Carphone Warehouse Complaint: Faulty Goods & Poor Customer Service
One of our readers seems a little somewhat disgruntled with Carphone Warehouse and its faulty goods and poor customer service, below is the complaint the reader sent in. We would like Carphone Warehouse to read the following and please step forward and give some answers if possible to help.
On the 1st of February 2010 and following online research I purchased a contract from the Carphone Warehouse (NOT Blackberry / RIM as they have suggested) this was arranged via their “Direct Inbound Team via the phone. The contract was for a period of 24 months, on the Orange Network using a Blackberry Bold. At the time of purchase I was happy with the contract.
This is also the first time I have ever dealt with the Carphone Warehouse, so I am a new customer. My new Blackberry phone (My 3rd Blackberry) duly arrived within a couple of days.
Unfortunately some 6 weeks later and when I removed my phone from the inside pocket of my jacket I noticed that one of the QWERTY keys was missing. Shortly thereafter I phoned the help line and was advised that I should take the phone into a local store, which will arrange for the device to be assessed and returned to the repair centre. Initial comments provided by two staff members (which I now understand from the rather officious customer service department of this company “should never have been made and causes a problem for him and his team” included both commenting that there were no visible signs of damage — which there wasn’t and, importantly there never has been.
They explained the process of the return to RIM, issued me with a replacement temporary and very basic phone (Which I had to return to the store the following day because it too was broken!) and advised that I would be contacted once they heard back. I explained that nothing had happened to the device that could have caused this and I expected that this would be covered under warranty. They agreed that this was likely but did explain that the decision would be up to the manufacturer, which was fine with me expecting no issues in this regard.
Over a period of several weeks I made several visits to the local shop seeking an update. Eventually I was advised that the device could be repaired but was not covered under warranty and there would be a charge to me of Â£85.00. I explained once again that I did not under any circumstances expect to be charged for a fault of this nature and on a new phone. Staff members in the store were empathetic (thank you) and further expressed some surprise at this turn of events being able to recall the phone in question.
I asked that RIM — or whoever it is — be notified of my position regarding the repair and that I thought it fully reasonable to have a report on the damage and what, in their opinion was wrong. I further advised that if they were not prepared to do that then the phone should be returned to me immediately and that I would reserve the right to recourse under the Supply of Good and Services Act 1982 — goods have clearly not been provided as satisfactory or fit for purpose. Various other “chases” for an update had to be made — I don’t want to bore readers with the detail suffice that by now I had spent a lot of time on this frustrating matter.
Though helpful and sympathetic the gentlemen serving me at the local store — who remembers both my case and phone — advised that there was nothing more that could be done. RIM was insisting on a fee. It seems that my earlier request for a report and retuning of phone was lost somewhere — or ignored — and a further request for return of the device was made. The local store gave me a telephone number for “The fanatical support team” to contact suggesting that they may be able to help. I tried this number without any success so using the web to find a number contacted the seller’s customer service team. Unfortunately for me the gentleman there seemed more pre-occupied with decrying the local shop than helping me, commenting several times that “they had no right to make any comments which made things for him and his team more difficult!”
I was advised that if not willing to pay the repair fee then my only option was to get the phone back, go into the store and then ask for it to be sent off again for a second opinion! At this stage I really do not know just how much of my time this company thinks people have to sort what should be a straightforward customer issue and was left in no doubt whatsoever that beyond this latest step there little I — or indeed they could/would do. Shortly thereafter I received my only written response to a registered letter about my complaint. This was the first time any mention was made to the phone being “damaged by me” Indeed an email received and before I sent my letter citing the 1982 act was responded to, made no mention of damage simply “not covered under manufacturers warranty”
Having just paid a Â£67 bill last month which includes a charge for data use which the temporary phone I have been given (and paid another Â£50 for the privilege) doesn’t support I am now faced with no phone, no email access and a legal dispute to exit the contract with this company.
Apart from the morality or indeed lack of commitment to customer service, this seems to me a clear breach of law. I am in the process of securing legal advice concerning the sale of goods act “being fit for purpose” etc meantime — this situation is a warning to others — having spent an untroubled decade+ with a network direct, be careful where and who you buy your phone from.