In message , at 23:40:05 on
Wed, 15 Aug 2007, clot remarked:
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".

Here's a funny thing, my son had an out-of-warranty cheapish mobile
phone which got wet in his shirt pocket on a very rainy day last summer.
And it never worked again. Early this summer we went canal boating and
he fell in, dunking a different (in fact older) cheap mobile phone.
After about two days it dried out and has worked ever since.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:35:10 +0100, Peter Parry put finger to keyboard
and typed:

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.

No, but it is for the seller to provide the evidence that the damage
is present. Simply saying that "we have looked at the phone and
concluded that it has been damaged by water" isn't enough - they need
to be able to demonstrate that to a disinterested third party if
necessary (eg, a court).

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.

The seller is claiming to have objective evidence of liquid within the
phone, but the seller has not yet provided that evidence to anyone
else. Until they do, the buyer is perfectly entitled to continue to
press his claim for a repair or replacement.

Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"Too sweet to be sour too nice to be mean"

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:55:03 +0100, Peter Parry put finger to keyboard
and typed:

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.

No, he hasn't. Not until he provides his evidence to someone other
than himself.

Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"Too sweet to be sour too nice to be mean"

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:40:04 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:35:10 +0100, Peter Parry put finger to keyboard
and typed:

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.

The seller is claiming to have objective evidence of liquid within the
phone, but the seller has not yet provided that evidence to anyone
else.

"The phone has fitted as standard a chemical indicator which turns
red in the presences of aqueous liquids. It requires liquid, not
merely moisture to do so. When the phone was inspected the liquid
detectors were red, indicating that an aqueous liquid had been
present and this is the most likely cause of the failure"

They have already told the buyer that. What other evidence do you
think is necessary?
--
Peter Parry
Hemel Hempstead

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. I want evidence that
there has been an ingress of a liquid and this has led to corrosion/
component failure. As we have seen from the previous replies ther'es
lot's of phones have had a severe dunking and still worked. To my
knowledge my sons phone has never been dunked but has a fault on it.
They must prove to me ( or a court) that the fault is caused by liquid
damage..... the dots turning red is not such proof.
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 will result in legal action on my
part to recover the cost of a replacement. If they send me photo's of
corrosion which includes the IME of my son's phone then I think I'm
stuffed. Anything less eg any old phone that's been left to rust and
we're off to the courts.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:15:06 +0100, Peter Parry put finger to keyboard
and typed:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:40:04 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:35:10 +0100, Peter Parry put finger to keyboard
and typed:

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.

The seller is claiming to have objective evidence of liquid within the
phone, but the seller has not yet provided that evidence to anyone
else.

"The phone has fitted as standard a chemical indicator which turns
red in the presences of aqueous liquids. It requires liquid, not
merely moisture to do so. When the phone was inspected the liquid
detectors were red, indicating that an aqueous liquid had been
present and this is the most likely cause of the failure"

They have already told the buyer that. What other evidence do you
think is necessary?

Either a photograph of said red detectors, or returning the phone to
the customer so that the customer can see it for himself.

Anyone can say that they've inspected a phone and found evidence of
mistreatment. But the customer is under no obligation to accept that
claim unless he can see the same evidence for himself. If he's not
satisfied with the response, he can assert his rights un the SoGA and,
if necessary go to court to enforce them. It would then be up to the
supplier to demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that mistreatment,
in the form of liquid ingress, was the most likely cause of failure.

Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Every whisper, every waking hour"

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:40:04 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:


The seller is claiming to have objective evidence of liquid within the
phone, but the seller has not yet provided that evidence to anyone
else. Until they do, the buyer is perfectly entitled to continue to
press his claim for a repair or replacement.

The evidence has been offered to the buyer. When he pays the sellers
fee for shipping and inspecting the phone (£17.50) he can have it
back.
--
Peter Parry
Hemel Hempstead

Peter Parry wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:40:04 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:


The seller is claiming to have objective evidence of liquid within the
phone, but the seller has not yet provided that evidence to anyone
else. Until they do, the buyer is perfectly entitled to continue to
press his claim for a repair or replacement.

The evidence has been offered to the buyer. When he pays the sellers
fee for shipping and inspecting the phone (£17.50) he can have it
back.

Or he could exercise his rights under the SoGA and force the supplier to
defend his claim at their own expense.

Mark
--
http://mark.goodge.co.uk

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

Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:15:06 +0100, Peter Parry put finger to keyboard
and typed:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:40:04 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:35:10 +0100, Peter Parry put finger to keyboard
and typed:
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.
The seller is claiming to have objective evidence of liquid within the
phone, but the seller has not yet provided that evidence to anyone
else.
"The phone has fitted as standard a chemical indicator which turns
red in the presences of aqueous liquids. It requires liquid, not
merely moisture to do so. When the phone was inspected the liquid
detectors were red, indicating that an aqueous liquid had been
present and this is the most likely cause of the failure"

They have already told the buyer that. What other evidence do you
think is necessary?

Either a photograph of said red detectors, or returning the phone to
the customer so that the customer can see it for himself.

A paranoid person would then say they'd exposed it to water before
returning/photographing it.

D