Hefty Upsurge in Consumer Complaints Against Mobile PhoneMaintenance Service - CHOICE # 441

Consumer complaints against maintenance service of mobile phones have surged sharply in the first six months of this year.

The Consumer Council has received in total 1,001 cases of mobile phone complaints, of which 548 cases or 55% of all complaints were related to maintenance service, representing a substantial rise of 74% over the corresponding period last year.

Shoddy workmanship, prolonged repair time and unreasonable exorbitant charges were among the main causes of consumer dissatisfaction.

Other common consumer disputes included: refusal to honour maintenance obligations on the grounds that the mobile phones were damaged by the users themselves; loss of data in the phones after repairs; irregular practices in provision or non-provision of warranty for some spare parts.

In a typical case, the complainant (a Ms. Kwok) bought a handset for some $3,000 but after using it for one week, the phone was automatically shut down repeatedly. She took it to the manufacturer's maintenance centre for repair. The problem however remained unsolved. Within a month, the phone had to be sent 4 times for maintenance - but to no avail.

She demanded an exchange of the phone, which the company flatly refused, but agreed to examine the breakdown again. The complainant was however dissatisfied with the irresponsible attitude of the company, and found it unacceptable that her mobile phone required repeated maintenance, wasting her considerable time and creating severe inconvenience to her daily life. Upon the Council's conciliation, the company finally agreed to a refund of the phone.

In another case, the complainant (a Mr. Leung) bought a handset for $4,480 which began to develop failure to receive signals after using it for 5 months. He took it back for maintenance but was informed that the warranty was no longer in force.

The reason: the liquid test paper embedded in the handset would turn normally from white to pink in colour indicating that the phone has been in contact with liquid before. The liquid test paper in the case of the complainant's phone was however in black which the company had no explanation but still insisted that as long as the colour was not white it would not offer any maintenance service.

The complainant found the company's response most unreasonable and objectionable, depriving him of his right to maintenance service. He was never aware of the existence of a liquid test paper inside the phone or the original colour of the test paper. He denied the phone had ever been immersed in water.

Upon approach of the Council, the manufacturer attributed to dirt problem for causing the liquid test paper to turn black in colour and referred to the company (a mobile phone operator) which sold the phone as the party responsible for maintenance. Turned down by both the seller and the manufacturer, the complainant sought repair elsewhere and successfully resolved the problem on his own.

In yet another case, the complainant (a Mr. Chow) was unable to access the photos stored in his mobile phone. He took it to the maintenance centre and was told to leave behind the phone for checking at a fee of $150. The next day he received a call informing him that the phone's main board would have to be replaced at a cost of $1,750. Also the data - and the photos he treasured - could not be retrieved and would be lost.

The complainant later managed to have his phone repaired and back in normal operation, retaining intact all photos and personal data. He was utterly dismayed at the poor judgment and service of the maintenance staff, and demanded cash refund of the $150 and an apology. The company would only offer him a purchase coupon of the same amount. No agreement could be reached so far.

Consumers are advised to pay more attention to the provision of maintenance as part of the after-sales service, and to consult the report in this July issue of CHOICE for guidance to avoid running into trouble with mobile phone maintenance service.