faulty Apple phone

Hmmm……
 

I am doubting very much that ID Mobile are sticking to the Consumer Rights Act 100% and are sailing very close to the wind legally as far as they are interpreting the law.

I have a mobile phone and contract with ID Mobile (I’m not using my email address or any identifying information on here - I’m not as stupid as the company is suggesting I am; disabled people aren’t thick) and the handset supplied by ID Mobile is faulty. Faulty to the point that there are numerous articles on the issue(s) from magazines / online sources such as T3, Toms Guide and other Android publications. The handset isn’t fit for purpose and is not of satisfactory quality.

Apparently, ID Mobile don’t subscribe to the section of the Consumer Goods Act that states that the originator of the Contract Of Sale is responsible as far as ensuring that the goods supplied are of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. According to ID Mobile, the handset manufacturer is responsible for all such issues and that the Consumer Goods Act doesn’t apply here.

Putting a clause into the Terms & Conditions stating, in effect, that it isn’t the responsibility of ID Mobile if a handset is faulty after 30 days is classed by Ofcom as unfair terms and conditions.

Lets see if ID Mobile have the audacity to reply and deny this is the case.

@ConsumerFights ah, perhaps this is why ID is refusing to do anything about my situation too.

My pixel 7 pro was fine for a month or so, then developed more and more faults and glitches, and at 3 month mark the camera lens glass popped a hole from the overheating causing the metal camera frame to expand slightly repeatedly.

I am significantly autistic and have speech difficulties but am far from unintelligent, however I did not know the proper procedure, I had contacted google through the phones in built support to ask them about the bugs and glitches, and UI errors and failure, and after a discussion, they asked me to return the device for a replacement as it seemed beyond repair. I trusted Google and assumed this was OK since I had seen ID telling other people to go to manurfacturer for faults, and because if it wasn't OK then google would not be wanting me to do that and to go through ID mobile. I had also used a google tech advisor through the phones support page at around 6 weeks after a system UI failure rendered the screen dark and unresponsive, they helped me do a bootloader to regain control.

Google sent me a refurbished device which had evidently been involved in a bad accident with previous owner, as it had had everything external except the small back panel replaced.

Because of this, I did not feel it fair to replace something that was faulty through poor build and manufacturing defect, and not my fault.

And I learned that Service provider is the one with legal liability and responsibility and cannot tell people to go to manurfacturer, as I saw on which.com and on a lawyer website. So I am in a situation with ID now trying to come to a solution, and have offered multiple acceptable resolutions, however they refuse to do anything and keep telling me to ring even after I stated my difficulty with that as I struggle greatly with stressful calls, and email is my preferred method.

Asked ID for a deadlock letter so I can go to ofcom / Cisas / Ombudsman but they didn't provide it, I can go to them soon anyway as the 8 week period will expire soon and you can go to them without a deadlock letter if it goes on for more than 8 weeks without resolution.

They tried blaming google and passing off responsibility in a reply to my trustpilot review, and while yes, it was googles decision to send me an inferior quality and value device as replacement (similar to sending a repaired car that had been wrecked in a crash and is a Cat C write off on insurance history, when the original new car developed manurfacturer faults, and so not equal I value and quality), but I've seen ID telling other people to go to manurfacturer in other posts on here, and they have told me to go back to google.

However google is unable to offer me an acceptable / satisfactory resolution, and since ID have legal liability, I'm insisting they resolve this, as they can take the refurb back and send it back to google themselves for their refund. 

So im stuck in a piggy in the middle situation :/ 

But what you mention does help my case if its true, I'll have to find that in my contract T&C's and pass it onto ofcom / Ombudsman.

@WelshPaul I know it's refurb because the plain brown box it came in literally says refurbished in tiny text in a chunk of text.

And the originals only physical damage was caused by the design flaw of the cameras metal frame. My brothers friend owns a tech repair shop, and agreed that the overheating problem (which is something that every owners who's had a popped lens glass has also experienced with overheating) will have been the cause, because the it will have caused the metal camera frame to slightly expand and compress the glass repeatedly, and the glass eventually gave way to the pressure. It has happened to other pixel 7 & 7pro owners who also had overheating problems and also people who live in very hot parts of the world

(I'm in UK though, and phone had a bad overheating problem to the point I with my sensitive hands due to sensory over processing, could not handle the phone without a case whenever doing anything remotely strenuous such as using camera for more than 10 minutes, streaming, playing older games such as marvel strike force, great big war game, epic little war game, that even my Galaxy s8 managed fine)

And I'm the camera glass popping has been so common that Google stopped rejecting warranty claims and began offering free repairs without challenge, however given all the other problems mine had, the tech advisor agreed it would only be a temporary fix, and asked me to return it.

So the only physical damage was due to a known design flaw, and not my fault. Therefore I cannot be held responsible for a design flaw causing physical damage.

