint about free handsets "judgements don't generally agree") What you got was a gesture of goodwill for an exiting customer, that is a very different to the ops situation.

Two different things.

I've heard of multiple SCC judgements that refused to accept the "phone is free" line by Three. Three thought it was a get out from having to ever refund/replace but it isn't. They never turn up anyway.

Separately, the OP was given the phone FOC at contract termination bnot down to its value or anything else, just the fact that Three made a terrible misjudgement of what would happen if they changed roaming. They rolled back but people had been allowed leave by then.

At the very worst, there is no way at all you can claim they haven't paid for 5/24ths of it. Reality is a judge will likely accept it has been paid for, as Three wrote off any claim themselves of their own choice.

Easiest way is still just to go to the manufacturers repairer.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

Two different things.

I've heard of multiple SCC judgements that refused to accept the "phone is free" line by Three. Three thought it was a get out from having to ever refund/replace but it isn't. They never turn up anyway.

Separately, the OP was given the phone FOC at contract termination bnot down to its value or anything else, just the fact that Three made a terrible misjudgement of what would happen if they changed roaming. They rolled back but people had been allowed leave by then.

At the very worst, there is no way at all you can claim they haven't paid for 5/24ths of it. Reality is a judge will likely accept it has been paid for, as Three wrote off any claim themselves of their own choice.

Easiest way is still just to go to the manufacturers repairer.

Ah here, "I heard"?.

Three didn't make a terrible judgement, I'm pretty sure they are required to allow customers to opt out of contract if t&cs are changed during the term of that contract. All providers do that.

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

Ah here, "I heard"?.

Three didn't make a terrible judgement, I'm pretty sure they are required to allow customers to opt out of contract if t&cs are changed during the term of that contract. All providers do that.

SCC judgements are all "I heard", they aren't published.

The customer outflow and resulting financial results show that Three made a terrible decision. They rolled back on it rapidly, but damage was done - the BA thread here certainly helped.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

SCC judgements are all "I heard", they aren't published.

The customer outflow and resulting financial results show that Three made a terrible decision. They rolled back on it rapidly, but damage was done - the BA thread here certainly helped.

But roaming charges were changed by the EU, not by Three, and they had to offer opt out, every mobile provider did.

I'm pretty sure you'll find that here: https://www.ccpc.ie/consumers/contracts-and-services/

Sorry, I took by your earlier post that you were sure that what you were posting was based on SCC judgements you knew about, you certainly gave that impression.

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

But roaming charges were changed by the EU, not by Three, and they had to offer opt out, every mobile provider did.

Sorry, I took by your earlier post that you were sure that what you were posting was based on SCC judgements you knew about, you certainly gave that impression.

Three decided to limit roaming allowances (likely illegally). That caused many people to leave - including me. Can't remember how pathetic the offering was, but I got significantly better from Eir for the same money. That was their - stupid - decision; as shown by them rowing back, huge reduction in customer numbers and turnover.

Whoever thought they were being smart there has shown that they weren't, at all.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

Three decided to limit roaming allowances (likely illegally). That caused many people to leave - including me. Can't remember how pathetic the offering was, but I got significantly better from Eir for the same money. That was their - stupid - decision; as shown by them rowing back, huge reduction in customer numbers and turnover.

Whoever thought they were being smart there has shown that they weren't, at all.

I really don't see what that has to do with this thread. The op opted out of a contract because he/she could when charges changed, it really doesn't matter in this what those charges are. What is important is that you don't have a SCC case to back up an entitlement to a refund on a free phone.

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

I really don't see what that has to do with this thread. The op opted out of a contract because he/she could when charges changed, it really doesn't matter in this what those charges are. What is important is that you don't have a SCC case to back up an entitlement to a refund on a free phone.

I've heard of plenty of cases there Three's defense of "its' free!" was refused. SCC judgements are not published online, or anywhere for that matter. You post here enough to know that. You do not need to turn every thread in to an argument either.

Realistically if the OP has to go to the SCC, a judge is likely to find in their favour but more realistically, Three won't turn up.

Additionally, they can just claim on the manufacturers warranty in this case which, for once, is actually the path of least resistance.