On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:10:06 +0100, The Todal
wrote:

I think a judge would say that if you haven't maltreated the phone by
dropping it in water, or leaving it in the rain, or otherwise subjecting
it to excessive moisture, then the phone is probably faulty and the red
dot proves nothing other than that it has been in humid conditions at
some point.

The red dot is a chemical sensor which changes colour in the presence
of water. It uses a water soluble dye which only reacts to liquid
water - not humidity unlike the usual cobalt chloride indicators.

It is pretty conclusive evidence that a water based fluid has got
into the phone. In addition there will be marking of the internal
circuit boards. It doesn't require a PhD in electronics to diagnose.

--
Peter Parry
Hemel Hempstead

clot wrote:
wrote:
Nice little scam the mobile phone suppliers have going. My son's
Samsung E900 developed a fault after 5 months. Phoned Phones4U...went
through a well rehearsed ( no doubt scripted) conversation where the
caveats were explained in detail. I agreed to go ahead and was sent a
pre-paid envelope with yet more explanation on caveats. Sent the phone
off, phoned them 2 weeks later for a status check. " Your phone has
suffered liquid damage and deemed beyond economical repair". I can
understand the phone being beyond economical repair due to the fault
as we live in a throw-away society, but they say the warranty is
invalidated due to the liquid damage and are refusing the claim. I pay
£17.35 and have the phone returned and a "technical report". They
won't say what the report will contain, they don't allow you to speak
to anyone more senior and give a different phone number/email contact
for complaints.
Seems phones have little dots that turn red when immersed in water OR
when moisture has been present at some stage ie the last few weeks
when the UK has been soaking. They seem to be using the red dots as a
warranty get-out.There are likely millions of phones with dots that
have turned red and still work normally, but as soon as your phone
develops a fault they have a ready made warranty escape
I'd like to take the issue further and ask for evidence of the liquid
damage eg photo's of the corrosion or damage to the components, but I
suspect me paying the £17.35 will only get me a standard letter saying
there's evidence of liquid damage and maybe showing the red dot. Any
advice on wording or the line to take when writing my complaint would
be gratefully received

Together with some friends,(all old farts), we went on a canal adventure
in sunny conditions last October. We went for an evening meal at a local
hostlery and imbibed freely. When walking the gangplank onto the bow of
the boat afterwards there was a little local difficulty in balancing,
resulting in three members of the coterie in the cut together with
mobiles and car keys which were all "dunked". After looking after our
immediate personal needs - drying ourselves and putting on dry clothing,
we opened phones and a carkey to allow them to dry. The next day all
worked. I suspect that the "red spots" (which are news to me) could
easily become red in humid conditions such as shirt pocket when sweaty,
particularly if under a waterproof coat whilst walking.

If the unit has not been dunked then stand your ground.

I have a PDA based phone with a large touch screen. Often, particularly
during hotter days, after speaking on the phone, where the screen has
been up against my cheek, the screen is very wet with sweat. I wipe it
off at the end of the call and I've never had a problem - however I have
wondered whether if it ever needed a warranty repair (it's out of
warranty now) whether the moisture detection sticker would show it had
been exposed to moisture.

In my case, the moisture could not be avoided and is a likely result of
using the phone during normal conditions - if a claim had been refused
for that reason, then I would have disputed this.

I'm just glad it never happened (probably as it had some seal there) -
but just an example of where moisture can be present on a phone through
normal use.

D

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:10:06 +0100, The Todal
wrote:

I think a judge would say that if you haven't maltreated the phone by
dropping it in water, or leaving it in the rain, or otherwise subjecting
it to excessive moisture, then the phone is probably faulty and the red
dot proves nothing other than that it has been in humid conditions at
some point.

The red dot is a chemical sensor which changes colour in the presence
of water. It uses a water soluble dye which only reacts to liquid
water - not humidity unlike the usual cobalt chloride indicators.

It is pretty conclusive evidence that a water based fluid has got
into the phone. In addition there will be marking of the internal
circuit boards. It doesn't require a PhD in electronics to diagnose.

