Defective cordless phone case - positively concluded

This was another drawn out case that has now been resolved: a case worth sharing. Many letters were exchanged for which I do not have space. This is what the complainant, Dr Francis Saliba, outlined in his first letter to Showtime DVD Rentals in Mellieha:

I refer to the Brondi cordless phone DC503OLP I bought from you on October 6, 2006, which I had to return to you on February 22, 2007, due to a serious defect (i.e., inability to key in the digit 7) indubitably arising during the period of commercial and legal guarantees.

I complained several times about the delay in making the necessary repair, always being promised its imminent return to me. When I recently insisted on some real progress, you contacted your supplier and I was told for the first time that some spare part was unavailable and the repair is not covered by the guarantee.

You offered to put me in touch with your supplier. I refused this because at law my contract of sale is with you and no one else.

Today I collected a note from your supplier advising that the phone was "beyond repair due to strong voltage and does not fall under the guarantee".

I dispute this belated excuse. There was no electrical storm at the time of the fault. Moreover, the phone was plugged into the same power circuit serving two computers with their accessories, one television set, one VCR recorder, one radio/tape recorder, one digital video player and two chargers for mobile phones.

None of these showed any malfunction, as would have been the case if there really was some power surge. The fault affected only the Brondi cordless phone.

This had shown a defect from the same date of sale (i.e., excessively rapid draining of the battery power very soon after the set was lifted from its base, which compelled me to have always at hand spare batteries of the same specifications as the original batteries supplied with the set).

On examining the 'Certificato di Garanzia' returned to me, I discovered why your supplier is trying to avoid his legal responsibility to you by repairing or replacing the cordless phone. I quote:

"L'apparecchio è garantito... per un periodo du 12 mesi dalla data d'acquisto... sul territorio italiano."

The manufacturer guarantees its product only if retailed in Italy, not in Malta. This would not affect in any way your clients' rights under Maltese law for a two-year legal guarantee by the seller.

I would be grateful if you would fulfil your obligation to repair or replace the defective cordless telephone without obliging me to have recourse to consumer protection agencies with their attendant unfavourable publicity. (Dr Francis Saliba)

Evidently Dr Saliba knows his rights. Subsequently Dr Saliba and David Farrugia, managing director, Showtime DVD Rentals, exchanged many letters. However, what really matters in all cases is a positive conclusion.

We established a meaningful three-way dialogue. This is confirmed by the following letter I received from Mr Farrugia:

I am writing with reference to Dr Francis Saliba's complaint and our recent telephone conversation. I insisted on Retina Telecommunications offering a replacement phone to our customer. This they have accepted.

However, the fact still remains that the telephone was damaged by a power surge and not by a fault with the phone itself.

This is a fact confirmed by Retina's technician and not proved otherwise by the customer. Please advise Dr Saliba that we are not replacing the phone as a result of his letters or his contact with yourself, but as part of the service we offer to any customer.

However your understanding towards both parties was appreciated. Rather than prolong this matter he may collect a new replacement cordless phone from our shop on return of the one previously loaned to him. Thank you for your attention. (David Farrugia)

I thank Mr Farrugia for his co-operation. I also received the following letter from Dr Saliba:

I am confirming the successful outcome for the problem on the repair/replacement of a cordless telephone bought from Showtime of Mellieha and which developed a serious fault during the period of legal warranty.

Unlike Mr Farrugia, I am absolutely convinced that without your successful intervention, and had I not had a watertight claim, the defective cordless telephone would never have been replaced under the warranty without going to court.

Prior to your intervention both Showtime and Retina Communications were adamantly refusing to accept any responsibility under the manufacturer's and the legal warranty. I am glad to inform you also that, unlike its predecessor, the replacement cordless telephone is covered by a valid manufacturer's guarantee.

I thank you once again. (Dr Francis Saliba)

What really matters is the positive conclusion of this case and I thank Mr Farrugia for his co-operation. I encourage consumers to emulate Dr Saliba by chasing the respective traders while in the process copying me in.