Faulty phone

A customer purchased a new mobile phone and returned it just four days later, reporting facial recognition errors, touchscreen problems, malfunctioning apps, and overheating. She expected a full refund, but the store required a technical assessment first. The phone was assessed twice by the manufacturer and both times found to be fault-free. The store declined her refund request. Unhappy with the outcome and doubting the credibility of the assessments, the customer brought the complaint to TDR.

The complaint

The customer believed the phone was faulty and that she was entitled to a refund under consumer law, particularly since she returned it within a week of purchase. She felt the assessment was unnecessary because the store manager had witnessed the issues in person. She also raised concerns about delays in communication, questioned the authenticity of the assessment reports, and said her request to escalate the matter to senior management was ignored.

Next step

TDR reviewed the claims and responses from both parties. The store explained that only the manufacturer was qualified to determine whether the phone was faulty. Two assessments by the manufacturer found no issues, and a third was declined due to the consistency of the earlier findings. The store maintained that all communication was timely and appropriate, where possible within the same day but on occasion responses took up to five working days. TDR also reviewed the legal standards under the Consumer Guarantees Act and the obligations outlined in the TCF Customer Care Code.

Outcome

TDR did not uphold the complaint. It found that the phone met the legal guarantee of acceptable quality with two assessments by authorised technicians confirming no faults. TDR also found the store had acted reasonably and met its obligations to engage constructively with the customer. As a result, the store was not required to provide a refund or replacement.

Lesson learned

Returning a product soon after purchase does not always mean you’re entitled to a refund — especially if a technical assessment is needed. Observing a problem doesn’t automatically prove a fault under consumer law. Retailers are entitled to rely on expert assessments, and if those assessments find no fault, a refund may not be required. This case also shows that constructive communication includes responding in a timely and fair way — even if the outcome isn’t what the customer hoped for.