Just to recap - are you saying that if any of us takes a faulty telephone to
be fixed, and the supplier tells us "this telephone has been immersed in
water", we should accept that as a fact even if we are not aware of it ever
having been immersed in water?

Peter Parry wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:10:06 +0100, The Todal
wrote:

I think a judge would say that if you haven't maltreated the phone
by dropping it in water, or leaving it in the rain, or otherwise
subjecting it to excessive moisture, then the phone is probably
faulty and the red dot proves nothing other than that it has been
in humid conditions at some point.

The red dot is a chemical sensor which changes colour in the presence
of water. It uses a water soluble dye which only reacts to liquid
water - not humidity unlike the usual cobalt chloride indicators.

It is pretty conclusive evidence that a water based fluid has got
into the phone. In addition there will be marking of the internal
circuit boards. It doesn't require a PhD in electronics to diagnose.


leaving your phone were its subject to condensation i.e bathrooms
kitchens , conservatories , even cars in winter wil allow water
droplets to form on the inner surfaces of the phones eventually , it
doesnt take much to screw up the circuit board , even sweaty hands can
do it with some phones or damp pockets --

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:25:04 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

Just to recap - are you saying that if any of us takes a faulty telephone to
be fixed, and the supplier tells us "this telephone has been immersed in
water", we should accept that as a fact even if we are not aware of it ever
having been immersed in water?

I'm not aware of anyone claiming the phone had been _immersed_ in
anything. What was said was that the phone was damaged by the
presence of liquid inside it. The proof of that statement is
provided by the chemical indicator which is designed for this very
purpose (and almost certainly other corrosion marking within the
phone). Whether the buyer chooses to accept that as a fact is up to
them, I can't see why a court would not.

How the liquid came to be in the phone could be due to many reasons.
It isn't for the seller to produce evidence of the occasion(s) which
caused the damage, only that the damage is present and probably
caused by the liquid they can prove was within the phone. That the
owner claims they can't recall ever getting it even slightly damp
(very few ever do for some reason or other) isn't hugely convincing
when the seller has objective evidence of liquid within the phone.
--
Peter Parry
Hemel Hempstead

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:25:04 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

Just to recap - are you saying that if any of us takes a faulty telephone
to
be fixed, and the supplier tells us "this telephone has been immersed in
water", we should accept that as a fact even if we are not aware of it
ever
having been immersed in water?

I'm not aware of anyone claiming the phone had been _immersed_ in
anything. What was said was that the phone was damaged by the
presence of liquid inside it. The proof of that statement is
provided by the chemical indicator which is designed for this very
purpose (and almost certainly other corrosion marking within the
phone). Whether the buyer chooses to accept that as a fact is up to
them, I can't see why a court would not.

How the liquid came to be in the phone could be due to many reasons.
It isn't for the seller to produce evidence of the occasion(s) which
caused the damage, only that the damage is present and probably
caused by the liquid they can prove was within the phone. That the
owner claims they can't recall ever getting it even slightly damp
(very few ever do for some reason or other) isn't hugely convincing
when the seller has objective evidence of liquid within the phone.

I think that's a "yes" then.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:30:06 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:


I think that's a "yes" then.

More a "you are going to be hard pushed to prove otherwise". The
vendor has met the reverse burden of proof.
--
Peter Parry
Hemel Hempstead

Mark Goodge writes:

What the law actually says is that:

goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time
within the period of six months starting with the date on which the
goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so
conformed at that date.

but with the supplier's get-out that the above does not apply if:

it is established that the goods did so conform at that date

But proof that a phone has suffered liquid damage (or evidence of damage
in any goods) does not prove that the goods 'did so conform at that
date'. All it proves is the state of the goods *now*, it gives no
evidence at all as the state of the goods at time of delivery to the
buyer.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:35:02 +0100, Graham Murray
wrote:


But proof that a phone has suffered liquid damage (or evidence of damage
in any goods) does not prove that the goods 'did so conform at that
date'. All it proves is the state of the goods *now*, it gives no
evidence at all as the state of the goods at time of delivery to the
buyer.

