COMPLAINT ABOUT INVOICED EXAMINATION FEE

But this must be informed in advance. If the product is defective, the examination fee must be refunded. This is the main theme in this case.

Summary of actual circumstances and the parties' claims:

The complainant states that on 11.04.2022 she ordered two identical tablets from the opposing party for 1,190 kronor each. The complainant has provided an order confirmation.

The complainant explains that about a year after the purchase, a fault occurred with the charging port of one of the tablets, where the fault was covered by the opposing party under warranty. Furthermore, the complainant explains that on 06.08.2023 a fault also occurred with the charging port on the other tablet.

The tablet was therefore sent to the opposing party's service workshop for examination. The complainant explains that before sending the item, she was informed that the examination could incur a cost if the damage was not covered by the warranty. According to the complainant, she did not receive an estimate of how much the costs could amount to before sending the item.

The complainant explains that the service workshop only after the submission by phone gave a price proposal for the examination of 400-500 kronor. The opposing party rejected responsibility based on the workshop examination with the justification that it was a self-inflicted damage. From the opposing party's email of 24.08.2023 it is referred:

“We have now reviewed the case, and the images from the workshop clearly show that the charging port is physically damaged. Unfortunately, such damage does not occur on its own and is therefore considered self-inflicted damage. […] We are unfortunately not technicians, and we cannot determine what is covered or not until a certified technician does so.”

The complainant explains that she received an offer for the repair of the tablet for approximately 1,600 kronor.

The complainant did not wish to repair the tablet, as the tablet was purchased for 1,190 kronor one and a half years earlier.

On this basis, the complainant was informed that she would be billed for the inspection. The complainant disputed that the opposing party was entitled to bill her for the inspection. The complainant explains that the opposing party itself admitted that an image of the damage was sufficient to make the assessment, and explains that it therefore should not have been necessary to send in the product for inspection.

From the attached email from the complainant dated 24.08.2023, it appears that the complainant referred to the fact that the opposing party “also continues to completely disregard the fact that this could have been assessed without me as a consumer having to pay 500 kr.”

The opposing party responded via email on 24.08.2024, among other things, that:

“In the email you received from us, we write the following: If the fault with the product is caused by a warranty issue, you will of course not have to pay anything to send the product in for service. If the product has a so-called self-inflicted fault, the service workshop will charge you an inspection fee. This fee will also apply if the workshop cannot recreate a production fault or if the problem is a software fault. The inspection fee varies depending on the product and workshop. We therefore ask you to read through the product's user manual, where there is usually a troubleshooting guide. This is to avoid sending the product to our service partner with a so-called self-inflicted fault.”

The complainant explains that she received the tablet back, accompanied by an invoice for 883 kronor, which was an even higher fee than expected.

The complainant contacted the accused again via email on 31.08.2023, where she claimed that the accused should have informed her of what the cost of the inspection would actually be, as the complainant - unlike the accused - was not in a position to estimate the costs. The accused responded the same day as follows:

«The price for return varies from workshop to workshop, and unfortunately, this is the amount this workshop charges for shipping and inspection. In the cost estimate you received from the workshop, it stated what the return price was.»

The complainant, on the other hand, pointed out that:

«The price should have been communicated before we were even asked to send it in. The price from the workshop, which we received, was for repair, not for what it would cost to return. I asked them on the phone and was told that an invoice would come for 400-500 kronor. This is double the price!»

The opposing party referred the complainant to contact the workshop in case «you believe the workshop gave you a different price over the phone than what you received in the cost estimate».

The complainant explains that the opposing party, after some correspondence between the parties, reduced the invoice to 615 kronor. The complainant states that she understands it as the opposing party would have 115 kronor of this amount for unknown reasons. The complainant has paid the invoice and has provided a screenshot from the internet bank showing payment of 615.19 kronor to the opposing party on 06.10.2023. After this, the complainant claims that the opposing party was not entitled to demand payment for the inspection. The complainant points out that she was only informed that the inspection would incur a cost if the damage was not covered by the warranty, without receiving any estimate of how much the costs could actually amount to.

The complainant claims that the respondent should have known how high the cost would be, unlike the complainant. The complainant asserts that she would not have sent in the tablet for examination if she had been aware that the examination could incur such high costs. She points out that the tablet cost 1,190 kronor new, while the examination cost was 813 kronor.

The complainant also believes that the respondent should have advised her against sending in the item for examination on this basis. Furthermore, the complainant highlights that the respondent has admitted that the attached images of the damage were sufficient to assess the complaint, so it was not necessary to send in the item for assessment. On this basis, the complainant demands reimbursement of the paid amount of 615 kronor.

