Wind Warranty Policy Changes?

[ijcy]

That's not right, I think point 6 is incorrect.

Actually if you think about it it does make sense, if you sent a water damaged phone and they diagnosed it and let you know and told you how much it is to fix.
And then you chose not to fix it, it still cost them money to do this.

[mattt33]

Actually if you think about it it does make sense, if you sent a water damaged phone and they diagnosed it and let you know and told you how much it is to fix.
And then you chose not to fix it, it still cost them money to do this.

Just to clarify on this point, this is not entirely correct. The $150/$50 deposit that is left upon submitting your phone pre-authorizes the repair of the device up to the amount of the deposit already. If more monies are required then you would have to pay the additional funds as well. To simply put it, you do not have the option/choice of deciding whether you want the repairs to go through. This is also to cut down on unnecessary warranty repair attempts.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using HowardForums

[Tendenzi]

Actually if you think about it it does make sense, if you sent a water damaged phone and they diagnosed it and let you know and told you how much it is to fix.
And then you chose not to fix it, it still cost them money to do this.

that's what I think the $10 is for.

If the store doesn't do their due diligence in assisting the customer before the repair to avoid **** like that, it should be WIND footing the bill. Especially on "liquid damage" equipment.

[mattt33]

When the customer seeks a warranty replacement claim, it will be looked at at the store level to rule out any obvious physical damage and other potential damage due to own fault. Pending that is ruled out, it can only then be processed through to the service centre - at which point the deposit is submitted, authorizing repair of the device. The $10 is charged regardless of the outcome of the service request, as it is a fee for the loaner phone only.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using HowardForums

[ijcy]

that's what I think the $10 is for.

If the store doesn't do their due diligence in assisting the customer before the repair to avoid **** like that, it should be WIND footing the bill. Especially on "liquid damage" equipment.

The $10- is a loaner fee and you are right they should check things like water damage at store level.

[nuclearbroccoli]

The $10- is a loaner fee and you are right they should check things like water damage at store level.

Why?
Everything that isn't physical damage is covered under warranty, so you wouldn't get charged anyway.
Since physical damage isn't covered (and water damage would be physical as well), then I'd say if someone is trying to get their phone fixed under warranty with physical damage, then why not penalize them for it?

Sent from my HTC Glacier using HowardForums

[mattt33]

Why?
Everything that isn't physical damage is covered under warranty, so you wouldn't get charged anyway.
Since physical damage isn't covered (and water damage would be physical as well), then I'd say if someone is trying to get their phone fixed under warranty with physical damage, then why not penalize them for it?

Sent from my HTC Glacier using HowardForums

Just so we're all on the same page, the $10 fee for a loaner phone is optional. If you do not need a temporary replacement while your original is shipped out for repair, you're not obliged to pay the fee.

[Tendenzi]

Just so we're all on the same page, the $10 fee for a loaner phone is optional. If you do not need a temporary replacement while your original is shipped out for repair, you're not obliged to pay the fee.

I hope that's not the prepared response going from OTC to actual repairs at a service centre means having instant gratification and continuous uninterrupted service to being penalized to continue being a customer when the phone is being repaired. ( at least that's how most are going to see it )

[nuclearbroccoli]

I hope that's not the prepared response going from OTC to actual repairs at a service centre means having instant gratification and continuous uninterrupted service to being penalized to continue being a customer when the phone is being repaired. ( at least that's how most are going to see it )

If my computer breaks down, they don't give me a temporary replacement, and that is as important to some people as a phone.
That's life.
At least Wind have the option if you want it, and most importantly, you get your own phone back.

Somebody is always going to complain though..

Sent from my HTC Glacier using HowardForums

[ijcy]

Why?
Everything that isn't physical damage is covered under warranty, so you wouldn't get charged anyway.
Since physical damage isn't covered (and water damage would be physical as well), then I'd say if someone is trying to get their phone fixed under warranty with physical damage, then why not penalize them for it?

Sent from my HTC Glacier using HowardForums

That is exactly what i said, if someone tries to send a phone with water damage they should pay for the analysis. But what Tenderzi says also makes sense, the store level employees should check something as trivial as water damage before accepting the phone.

