Thank you for that info. it seems it is a pet excuse for a lot of these companys
This will always be territory for disagreement because there are unfortunately a great number of untruthful customers who claim that their phone has never been near water, dropped, etc when in fact it has been.
I've been lurking in this thread too and I feel the water damege problem is very unfair for consumers.
I know someone who had a mobile from another major brand and had to send her phone for repair due to a minor fault.
When she got the phone back, it was claimed to have water damage and repair was void under warranty.
From a customer perspective though, this phone was only 3 months old, bought at the height of summer, cased, never been near water or extreme temperatures.
The excuse given by the repair facility was, " It can happen from just talking on the phone".
Faced with that sort of "roadblock" answer, what can a consumer do?
Maybe under a first repair basis, water damage can be accepted when it is clear the phone hasn't been fully immersed in water.
2011-07-16 12:22 - edited 2011-07-16 12:24
I agree greycounciller the "water damage" claim should not be used as an automatic roadblock unless there is clear evidence of immersion or severe wetting (as perhaps might occur from being used unprotected in rain if not a hardened phone).
I think perhaps the reaction depends on the country one is in as in my experience some countries' retailers and suppliers tend to be more customer oriented than in others (and we tend to stick with established suppliers who have a good reputation even if it costs more), and some have better consumer protection laws than others. But over all that there are plenty of untruthful customers in all countries (although some countires may have more than others ).
I think it also depends on the affected customer's attitude - if they are arrogant and angry then the supplier is likely to think to himself "Why should I go out of my way to help this guy, whatever I do he is a lost customer so I will do as little as possible and hopefully get rid of him".
the water ingression excuse is a easy way out. we have no way off proving otherwise. if we were to open the phone ourselves prior to testing, this too would void the warranty. its a no win situation for the consumer. sure, there are plenty of tools out there who will try it on after they have dropped their phone into the drink, but that does not mean you tar everyone with the same brush. And furthermore, if there is a problem of ingression with just "using the phone" then this would have to be a inherent problem that should be fixed.
2011-07-18 8:31 - edited 2011-07-18 21:50
Brang1, I have heard today that your following the independent examination, your N8 will be fixed under warranty. The corrosion detected inside your phone was not conclusively found to be caused by user damage.
Water ingress is not an excuse to avoid responsibilities under warranties, anybody who is refused warranty service for any reason can request the full details of the case to be properly investigated as has been done in this case.
THAT'S CORRECT MICHAEL, AND CHEERS TO NOKIA FOR USING DISCRETION IN THIS CASE. I HAVE HAD A POSITIVE OUTCOME, AND AS SUCH ARE VERY HAPPY. THAT'S WHY ALL THE CAPITALS.One side note tho, there is definately work to be done in the Nokia care centres. The online people and call centre people i dealt with were only to accomadating and helpful, PARTICUALLY aaron, who is probably really glad he does not have to field anymore off my calls. Sorry mate, but sometimes you have to be very assertive, but you were always the consumate proffesional. mind you i had to be VERY assertive as to where i wanted this road to go...but they like yourself MICHAEL, were very helpful and apologetic. it is the care centres that need some definate tutoring in customer care. That said.THANK YOU NOKIA, I CAN GET ON WITH BUSINESS NOW, WITH A EXCELLENT PHONE! CHEERS !!!