Determinations

TDR Case Note T018261 (2016)

Background

The Customer purchased a new Samsung S6 phone and 2 months later the phone would not work. She returned it to the provider who sent it to the Samsung technician who found the phone to be water damaged.

The Customer denied ever getting the phone wet but did not present any evidence from a technician or repairer. However, the Customer did accept the phone had been exposed to rain.

Adjudicator’s decision

After considering the complaint, the Adjudicator held as follows:

  1. The TDR Position Statement states:
    With regards to water-damaged mobile phones, TDR does not consider that a mobile phone treated with reasonable care should experience difficulties with moisture. If TDR were to accept that a mobile phone had not been exposed to liquid water (compared to humidity), if the phone was determined as damaged from liquid, TDR may find that mobile phone not fit for purpose.
  2. The Provider had provided evidence from an expert in Samsung technical matters supporting water damage.

  3. Although the Customer had stated she had not exposed the phone to liquid water, she did not provide any expert evidence to dispute the evidence of the Samsung Technician.

  4. The Adjudicator found, that it was more likely than not, the phone had been damaged by exposure to liquid water.