@o2 Lowell refusal to remove default despite o2 admitted mistake

[magictorch1976]

Hi all

 

I would welcome some advice on this please.

 

In September, I upgraded my phone with T Mobile and entered into another 18 month contract.

 

Had a nightmare with the first handset that 2 T Mobile stores were not interested in despite quoting the usual sale of goods act etc. and me taking the handset back on the 10th day after having received it. Eventually, Customer Services on 150 relented and replaced it as a swap out the next day.

 

I got round to reading the manual last weekend to see what exciting things I was missing out on and I decided to download some new screensavers to make the phone a bit more "funky."

 

I then discovered that despite changing all the settings that the screensaver would never activate. The phone display switches over to power save mode, i.e. goes blank instead of displaying the screensaver.

 

I undertook some research into the issue on both T-Mobile's user forums and Nokia's own support discussion forums and it turns out that this is a known software bug in the N79 handset. It also appears that the manufacturer knows about it but has failed to fix it in subsequent firmware releases. It is also unlikely that Nokia will now release any further firmware for the handset as technically, or rather in the technical world, it is now quite an "outdated model."

 

I have emailed T Mobile Customer Relations about this and they have contacted me to say that if the manufacturer is not going to fix it there is nothing that can be done.

 

I however am not happy with this. Surely the goods are not functioning "as described," i.e. the manual states that you can change the screensaver and although you can, the end result is that it doesn't work.

 

I know that a non-functioning screensaver is not a life or death situation i.e. the phone makes calls, sends texts, browses the web but am I the only consumer that is getting a bit sick and tired of companies that earn millions of pounds from their customers getting away with everything?

 

At the end of the day, my contract is subsidising the cost of the handset in a large capacity. If I had purchased this phone directly, it would have cost me a few hundred pounds at least.

 

The crux of it is that I used Nokia phones for years previously and every handset I have had has always had "some problem" of one thing or another. Back around 2003, I had Orange replace 15 handsets, one after the other and each one exhibited the same problem as the last. It was a nightmare. I thought that 6 or so years later, with the advancement in technology that Nokia may have improved it's standards and the first phone I pick up in this 7 year period manufactured by them exhibits yet another fault.

 

I have contacted Nokia, although I am under the impression that it is not down to them to sort the problem out and they have suggested that I send the phone "for repair," which judging by other users on their support forums, does not resolve the problem anyway and just leaves you without a phone for 2 weeks.

 

I was wondering if I could glean some opinions please ? Am I right that the phone is not "functioning as described" and therefore breaches the sale goods act ?

 

Thanks very much

 

J

[buzby]

I wouldn't think so/ You can make and recieve calls on it? The fact every function does not appear to be available would not allow a SOGA claim if the bulk of what it was designed for performed flawlessly. Firmware updates are released often to fix issues, and a Nokia Service Centre could check and flash your phone with the latest version.

 

However, if you are trying to be released from your contract - no, it doesn;t work that way, this is for the phone service provided by the SIM, so as long as the network is there to process your calls, your service contract continues irrespective of what happens to the phone.

 

A computer that doesn't run particular software is not a SOGA issue as long as the computer (phone) works in most other respects, in that a 'reasonable' user would otherwise be satisfied with the functionality. Picking on one failling and hilighting it in an effort to be released wouldn't get you far.

[magictorch1976]

Hmmm interesting but the latest flashing would only bring it up to T-Mobile's latest branded firmware which is 2 releases behind Nokia's and even Nokia's latest firmware does not fix that problem.

 

So in effect, if you bought a television and a bug prevented it receiving channel 4 but it received 1,2,3 and 5 OK, you would be expected to live with this ?

 

I am not trying to be released from the contract but the goods have been supplied as part of the contract and therefore, it's not just sim-based service that is covered. The goods supplied by the service contract provider in order to receive or use the service are covered under the SOGA, which specifies satisfactory quality and "as described." By describing in the manual that the phone should perform a function and does not do so, surely this is against the SOGA.

 

Does anyone else have an opinion please ?

 

Thanks very much

[buzby]

Again, there are NOT SOGA issues. Software is always referred to as a 'work in progress'. Not only that, Networks routinely disable features they either not not want provided that is part of the established (and promoted) feature set - for example VOIP. An excuse for doing so, and often used by ORange, is that they have modified firmware to 'work with our network' and it can conflict with the standard feature, OR because of their requirements, certain features have ro be removed for lack of space.

 

This is one of the reasons I never buy network branded and flashed handsets, I only source from the manufacturer's own offerings. Similarly, you have no right of redress if T-Mobile's firmware is 'older' than that provided by the manufacturer, you're not meant to have this.

 

Your television alalogy is not relevant because (a) a TV isn't a computer, and is not sold branded for different networks. Finally, your query about the manual, all the described services and features are NOT available in all territories. Afraid SOGA is an irrelevance here.

[magictorch1976]

In a nutshell:

 

Old T-Mobile debt. Horrendous service in home location, numerous handsets, loads of calls to customer relations, stopped paying, escalated to CEO office after 5 or 6 months of pain. They admitted they couldn't provide service, arranged termination of account and a refund. Job done.

 

Years later, Lowell purchased "debt" as something clearly had gone wrong. Took me to court for just over £1200.

 

Somehow managed to find documentation from T-Mobile confirming they had done me disservice, apologising, arranging refund, hope to see me back as a customer one day, (email from CEO's office.)

 

All this sent as part of "pre-hearing pack."

 

Day before court hearing, BW Legal contact me advising they were withdrawing court action based upon my evidence and there was no need to attend. Secretly thought I had "won."

 

Default remains on credit files.

 

After numerous emails to them to get rid

, finally receive a call from "customer services." who explain yes they won't ever chase me for the money again or sell the "debt" on,

they aren't removing the default because despite all the issues I had and evidence of T-Mobile's admittance of that,

even down to them agreeing early termination of the contract because of those issues,

 

they must "report my account as it was run and unfortunately, you defaulted and didn't make payments."

 

At a loss.

Yes I did stop paying because that was the only way I was getting them to acknowledge the problem but surely their admittance of fault, which I have provided overrides that? Or not?

 

Lowell have said I need to go back to T-Mobile but they don't exist anymore and the contract was terminated in early 2011 before they became part of EE.

 

Are Lowell fobbing me off, or are they right? (I don't mind being corrected!) but would rather hear from experts.

 

Cheers

[dx100uk]

Sadly they are correct

 

They as a dca didn't and can't default an account.

 

It's the oc's fault for selling on a lemon.

 

Send an email to the ee ceo

Attach your evidence and request the account is removed from your cra file or they instruct Lowell's to do so

 

Dx

[BankFodder]

Although it's a bit late to let you know this now, you are wrong to agree to them withdrawing the action.

 

Making you run ragged and then finally withdrawing an action at the last moment is a great way to avoid all the responsibility.

 

You should have insisted on continuing the action in order to obtain a solid judgement in your favour and this would have given you far more leverage.

 

If it is 02 which has blighted your edit file then your action is against them.

 

You should start making a detailed list of what it has cost you – if anything – such as refused credit, cost of extra credit et cetera. And then come back here and let us know.