Hi,
A friend was given a new Nokia Lumia as a birthday present. It was sold as SIM free and unlocked. It turned out not to work with a Tesco PAYG SIM. He took it back to the shop and they claimed that it was unlocked to contract SIMs only, and that they would have to contact Nokia directly. He left the phone with them for 1 week or so, and on return they said that Nokia were not cooperating.
Unhappy that the phone was not as advertised i.e. unlocked, he asked for a refund. Instead they fobbed him off with a second hand Sony Xperia. This phone worked well in the shop so he accepted it. The store claimed it was a superior phone to the Lumia, because in their opinion Android was better.
By the time he returned home it developed a fault whereby it would power down every few minutes. The phone was immediately returned to the to the shop.
At this point it gets silly. The shop refused to refund because their store policy is to not refund second hand phones. The original phone was new, the replacement was second hand. Seems to me that they screwed him on this because he accepted a second hand replacement. He wants a to reject the replacement phone and receive a refund of the original purchase price. Not an unreasonable request, but the store says it's not their policy and that's final.
As far as I can figure out, it is within his right to demand a refund under the sales of goods act, and that the shop's own policy does not override consumer law.
We're looking at formally rejecting the replacement phone under the sales of goods act with a written letter stating that demand for a refund, along with intentions to contact local Trading Standards and submitting a claim to the Small Claims court. We're hoping that might do something, but I'm doubtful.
My main question though is whether an unlocked phone would be unlocked to Tesco contract but not to Tesco PAYG. That's what the shop was claiming, but it all sounds like BS to me.
Any advice appreciated.
Thanks
A friend was given a new Nokia Lumia as a birthday present. It was sold as SIM free and unlocked. It turned out not to work with a Tesco PAYG SIM. He took it back to the shop and they claimed that it was unlocked to contract SIMs only, and that they would have to contact Nokia directly. He left the phone with them for 1 week or so, and on return they said that Nokia were not cooperating.
Unhappy that the phone was not as advertised i.e. unlocked, he asked for a refund. Instead they fobbed him off with a second hand Sony Xperia. This phone worked well in the shop so he accepted it. The store claimed it was a superior phone to the Lumia, because in their opinion Android was better.
By the time he returned home it developed a fault whereby it would power down every few minutes. The phone was immediately returned to the to the shop.
At this point it gets silly. The shop refused to refund because their store policy is to not refund second hand phones. The original phone was new, the replacement was second hand. Seems to me that they screwed him on this because he accepted a second hand replacement. He wants a to reject the replacement phone and receive a refund of the original purchase price. Not an unreasonable request, but the store says it's not their policy and that's final.
As far as I can figure out, it is within his right to demand a refund under the sales of goods act, and that the shop's own policy does not override consumer law.
We're looking at formally rejecting the replacement phone under the sales of goods act with a written letter stating that demand for a refund, along with intentions to contact local Trading Standards and submitting a claim to the Small Claims court. We're hoping that might do something, but I'm doubtful.
My main question though is whether an unlocked phone would be unlocked to Tesco contract but not to Tesco PAYG. That's what the shop was claiming, but it all sounds like BS to me.
Any advice appreciated.
Thanks