Fairphone B.V. ~ repair FP2 ~ ? 'within warranty'?

I have contacted the pre-owner, but he does not have a proof of purchase - only the name of the first owner (no address), but I passed the name of the first owner to FP.

I also wrote to FP, that it’s not common to make a contract when selling a pre-owned phone, because it’s not a luxury car.

This is going for a spin. It appears that the warranty was invalid wehn the claim was made, so 1) the title should altered 2) even if someone at Fairphone decided that they would treat it as though it was, but a) they have not been provide with evidence of ownership and b) they can withdraw the offer to treat it under warranty, understandably.

It may be a bit frustrating for FPbonn but it’s all on the edge of reasonability to expect a repair to the phone on Oct 26th over two years after it’s first user.

I’m sure the first user is known to the vendor but even their help would not resolve the date issue.

Summary: The title should be changed . . . . .

Regarding this text:
" You did contact us on October 6 of this year (so 2 days before the 2-year manufacturing warranty expired), but you first mentioned that there was an issue with the device on October 26 , so 18 days after the manufacturing warranty expired."

I supose that FPbonn contacted on October 6th because he had an issue with the FP2, and not “to say hello”…

I supose he contacted because he had a problem,…although it is strange that the issue was explained on October 26th,…

It is true that we might lack information.
It is true also that if I were in FPbonn’s situation I would feel angry and frustrated with the " received service", and I would appreciate others to put in my place,

I find this human support also a value we can offer in this forum,


P.D. have a happy night, and my best wishes for the brightest world inside each one of us, as well as outside,


That’s not true. I contacted FP within the warranty period, but they answered very delayed (on Oct. 26th) and now they state, that I claimed warranty out of the 2 year after purchase ? Absurd !

1 Like

Some here will be of the opinion that it should be repaired, some that it’s normal it’s refused. I guess no one here has all the necessary elements.
I have tried to do an exhaustive list of the problems, mistakes and contradictions that I can notice on both sides to have a better picture (though it’s probably biased and not complete):

  1. @FPbonn contacts FP support to ask if the phone is under warranty on Oct. 6th but does not mention an issue immediately. He mentions it only once the phone is out of warranty.
  2. FP say they will repair the phone as he contacted within the warranty period, but finally no because the issue was mentioned after the warranty was out. But actually yes it can be repaired if a proof of purchase is given.
  3. @FPbonn can’t give a proof of purchase, which is IMO quite problematic. I’m not very surprised FP asks for one, I think that’s the basic for proving you did buy the phone, so if the previous user can’t give one it’s bad news.
  1. As far as I can see, the regular FPOOS was set back to the device at some point
  2. Various errors on dates of warranty done by FP, not quoting the right warranty, that are not dramatic but don’t help in solving the problem.

My conclusion: I can’t conclude. I cannot decide who is right and whether the phone should have a right to be repaired or not. There are too many contradictions here, and between the legal side saying the phone should be refused because the phone is currently out of warranty and there isn’t a proof of purchase given, and the human side saying FP has made some mistakes, had stated the phone would be accepted in repair and refusing the phone for a few days perhaps because of a delay from support, and should therefore accept it, I think it’s hard to find a compromise.
@FPbonn, quoting what FP told you:

So I believe sending a proof of purchase, if you can have it from the previous owner, will be beneficial for you. This will at least remove one argument from FP for not repairing your phone.

My two cents.

(Note: I might use some pieces of information from internal discussions with FP employees, just ask if you don’t see my sources)


The impact on the company reputation from reading this thread is IMO much higher than making an offer to me for taking back the phone (recycling program) for a reasonable amount instead of a warranty repair (which costs FP much more).

Proof of purchase?

Not needed - e.g. Intel
Some years ago I purchased an Intel NUC on ebay with a BIOS-issue. I checked the warranty coverage online and opened a warrenty case. 1 or 2 days later I received a return label and sent back the NUC to Intel. 1 week later I got a new NUC.

Not needed - e.g. WD
Same procedure for WD-HDD.

Any questions?

I think this “proof of purchase”-thing is only intended for denying warranty cases. Most people are buying and selling phones without a contract or asking for a proof of purchase.

To support your assertion you could have supplied evidence, here on the forum, that you contacted support on Oct 6th, that you have not done so undermines your claim.

Supporting your claim is just heresay without evidence. :frowning:

I get your point.
But, as Fairphone pointed out, their request for proof of purchase is based on local jurisdiction. I have no reason to doubt this.
Since neither Intel nor WD are lcoated in the Netherlands, those examples are not really comparable.

On the other hand:
The legal obligations might have changed in the last years.
The warranty regulations for the FP2 (no matter what version) don’t have the part, that requires proof of purchase.
Therefore I dan’t know, if that regulation can be held against you in this case.

The user cited two mails from support, stating, that the first contact was made on October 6th.

Post #4 and Post #38

Sure, this could both be fake citations, but providing proof on this forum would require uploading mail documentation including personal data. And even that would not be foolproof. I would not recommend that to any user, as such info should be kept between the relevant parties.

So I base my reasoning on those informations; always leaving the option open, that important information is still missing.


I see from the posts, as you note, that first contact was stated as 2 days before the end of warranty, which brings up the issue the the claim. The claim, according to FP via FBbonn’s presentation, wasn’t made until 16 days later, which may or may not be true, or both ~ and then there is the question of why was there contact on the 6th?

Was it to assess if the warranty still exited. All far too hazy ~ and without proof of legitimate ownership almost a storm and at least a extremely cloudy

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 182 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.