The respondent rejects the complainant's claim. The respondent emphasizes that the complainant was informed of the possible cost when sending in a product that turns out to have a fault not covered by the warranty. The respondent states that the company cannot make a price assessment based on the information the complainant sent in and explains that a cost assessment is made when the item is received at the workshop. The respondent refers to the complainant contacting them before the examination with information that "the charging port on one (tablet) is now destroyed".

The respondent further refers to the fact that the complainant did not request an estimate before the item was sent in, and that no description or picture of the fault was sent before the item was sent in.

Claim:

The complainant has made a claim for compensation of 615 kronor.

The committee thus views the case:

The case concerns a purchase between a trader and a consumer, and the relationship is therefore governed by the Consumer Sales Act. Based on the complainant's claim and arguments, the committee understands that the complainant does not demand that the damage be covered by the warranty or claim a defect in the tablet. The committee assumes that the complainant solely claims to be exempt from payment of the examination fee. It follows from the law that if there is no defect, the seller can "only demand payment for examinations that have been necessary to determine whether there is a defect", if the seller has made the consumer "expressly aware that he or she must cover such costs".

It is considered undisputed that the complainant was informed before sending in the tablet that an examination fee would be charged if the complaint was rejected. However, the complainant claims that the respondent should have provided her with more detailed information about the amount of the examination fee before sending in the item. The complainant points out that she would not have sent in the tablet for examination if she had been informed that the examination could incur such high costs, especially in relation to the value of the item. The law does not require the seller to provide more detailed information about the amount of the examination costs. The provision only refers to the consumer being made aware that he or she must cover costs "for examinations that have been necessary to determine whether there is a defect".

The committee therefore does not find that the respondent was obliged under the provision to provide further information about the examination costs in the form of cost estimates, maximum price or similar before the item was sent. The invoice for the examination has not been presented. It is therefore unclear to the committee what the invoice covers. As the committee understands it from the correspondence between the parties, the invoice of 883 kronor also includes postage costs. There is no indication that the complainant was informed before sending the item that she would also have to cover postage costs if the complaint was rejected. However, the committee does not find that information about postage costs is covered by the law.

The provision only refers to informing about costs "for examinations that have been necessary to determine whether there is a fault".

The committee further notes that a natural consequence of the complaint being rejected is that the complainant must bear the postage costs herself. The complainant has referred to the respondent having a duty to advise against according to the Crafts Act § 7. The committee notes that the Consumer Purchase Act is applicable to the dispute between the parties. A possible duty to advise against can, as the committee sees it, possibly be derived from the parties' general duty of loyalty in the contractual relationship. However, the committee finds that such a duty has not been breached.

As the case is illuminated, the committee bases its decision on the fact that the complainant was informed that the price would vary depending on the product in question and the workshop used. The complainant was also aware of the purchase price and age of the disputed item. In light of this, the committee considers that the complainant must bear the risk for not requesting further information about the inspection fee before sending the item.

The complainant points out that she also received incorrect information, as she was given a cost estimate of 400-500 kronor from the service workshop over the phone after sending the item. The opposing party, in correspondence with the complainant, referred to the fact that the complainant was sent a cost estimate for the return of the item, while the complainant refers to the cost estimate as being for repair. The cost estimate has not been presented. The committee finds after this that there are not sufficient grounds to conclude that the complainant received incorrect information about the inspection fee. Finally, the complainant claims that the opposing party is not entitled to demand payment for the inspection, as images of the damage would have been sufficient to assess the complaint. The committee notes that the opposing party, in correspondence with the complainant, has referred to the images from the workshop showing damage to the tablet, which means the damage is considered self-inflicted.

The respondent has, however, also in the correspondence referred to, that "we are unfortunately not technicians, and we cannot determine, what is covered or not [...]". Regardless of whether images in this case would have been sufficient to assess the damage, the committee considers that the complainant must bear the risk herself for sending in the item for a possible chargeable examination without further details about the damage. The complainant complained that the charging port was "destroyed", without any description of the problem or information about physical damage. To this, the complainant, as it appears from the submitted correspondence between the parties, was informed that an examination fee would be added if it was a "self-inflicted damage", where she was also encouraged to read the user manual to avoid sending in an item with a so-called self-inflicted damage. In the context that it was the complainant herself who at this time had knowledge of the damage, the committee finds that the complainant must bear the risk herself for the item being sent in without further clarification between the parties. The complaint is not upheld.