By that logic if the phone had been run over by a steamroller the
seller would be liable because they would be unable to prove the
state of the goods at time of delivery to the buyer.

The reverse burden simply makes life simpler for buyers in the first
6 months after purchase. In the normal course of events if a product
fails it is the buyers responsibility to show why it failed and that
the cause of the failure was present at the time of sale (grease left
off a bearing or whatever).

In this case the phone is less than 6 months old so the fact it
doesn't work is taken as evidence of a pre-existing fault without the
buyer having to prove anything. The seller has to show that the
phone did comply by demonstrating that the failure was due to some
external influence.

The phone worked for several months, there is no dispute about this.
It stopped working and the failure is compatible with liquid damage.
Upon opening the phone the suppler found objective evidence of liquid
within the phone. On balance of probability the cause of failure is
therefore not an inherent fault within the phone but the ingress of
liquid.
--
Peter Parry
Hemel Hempstead

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:10:06 +0100, David Hearn
wrote:

clot wrote:
wrote:
Nice little scam the mobile phone suppliers have going. My son's
Samsung E900 developed a fault after 5 months. Phoned Phones4U...went
through a well rehearsed ( no doubt scripted) conversation where the
caveats were explained in detail. I agreed to go ahead and was sent a
pre-paid envelope with yet more explanation on caveats. Sent the phone
off, phoned them 2 weeks later for a status check. " Your phone has
suffered liquid damage and deemed beyond economical repair". I can
understand the phone being beyond economical repair due to the fault
as we live in a throw-away society, but they say the warranty is
invalidated due to the liquid damage and are refusing the claim. I pay
£17.35 and have the phone returned and a "technical report". They
won't say what the report will contain, they don't allow you to speak
to anyone more senior and give a different phone number/email contact
for complaints.
Seems phones have little dots that turn red when immersed in water OR
when moisture has been present at some stage ie the last few weeks
when the UK has been soaking. They seem to be using the red dots as a
warranty get-out.There are likely millions of phones with dots that
have turned red and still work normally, but as soon as your phone
develops a fault they have a ready made warranty escape
I'd like to take the issue further and ask for evidence of the liquid
damage eg photo's of the corrosion or damage to the components, but I
suspect me paying the £17.35 will only get me a standard letter saying
there's evidence of liquid damage and maybe showing the red dot. Any
advice on wording or the line to take when writing my complaint would
be gratefully received

Together with some friends,(all old farts), we went on a canal adventure
in sunny conditions last October. We went for an evening meal at a local
hostlery and imbibed freely. When walking the gangplank onto the bow of
the boat afterwards there was a little local difficulty in balancing,
resulting in three members of the coterie in the cut together with
mobiles and car keys which were all "dunked". After looking after our
immediate personal needs - drying ourselves and putting on dry clothing,
we opened phones and a carkey to allow them to dry. The next day all
worked. I suspect that the "red spots" (which are news to me) could
easily become red in humid conditions such as shirt pocket when sweaty,
particularly if under a waterproof coat whilst walking.

If the unit has not been dunked then stand your ground.

I have a PDA based phone with a large touch screen. Often, particularly
during hotter days, after speaking on the phone, where the screen has
been up against my cheek, the screen is very wet with sweat. I wipe it
off at the end of the call and I've never had a problem - however I have
wondered whether if it ever needed a warranty repair (it's out of
warranty now) whether the moisture detection sticker would show it had
been exposed to moisture.

In my case, the moisture could not be avoided and is a likely result of
using the phone during normal conditions - if a claim had been refused
for that reason, then I would have disputed this.

I'm just glad it never happened (probably as it had some seal there) -
but just an example of where moisture can be present on a phone through
normal use.

D

IMHO a mobile phone should be designed to cope/resist condensation
arising from normal use ( temperature and humditity changes) and a few
spots of rain falling on it. i.e. normal operating condition sin the
UK.
Robert