The Vodafone Treo 750v seems to have quite a lot of issues based on the feedback that’s been posted recently to SMS Text News.
Which puts me in mind of a conversation I had with a chap from Vodafone a while ago. I should be clear that he wasn’t speaking *officially* for Vodafone.
When he held up the Treo 750v, I said, ‘Ahh, I’ve read quite a lot of complaints about this one…’
He then responded with — words to the effect of — ‘Yes, isn’t it an arse, but you know, the operator can’t be held responsible for faulty handsets. If you want to buy a Treo 750v, then it’s your problem.’
It was something like that. It was one of those throw-away comments that really gave me a different perspective. Up until that point I assumed that all operators would dutifully put equipment destined for consumers through a whole range of tests, make fixes, and so on, prior to releasing it on the market.
This chap threw cold water on that assumption, extending the blame and thus the burden of responsibility firmly upon the shoulders of the customer for buying a device riddled with issues.
As a plumber commented to me upon checking out my non-functioning boiler: ‘If it dun’t wurk like u want it, dun’t luke at me mate. It’s 800 smackers for a new wun.’
Anyway this Vodafone guy had adopted the viewpoint that Vodafone was simply a provider of bandwidth. Fair enough. I can’t remember if I countered with a, ‘right, but if the handset doesn’t work, the user can’t run up stupid bills with you?’ comment. I think I might have stayed silent.
I am still surprised by that position.
I used the 750v briefly last week; it was perfectly fine. I only used it for about 8 minutes though…….
Sale of goods act: Essentially, the Act states that what you sell must fit its description, be fit for its purpose and be of satisfactory quality. If not, you – as the supplier – are obliged to sort out the problem.
I rest my case.