[nuclearbroccoli]

That is exactly what i said, if someone tries to send a phone with water damage they should pay for the analysis. But what Tenderzi says also makes sense, the store level employees should check something as trivial as water damage before accepting the phone.

Again though, why bother checking at store level?
If your phone is water damaged (or has other physical damage for that matter), then I'm sure that you are well aware of it, and that it isn't covered by warranty.
If you are taking it in at that point, you are doing nothing more than trying to scam a free repair for something that isn't covered. Since there are costs associated with dealing with it, I say who cares? Send it off anyway and charge the customer for it.
Guaranteed they won't try it again.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using HowardForums

[Tendenzi]

Again though, why bother checking at store level?
If your phone is water damaged (or has other physical damage for that matter), then I'm sure that you are well aware of it, and that it isn't covered by warranty.
If you are taking it in at that point, you are doing nothing more than trying to scam a free repair for something that isn't covered. Since there are costs associated with dealing with it, I say who cares? Send it off anyway and charge the customer for it.
Guaranteed they won't try it again.

Are your opinions of those competent enough to post here? Or are those your expectations for every subscriber on WIND?
I assure you, many if not most people with a cellphone have no idea how to check for liquid damage, or what is even covered in their terms of warranty for their phone. Your level of expectation seems a little high, and condemning the consumer as a "scammer" seems a little harsh.

[reveries3]

Again though, why bother checking at store level?
If your phone is water damaged (or has other physical damage for that matter), then I'm sure that you are well aware of it, and that it isn't covered by warranty.
If you are taking it in at that point, you are doing nothing more than trying to scam a free repair for something that isn't covered. Since there are costs associated with dealing with it, I say who cares? Send it off anyway and charge the customer for it.
Guaranteed they won't try it again.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using HowardForums

You never know. My former MacBook, may it rest in peace, had a trackpad that was malfunctioning - I'd spilled some water in it earlier, which I figured was the cause of the issue, and I was even fully upfront about it with the Apple folks. They went in and checked, and even though there should have been some evidence of water damage, he said he didn't see any, that it must have been a hardware issue. So you really never know, might be worthwhile to bring in supposedly water damaged tech to be certain.

Sent from my HTC Panache using HowardForums

[nuclearbroccoli]

Are your opinions of those competent enough to post here? Or are those your expectations for every subscriber on WIND?
I assure you, many if not most people with a cellphone have no idea how to check for liquid damage, or what is even covered in their terms of warranty for their phone. Your level of expectation seems a little high, and condemning the consumer as a "scammer" seems a little harsh.

The people who post here are substantially better informed than the average customer, so no, I'm not referring to anyone here.

You can't honestly believe that someone with a water damaged phone doesn't know that it's water damaged?
Did it get wet? Yes.
Is it working now? No.
Hmmm.. related? Nah....
Seriously?

The point is that the people with legitimate warranty issues won't be charged anyway. The people who would end up getting charged are those who's phones have either physical or water damage, and if either of those applied, then you can be pretty sure that the customer is aware of the cause. If that customer then tries to get service on the phone under warranty, then yes, I consider that trying to scam the system and they deserve to be penalized for it.

Ignorance of what is and isn't covered under warranty is no excuse either.
If you can read, then you have no excuse.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using HowardForums

[Tendenzi]

You can't honestly believe that someone with a water damaged phone doesn't know that it's water damaged?
Did it get wet? Yes.
Is it working now? No.
Hmmm.. related? Nah....
Seriously?

I am being very serious. The litmus papers on these phones sometimes change to indicate liquid damage, and the user has no real idea. It's not like it takes a phone to be submerged in liquid for this to happen. Work in cellular retail for a bit, talk to anyone with any carrier who has had experience, and it'll surprise you how many times customers actually were unaware.

In other news, why not search HoFo, you'll find a variety of threads discussing "litmus paper" and it's reliability as a liquid damage indicatory. You'll quickly see that it's in fact not just weather, and in climates like in Canada, we can expect only the worst from these kinds of things. http://www.howardforums.com/printthr...6&pp=15&page=2