Good will to all men? No, just following the law

What is it with phone networks and so-called ‘goodwill gestures’? Back in Issue 502 we reported that Three used this phrase when it gave Computeractive reader Peter Gilmore a replacement phone after the original stopped working. Three didn’t seem to realise that it was legally required to replace the phone.

Now it’s EE trying to make it sound like it is doing a favour for a customer, rather than simply following the law. As reported in Issue 503, EE wrongly refused to replace reader Bill Cole’s broken iphone 6S, and then said he would have to pay £70 to repair it. Astonished by such misleading information, we contacted EE to argue his case. It has now replaced his iphone, but didn’t acknowledge any wrongdoing, instead calling the decision a you-know-what (two words, both beginning with ‘g’) because he had been a customer for so long.

In Monty Python’s famous Dead Parrot sketch, an exasperated John Cleese says that the deceased bird’s plumage “don’t enter into it”. We feel the same way about claims that a goodwill gesture is due to a customer’s loyalty.

For the benefit of Three, EE and any other network unclear about the law, customers can reject an inherently faulty product within 30 days of purchase. They can demand a full refund or a replacement. After 30 days the retailer can ask to repair the product. If this fails, it must refund or replace, not subject the customer to endless repairs. At no time within six years (five in Scotland) can a retailer make a charge to fix an inherent fault.