[HTC One X] liberator72:
I am still waiting yet again for another reply from Carphone Warehouse with regards the email I sent them yesterday. They claim to respond within 24 hours but the last one took several days so I wont be holding my breath for a reply anytime soon. I thought I might just copy and paste an extract from the email my solicitor wrote for me yesterday with the hope that maybe it can go some way to help some of you on here with this same problem.

Customers are entitled to reject goods if they are faulty (do not match the description , are not of satisfactory quality , or are not fit for purpose ) and receive a full refund if they have not yet accepted the goods.

Before a customer is believed to have accepted the goods they have purchased, the law allows customers a reasonable opportunity to inspect or examine the goods and this should take place within a reasonable time .

For items sold in a shop, it is important for retailers to know that inspecting them in a shop is often not considered a reasonable opportunity. This is due to the restrictions of packaging and in-store display in allowing a customer to identify a problem or a fault.

For items being delivered, it is important for retailers to know that signing a delivery note is not acceptance as it does not allow the customer a reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods and identify any problems or faults.

The law does not give a time limit for acceptance. When trying to decide if a customer has had a reasonable opportunity to inspect their goods, consider what an impartial person in a court would think reasonable for that product in the circumstances.

Faulty goods, no acceptance

If the item does not conform to contract (is faulty ) for any of the reasons mentioned previously, and the customer has not accepted the goods, the law says the customer is entitled to

reject the goods and claim a full refund, or

request a repair or replacement if that is the customer's preferred option.

As the retailer, you can offer a repair, a replacement or a credit note, but you cannot insist on any one of these. It is the customer's right to receive a full refund in these circumstances.

Where a customer is entitled to a full refund because they have not accepted the goods but have agreed that you may repair or replace the goods, they can still claim a full refund if the repair or replacement is

taking an unreasonable time, or

causing an unreasonable inconvenience, or

if the repair or replacement is not satisfactory when they receive it.

Faulty goods that have been accepted

If the item does not conform to contract (is faulty ) for any of the reasons outlined and the customer has accepted the goods, the law says the customer is entitled to claim a repair or replacement of the goods in the first instance.

If either a repair or replacement is not possible, or the cost is greater than the value of the item ( disproportionately costly ), or the customer claims either option is taking an unreasonable amount of time or is causing unreasonable inconvenience, the customer is then entitled to

keep the goods and claim a price reduction from the retailer to compensate them for the fault in the goods - this would be the difference between the value of the product in perfect condition and the value of the product in the faulty condition, or

return the goods and rescind the contract . This would mean that the customer returns the goods and you provide a partial refund, calculated to reflect the benefit the customer has received from the product.

Where a customer is entitled to repair or replacement because they have accepted the goods, they can claim price reduction or partial refund if the repair or replacement is

taking an unreasonable time, or

causing an unreasonable inconvenience, or

if the repair or replacement is not satisfactory when they receive it.

This was just a section of it as he also added bits regarding amendmants to the Sale Of Goods Act which were related to my own personal circumstances which may or may not apply to others, but from this you should all get the basic idea. This is UK Law, it overides any and all company policy and as such means that anybody who has this problem should be entitled to a replacement considering the amount of reports coming back that phones being sent in for repair are coming back in the same unrepaired state, or at the very least, repaired and then failing again within weeks.

Sorry for the long post, but I feel BigOliver has done an amazing job bringing this to the attention of HTC in the first place, getting them to admit there is a problem and putting a fix in place for future production. That was a massive achievement in my mind, but it doesn't really help those of us who are stuck with phones that could potentially redevelop this fault for the (up to) 2 years we may have to keep this phone on contract. HTC are not about to order a recall on affected handsets by the looks of it, however if it's as issolated as they say then I don't see why not. So with that in mind I feel we should all be issued with replacements by the retailers considering that is pretty much what the law says. The retailers can then take this up with HTC as they are in a much stronger position to argue and fight with them than we ever will be.