And perhaps you perceived it that way, I first suspected the refurb was refurbished and nit new because of the plain brown box, it came in a slip bag inside, and had blue stickers on the main back panel and camera glass, and a plain screen sticker, which were not the standard with a new device as new devices don't come with blue stickers on the back. The smaller back panel above the camera did not have a sticker. And given these blue stickers are known to me having had them come with a older phone I smashed by accident several years ago, and that they come with replacement panels and are for the customer to remove so the new panels stay pristine and don't get fingerprints. These 3rd party stickers on 3/4 external parts was indicative of them having been replaced, and for a front and rear smash on those parts, the phone suffered a severe accident such as being dropped from a considerable height, been in a pocket when original owner cycling and fell out pocket, or something heavy falling on it. And because of that any of the internal parts integrity can be questionable, similarly to how a car involved in a wreck could have hidden damage underneath and present themselves in the near future if used.

That, and id noticed some faint marks on the metal frame and inside the USB port which showed me that it was not brand new. And then along with noticing the next day that the box says refurbished on it, I knew it to be a refurb.

When a product is replaced due to defect / manurfacture faults, the customer cannot be left worse off as they were not responsible. Hence why the law website and other credible sources state that you can claim compensation if out of pocket, and I am effectively out of pocket because a previously heavily damaged and then repaired refurb is not worth as much in the 2nd hand market as a excellent condition 2nd hand (i was planning on selling the p7pro to upgrade to p8pro, excellent condition p7pro 256gb can sell for up to £700, and ive seen refurbs under £400).

Same way as a car that is a Category C insurance write off that had been involved in a motorway accident and flipped and had impacts on the majority of parts, and had needed everything except one small external part replacing. It would not be worth as much as a excellent condition 2nd hand that had less milage and no damage history whatsoever. And if that 3 month old car developed manurfacturer defects and flaws, and for examples sake, say a design flaw caused the windscreen to shatter, and the manurfactuer knew about the design flaw and was now offering free windscreen repairs. However the cause would still be present and it would happen again, and the car had multiple ECU glitches and bugs and the power steering would go berserk and sometimes be ludicrously sensitive one moment, and turn off and even make it very heavy to steer at other times. The ECU would crash and cut the car out at times, and have a complete failure and the car be broken down and unresponsive. The engine would overheat easily even from simple things such as driving at 60mph for 10 minutes or overtaking someone.

And you talk to the manurfactuer using the cars support contact on its dashboard screen, and they asked you to return for a replacement (it as it was clearly a defective one), and then they sent you that write off mentioned above that had been repaired after a serious incident.

No one in their right mind would be happy with that as a replacement, it's internal integrity could be compromised and there be some hidden damage that was missed, especially if they only repaired the external bodywork and didn't bother looking at the chassis and mechanical parts. And also because it would be worth around 40% less when you wanted to sell it, and you were losing a lot of its resale value because you can't in good conscience hide its damage history. So the resale value dropped from £18,000 to £11,000, and its not one bit your fault, yet you'd be losing out AND having to drive around in that write off which could develop the same flaws AND also potentially be hiding damage that was missed which could rear its ugly head and bite you in the backside. 

And imagine in this situation you had seen legally you're entitled to a reduction on your monthly payments to reflect the replacements lower quality and value, and you had the right to ask your monthly payments be reduced from say £500pm to £350pm if you were to keep the replacement car, would you not ask for that? And Continue paying full price. And so the dealership couldn't turn round and say "well, it's been 3 months and you've been using it, so you MUST be satisfied" you purposely haven't used it and have been using your old car that you thankfully kept and hadn't sold yet.

And when you log a complaint with the dealership, they rejected it and kept charging you the full price and it turned out the dealership is telling people to go to manurfacturer and rejecting complaints made after 30 days, when they are meant to have legal liability and not be allowed to tell people to go to manurfacturer.

Would you not fight it?

And what if you no longer trusted the build quality and fitness for purpose of that model and make of car because so many other people are experiencing similar faults and design flaw, and you wanted to switch to the direct rival of another make, and because its a bit more expensive, you'd be willing to knock the time of the contract from 19 months remaining back to the full 24 months so they weren't losing 5 months worth of payments, but you also did want a partial refund for any payments made while fighting the matter and using your old car and refusing to use the replacement which you want the dealership to take back.

The refurb had all damaged external parts replaced, so it looks visibly OK, however it's the history of damage, potential hidden damage inside that could present at any point, and the fact that model seems to have a lot of devices presenting faults and there's a known design flaw that's hapoening so much that Google stopped rejecting warranty claims and started repairing them for free, likley out of worry of a class action lawsuit as people were paying up to £200 / $300 for repairs when google was rejecting them. And there's been successful class action lawsuits for less. 

I know I type a lot due to my Infodumping which is a trait of my autism, but I've explained all this in previous posts

Hi @Ollywoly,

Sorry for the issues with your handset.

If the handset has already been replaced by Google you would need to contact them regarding the condition of the replacement.

You can contact them via the link below for further assistance.

https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/7109524?hl=en-GB

I’m sorry that we are unable to help with the replaced handset but please let us know if you require further assistance.

Kash