Letters of the month: faulty phone, high service charges, credit cards & more

Faulty phone

In January 2023, we purchased a Samsung Galaxy A13 phone from a telco store. It worked perfectly and, as our previous Samsung phones had done, had the ability to include photos with text messages. About 2 weeks ago, we found that the phone will no longer send photos. We visited the telco’s Taupo branch twice. Both times they thought they’d found the solution but on returning home we found the phone still had the issue. We went back again and, after some time trying to fix the problem, were told they’d have to email head office. Despite prompting by us there has been no offer of a replacement phone in the meantime; we’ve been told just to send photos by email. Since the ability to send a photo with a text message has always been possible with previous Samsung phones, and this phone, then, to my understanding, the phone is not fulfilling the standard of doing the job it was intended to do. Are we, under the Consumer Guarantees Act, within our rights to request a replacement phone?

- JOHN LUCAS

The telco hasn’t fulfilled its obligations to you and it’s ridiculous to suggest you should just email photos now that you can’t send them via text messaging. After three unsuccessful visits to the telco and its failure to provide a solution, you would be entitled to a replacement phone under the Consumer Guarantees Act. The telco is obliged to provide a remedy if there’s a fault. It can choose to repair the phone, replace it, or refund the purchase price. We’d suggest you go back to the store and ask the manager for a replacement phone. As they couldn’t repair it, they must replace it or refund your money.

The photo issue was fixed within a day of John mentioning the Act.

---

Disappointing response

In October last year I took a Go Bus in Christchurch which went the wrong way. I was obliged to take an Uber to complete the journey to my home which cost me $8.80. I sent a copy of the Uber invoice to Go Bus, asking that this be refunded to me via internet banking. Its response was that its policy is no refunds, as there would be a myriad of people claiming, some honest, some not. I was astounded to be told that my honest claim would be lumped together with “others not”. What does the law have to say about this approach?

- ERROL MARTYN

The company’s liability to you seems straightforward. Its driver failed to use reasonable care and skill, and the company failed to provide a service that was fit for purpose. Under the Consumer Guarantees Act you’re entitled to damages for any loss suffered as a result. The cost of the Uber ride is a foreseeable and direct result of the company’s failure that night, and its refusal to pay is disappointing. We’d suggest you point this out to the company and ask them to reconsider your request (which, it should be noted, is modest and reasonable).

Go Bus apologised and provided a full refund of the Uber fare.

---

Deceased person’s credit card

Not long after my wife died last year I went to our bank and cancelled her credit card for our joint credit card account. The bank has continued to charge me $9 for my wife’s cancelled card because it’s a joint account. The only way around this is to close the account down, then apply for a new credit card in my own name. I was told there was no guarantee I would get a new card. I know $9 is not a big sum but the whole system reeks of a rip-off. Charging for a cancelled credit card from a deceased person and then basically forcing the widower to cancel an existing card and apply for a new one is very unfair and wrong. What do you think?

- A MEMBER

According to the Banking Ombudsman website: “If a deceased customer had a joint personal account, the account will usually be transferred into the remaining account holder’s name or names if there is more than one. This step will be more complicated if there is debt (particularly a loan secured by a mortgage over a property)”. You might like to talk to the Banking Ombudsman, a free service, about this.

The Banking Ombudsman gave our member the contact details for a senior staff member at the bank who agreed the situation was unfair and that the anomaly would be investigated. The charge was refunded, but our member still had to go through the rigmarole of applying for a new card in his name.

---

Expensive toilet fix

Recently, I had a drip from my toilet cistern in my home which I decided needed to be fixed by a plumber, also a garden tap required adjustment. I went online and found a local plumber. The plumber was at my property for less than 1.5 hours. When I received the invoice, I queried the labour cost of $350, which amounts to around $230 per hour. The plumber explained that he didn’t apply an hourly rate to small jobs but charged out either $150 or $350 depending on various criteria associated with the job. My complaint is that $230 per hour is exorbitant and time charged is not shown – further, some plumbing parts, in my opinion, were replaced unnecessarily. Do I have any grounds to challenge the plumber’s labour charge?

- A MEMBER

The hourly rate certainly seems high. The Consumer Guarantees Act contains a provision that where no price for services is agreed beforehand, a consumer is not liable to pay more than a reasonable price. If you can get the hourly rates of other plumbers in your area, you could use that information to calculate a reasonable price and then pay that. Note that this guarantee doesn’t apply if you’ve already paid the invoice. You’re also entitled to refuse to pay for parts that were replaced unnecessarily, although this could be harder to determine. We’d suggest you discuss the invoice with the plumber and tell him your concerns.

John went back to the plumber and the labour fee was reduced to $150.