Joel Williamson purchased a new Nokia E71 in August 2008 from a local mobile phone store.
In early December the handset developed a problem such that the flash remained on. Joel left the phone at a Nokia repair centre to check the problem and update the software. A short time later, he was told that the phone was ready to be collected.|
"However, when I picked up the phone, I was told there was water damage and that the phone was not fixed. The customer service person handed my phone over (unrepaired) and without the software update." Joel believes that he used the phone in normal operating conditions, including several domestic flights and in cars, and that he can't explain the water damage.
Joel was also told by a local customer service representative that if the flash failure occurred in "early life" (first 30 days) he could have had it replaced at the store he purchased it from. Nokia offered an 'independent' review of the handset, but this would only determine if there was evidence of moisture being present in the past.
Nokia emailed Joel a photo showing liquid damage to a corner of the board; however, he says it's not identifiable as his phone. The IMEI number in the email that identifies his phone is wrong and the picture doesn't show the IMEI at all. "I have no way of identifying that this is my handset. This is the only photo of my handset taken by Nokia.
Joel rang the customer help line and spoke to a service manager in Malaysia for almost three hours to try and find out where the water damage could have happened. "I have been informed that if you sweat when using a Nokia phone (palm sweat or when the phone gets hot on your face during usage) that this can cause water ingress and thus void the Nokia warranty."
Joel got in touch with Investigator about his poor customer service treatment. He wanted to protest about how something like water ingress can void a warranty when the customer insists that it hasn't been damaged, but has no choice but to accept the company's verdict. Investigator explained Joel's situation to a Nokia representative and asked if the company could explain the warranty conditions.
Nokia agreed that Joel had poor customer service. "He should have had a fast and adequate response and felt he had the right information. This is far from ideal and must be very frustrating for the customer. We apologise for this."
"Nokia also agree that the software issue should have been resolved quickly and efficiently at no charge. Nokia covers its mobiles with a limited warranty for 12 months. If a phone has a fault because of materials or workmanship we will fix or replace it as appropriate."
"If the issue with a handset is not related to a fault in workmanship or materials, Nokia can still repair or replace the part - but this will be at the customer's cost."
Nokia told us that the "warranty does not cover damage from abnormal use, exposure to moisture or dampness or liquids, exposure to excessive temperature or other such environmental conditions, unauthorised modifications, unauthorised connections or unauthorised repair, among other things. Liquid ingression is not covered by warranty." It's the customer's word against the company's about when and how water damage may occur.
Joel sent the phone in for another assessment and the company ruled that the flash problem was "directly linked to the liquid ingression found on the printed circuit board and surrounding components." The company said the manufacturer's warranty has been voided and the handset is beyond economical repair. It offered to replace the handset at a cost of $435.
Joel is very upset that Nokia have disowned the problem and that his phone is now a dud. He feels that the process is unfair and is not transparent. Investigator has advised him to contact the Fair Trading department about the problem.