west wicklow
Registered User
- Messages
- 5
Hi Guys,
Question for you and everyone please.
Allow me give you a “hypothetical” situation as a prelude to my question to set the scene.
Long term Vodafone customer gets a Vodafone approved upgrade in a retailer’s shop displaying the Vodafone corporate signs over their premises. Customer wants a smart phone and makes a choice from the selection of various brands/models on display. The customer signs up for the new smart phone. The vendor volunteers to set it up (transfer contacts, new sim card) and it's on a new contract for the duration of 18 months, paying Vodafone by direct debit as she/he has done for a few decades. Then there are technical faults with the brand new phone which is returned to the vendor, after 7 days. These faults are acknowledged by the vendor who took self recommended remedial action but this didn’t work. Before getting back to the shop again, a small cosmetic crack appears on the phone screen. The phone operations are not affected for good or bad and it’s returned again to the vendor. On visiting the shop after many weeks for an update, the vendor now demands €180 to replace the screen in the brand new phone as a condition before attending to the originally witnessed, pre-existing, initial faults A loan of a very old, used -non smart- phone is given to the hypothetical customer. A few months pass while the customer makes regular written requests for updates etc from the vendor. There is no reply. After approx. six months paying the direct debit as per the terms of the contract with Vodafone for the service of a new smart phone, which at this stage, the customer has no idea where it is for those six months, the Small Claims Court people say the phone has no commercial value (free Vodafone upgrade) so there’s no judgement to enforce against the vendor. However, the legal contract is with Vodafone as the service provider. ComReg and The National Consumer Agency are involved by recommending each other.
Any comment on this “hypothetical” matter please? Is this a situation for Joe Duffy to sort out on national radio or maybe for direct action by a solicitor or even for the customer to cancel the direct debit payments (that would get someone’s attention!) or perhaps there is another solution in your opinion??
There rests the nuts and bolts of the hypothetical scenario. The hypothetical Vodafone client must keep paying them for the service of a smartphone and not to have the device on which the whole agreement was hypothetically based for the initial 33% duration of the new contract term?
Silence - as the vendor and the new smart phone remain- is not an answer.
So I come to my original question: what is your comment please?
Question for you and everyone please.
Allow me give you a “hypothetical” situation as a prelude to my question to set the scene.
Long term Vodafone customer gets a Vodafone approved upgrade in a retailer’s shop displaying the Vodafone corporate signs over their premises. Customer wants a smart phone and makes a choice from the selection of various brands/models on display. The customer signs up for the new smart phone. The vendor volunteers to set it up (transfer contacts, new sim card) and it's on a new contract for the duration of 18 months, paying Vodafone by direct debit as she/he has done for a few decades. Then there are technical faults with the brand new phone which is returned to the vendor, after 7 days. These faults are acknowledged by the vendor who took self recommended remedial action but this didn’t work. Before getting back to the shop again, a small cosmetic crack appears on the phone screen. The phone operations are not affected for good or bad and it’s returned again to the vendor. On visiting the shop after many weeks for an update, the vendor now demands €180 to replace the screen in the brand new phone as a condition before attending to the originally witnessed, pre-existing, initial faults A loan of a very old, used -non smart- phone is given to the hypothetical customer. A few months pass while the customer makes regular written requests for updates etc from the vendor. There is no reply. After approx. six months paying the direct debit as per the terms of the contract with Vodafone for the service of a new smart phone, which at this stage, the customer has no idea where it is for those six months, the Small Claims Court people say the phone has no commercial value (free Vodafone upgrade) so there’s no judgement to enforce against the vendor. However, the legal contract is with Vodafone as the service provider. ComReg and The National Consumer Agency are involved by recommending each other.
Any comment on this “hypothetical” matter please? Is this a situation for Joe Duffy to sort out on national radio or maybe for direct action by a solicitor or even for the customer to cancel the direct debit payments (that would get someone’s attention!) or perhaps there is another solution in your opinion??
There rests the nuts and bolts of the hypothetical scenario. The hypothetical Vodafone client must keep paying them for the service of a smartphone and not to have the device on which the whole agreement was hypothetically based for the initial 33% duration of the new contract term?
Silence - as the vendor and the new smart phone remain- is not an answer.
So I come to my original question: what is your comment please?
Last edited: