Samsung UK’s attempt to dodge honouring Sudden Death Warranty Claims

Since November there have been stories of the Sudden Death Syndrome on the Samsung Galaxy SIII.

The problem is said to effect a limited number of Galaxy SIIIs. Sadly most people don’t get to use the eMMC Brickbug Check app from the Play store to check if they’re effected because, let’s face it, 9/10 users don’t know about, or expect, a manufacturing defect like this to go on without being dealt with.

This means they also don’t know that they should keep their devices regularly backed up because if it’s going to go, that’s what is going to happen.  The preventative measure is to obtain Android version 4.1.2+ for your Samsung as it is a bug specific to the 4.1.1 (and older?) firmware.  There’s over 500 pages on the XDA Developers site so it’s becoming more prominent for sure.

Now, I have read online customers of various countries having problems getting Samsung to play ball with honouring this clearly obvious manufacturing defect under warranty if you happen to have a cracked screen.  The web has brought to my attention people who have had a broken screen for four months so the damage was totally unrelated, but I have personally met with an individual currently being refused the mainboard repair under warranty because of a small crack on the glass at the front of her SIII.  Now, I say glass not screen, because the phone worked fine for 7 months+ after the glass cracked in a tiny spot in the corner, not even near the LCD.  The buttons worked, the LCD was unaffected, the touchscreen was not affected at all.

The size of the crack blamed for mainboard failure

Really though?

Yet here we go, Samsung UK said the following first:

One of our engineers has tested your phone and they have found that it is no
longer covered by the manufacturer warranty because it has been subjected to
physical damage. The following part(s) will be required to repair your
handset back to working order:
GH82-06521A-A/S ASSY-PBA MAIN(COMM)GT_I9300/GH97-13630A-MEA FRONT-OCTA LCD
(SVC)_GT-I9300,BTU,CO; METALLIC BLUE/

The cost of the repair to your handset inclusive of parts, labour and
postage will be 248.77 GBP.

If you agree for the repair to continue on your handset then please contact
the following department to make a payment 02000011455.

What? £250 almost, charging for two parts, one being the mainboard (which isn’t her problem, clearly) and the other being a perfectly fine LCD (just because it happens to be attached to a slightly damaged piece of glass).

Come on Samsung, she’s not stupid.  After consulting with me she heads back to Samsung to get further help.

Their next reply after a back and forth communication and chasing the Service Centre and Customer Services constantly?

One of our engineers has tested your phone and they have found that it is no
longer covered by the manufacturer warranty because it has been subjected to
physical damage. The following part(s) will be required to repair your
handset back to working order:
GH82-06521A-A/S ASSY-PBA MAIN(COMM)GT_I9300/
The cost of the repair to your handset inclusive of parts, labour and

postage will be 167.33 GBP.

If you agree for the repair to continue on your handset then please contact
the following department to make a payment 02000011455.
Woah, so wait Samsung.  You’re charging for the mainboard replacement here at nearly £170 and nothing for the LCD? This means two things:
  • You are agreeing this can be fixed without replacing the LCD as it is an unrelated defect, not driven by the physical damage on the glass.
  • You are charging her for a mainboard replacement which is a manufacturing defect and should be covered under the warranty, irrespective of the glass state.

Let’s face it Samsung.  You know it’s a manufacturing defect, you’ve acknowledged it and offered preventative solutions, but you want to charge her for this.  The crack in the glass didn’t cause the fault after 7 months.  How could it?  Sure, if there had been liquid crystal all over the mainboard it could be blamed, but unless you’re planning on sabotage whilst the phone is still at the service centre, I know this wasn’t the case.

Now the latest they have claimed so far on the phone, not in writing, is the following points:

  • The warranty is not void for the mainboard due to physical damage (Johnny at Samsung UK Customer Services)
  • They will not repair the mainboard under warranty unless the screen damage is paid for first as it is one of their “rules” in the service centre (I heard that as, “money making scams” when told it)
  • The screen repairs cost between £30 and £200 (the individual in this case was quoted £130, which makes no sense as it’s literally a piece of glass that’s broken not the LCD itself and in all honesty she doesn’t need this done!)

So, I can’t imagine there is any motivation behind them saying no to fixing the mainboard under warranty except to ruin the life and bank balance of someone trying to work three jobs whilst studying just so they can make a little extra money.

I owned a Galaxy SII, I own a Galaxy Note II and I’m really considering if this is the right way to go now.  Perhaps the Apple customer service element was right all along.  Perhaps Samsung shouldn’t just be afraid about its cheap plastics but how it treats its customers.

Advertisements