Mon | Dec 10, 2018

Warranty grouse with Digicel

Published:Saturday | May 26, 2018 | 12:06 AM


On October 28, 2017, I bought a Samsung Galaxy A7 cellular phone from the Digicel outlet in Tropical Plaza, Constant Spring Road. The phone was sold with a one-year warranty and an assurance (confirmed by the user manual) that the phone was water resistant to a depth of 1.5m for periods of up to 30 minutes, as well as being dust resistant.

Within a month of purchase, the phone stopped receiving charge, so I took it back to the outlet where I had bought the phone. They took the phone and returned it to me the following day in working condition with the disclosure that the problem had occurred because the charging port needed cleaning.

In April of this year, the phone shut down and would not reboot. I took it back to the same outlet and was referred to Techcom, which acts as a phone-repair service for Digicel.

A few days later, they informed me that the phone had stopped working because the charging port had been damaged by exposure to liquid and that this would have voided the warranty, as Digicel did not take responsibility for damage to any phone caused by liquid.

I would, therefore, have to pay for the repair to the phone. This would require purchase of a new memory board, as the charging port was attached to the memory board and could not be bought separately. I told them that I could not take responsibility on the following grounds:

- The phone had only had minimal exposure to liquid, which had been immediately dried (the exposure was no greater than for any other phone that I had owned and they had never failed for the reason given by Digicel).

- The phone was sold as an instrument capable of withstanding far more extreme exposure to liquid than my phone had been exposed to and should, therefore, have experienced no damage.

- The warranty written on my purchase receipt made no mention of exception because of liquid exposure.

- It is my opinion that I was sold a faulty phone as the charging port failed twice because of factors (dust and liquid) against which the phone is claimed to be resistant.

A Digicel representative, in the presence of someone who was identified as a Samsung representative, offered to have the phone repaired on condition that the remaining segment of the warranty be voided. I refused to accept this condition for the reasons outlined above.

I took back the phone and sprayed the charging port with WD40. The result is that the phone began to receive charge and after resetting the phone, it has begun to work again.

Based on what has transpired so far, however, I believe that I was sold a phone with a fractured charging port and, therefore, the phone will fail again. I, therefore, believe (1) that Digicel should replace the current phone under warranty, and (2) since they are not prepared to stand by the manufacturer's claim that the phone is water resistant, both they and Samsung should withdraw the claim that the phone is water resistant.


Lot 359 St Jude's Way

Green Acres