Protect your bubble invalidated my warranty on my MacBook by not using genuine parts. They wouldn’t pay for my battery servicing as a result after Apple refused, because my insurance didn’t cover wear and tear.
Didn’t attempt any legal recourse though, I just cancelled my insurance.
They also claimed to use the same replacement devices Apple do. Which I would need to see to believe. Apple’s replacement (refurb white box models), look and feel brand new and go through much more stringent quality control than new devices too. In my experience with other stores, that is never the case.
Repairs will be made using readily available parts, or we may provide remanufactured products. These may contain parts that are of similar or equivalent specification, and these may include unbranded parts. This policy is provided in addition to any manufacturer’s warranty that applies to your mobile phone (“applicable manufacturer’s warranty”). Nothing in this policy is intended to affect your rights under the applicable manufacturer’s warranty or your statutory rights.
That’s fair, just pointing out it’s not wholly accurate to say he has skirted around the issue. He’s outright said that in the case of Apple they use genuine apple parts, if people don’t believe him then fine, him posting it again doesn’t sound like it would change your mind anyway.
I’d be interested to know whether this part of the clause means that they wouldn’t do something to invalidate your manufacturer warranty, because using none genuine parts would impact your rights under it.
I’m currently a Nationwide Flex Plus customer, with effectively the same insurance. I’ve always found it effective and helpful. I’m not sure what the problem is here: surely if you want something different (e.g. Apple Care) then your don’t subscribe? (Or subscribe in the knowledge that you won’t use that element of the package).
Unfortunately not, that’s a standard clause, it’s there so that if your phone develops a technical fault covered by the warranty, it’s clear that’s still the manufactures responsibility. It’s not a guarantee that they won’t do something to invalidate the warranty though.
I think this is just a case of a Monzo employee excited about the product, sharing his experience using it and how he believes it works, but doesn’t completely understand the policy wording themselves, hence the errors.
Which isn’t uncommon, and in my opinion, forgivable, and not mis-selling like some have suggested.
If you want official word from Monzo, it’s best to go through the proper channels so you get someone that actually understands the policy wording inside and out.
But yes, the conflicting information is a bit of a shambles and does need some clarity from someone in the know, preferably on here, to clear up confusion laid out earlier in the thread.
The problem is that Monzo are contradicting the terms and conditions and themselves and the insurance provider aren’t much help either. If there was clarity everyone could decide if this is right for them or not and move on.
No one wants Apple to service their phones like AppleCare just confirmation that genuine parts will be used by an authorised service provider. Because if the answer to either of these is no, any reputable service centre may refuse to touch the device in the future
It’s distinguished in shiny Monzo-yellow which official posts usually are. Monzo badge plus shiny yellow to me means it’s from an authoritative source. If I wrote something on a headed paper with my employer’s logo whilst wearing my employer’s uniform it’d be taken as me speaking for them. I don’t think it’s mis-selling as the T&Cs are the ultimate authority but it’s still Monzo saying what Monzo shouldn’t
Given the very stringent terms around insurance selling, it may actually count as mis-selling. Any incorrect advice you get about a financial product that contributes to your purchase is mis-selling (whether thats deliberate or an honest mistake).
Still mis-selling is not the end of the world, it happens often and there’s an easy fix - a refund.
Completely agree, but on a community forum, which is quite an informal channel it could just be construed as the equivalent of one friend who works at a company discussing their product with their other friends who do not work at the company, which can happen on places like Reddit all the time, in a very non-representative informal capacity.
I’m not sure there’s a test case in this concept, but if someone that purchased premium on the basis of what they were told on here, wanted to take it through those channels, I’d be invested to see the outcome.