On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:50:04 +0100, wrote:

From my research, the warranty claim will be rejected because the dots
have turned red. I don't want to pay £17.35 to get a technical report
that says in effect the dots have turned red.

That is your choice, and quite a sensible one if you believe what
they say about the liquid indicators.

I want evidence that there has been an ingress of a liquid

That's what the liquid indicators prove. They are a powder
combination which only indicates red when an aqueous liquid is in
contact with them. Damp won't turn them red. They are evidence of
ingress of water or something containing water _in liquid form_.

and this has led to corrosion/ component failure.

The phone doesn't work - that's sufficient evidence that the liquid
ingress was most probably the cause. There will also be evidence of
corrosion and liquid residue on the keypad in particular. If you pay
your £17.50 that's probably what they will tell you.

As we have seen from the previous replies ther'es
lot's of phones have had a severe dunking and still worked.

The vast majority of phones which have had liquid damage don't work
afterwards. Those that do have usually been dropped in fresh water,
the batteries removed immediately and then been left to dry for some
time. When liquid gains ingress and power is left on electrolytic
corrosion renders the phone useless in a relatively short time.

To my
knowledge my sons phone has never been dunked but has a fault on it.

It probably hasn't been immersed but has been left out in the rain,
had something splashed over it (beer is the usual culprit) or
similar. I doubt if more than 10% of the phones with "liquid damage"
have suffered complete immersion.

They must prove to me ( or a court) that the fault is caused by liquid
damage..... the dots turning red is not such proof.

It's perfectly adequate proof which has been accepted by many courts.
It proves liquid was _in_ the phone and that failure occurred
afterwards. Powered on electronic circuit boards and water don't
mix. Liquid damage is the single most common reason for failure in
mobile phones and the detectors are fitted specifically to identify
liquid ingress. Most major mobile phone suppliers have a staff
member trained to give evidence of water damage in court so they
don't need to use solicitors and the cost of defending a claim is
quite moderate. They also rarely lose.

I intend to complain along the lines of SOGA, not fit for purpose and
ask for evidence stronger than red dots that the liquid damage has
caused the current fault on the phone. Failure to provide such
evidence to me at no cost to myself

You have been given that evidence. If you want a report and
photographs why do you think you are entitled to have them provided
for nothing?

The phone remains your property and you are entitled to have it back
to inspect yourself. If it was in their T's&C's the supplier is
entitled to charge you for the work they did discovering your son
damaged it. That was probably pointed out to you before you returned
the phone.

--
Peter Parry
Hemel Hempstead