Sent my AW5 for battery service, Apple quotes undisclosed damages & increases estimate

[Anaxarxes]

I sent my AW5 for a battery service as the battery dropped to 78% health.

Scheduled a visit at Apple Amsterdam - they visually inspected and wrote this below:

"Visually verified. Ran MRI testing. Serial has been verified. Battery failed, service is needed.
Cosmetic Condition: Scratching on the casing around the edges of the display. Deeper scratch near the side button.
Proposed Resolution: Send watch to repair center for battery service."

They quoted me the amount (109 EUR) which I agreed.

3-4 days later, I got an email that they found another issue, technicians carefully inspected the watch and found a hardware issue affecting the normal function of the display. Now the quote got increased to 270 EUR.
I never had any issue with my display. My watch was working perfectly, this is not only surprising, but also I do not trust this dignosis.

I contacted Apple Support and they told me that they sent the watch to a 3rd party center and that's where the issue was found. Even if there is an issue this could have happened during transport or due to the fault of the technician. The phone support cannot p[rovide more details and they advised me to go to the store.

The store employee (another one to the original one that I connected with) was cold, repreating everything that was on the email annd nothing more. And he also said there is nothing they can do.

So now I either have my watch returned to me with no service done to it, or pay +161 EUR more...

Can anyone advise what would be a good corse of cation here?

 

[laptech]

Get them to explain in detail what this hardware issue is. The issue could be related to a watch function that you do not use and thus would not have seen or experienced it but if the hardware issue relates to something that is easily noticeable then you can ask why was this visual issue not noticed during the stores initial inspection because in your post you wrote down the stores visual inspection report and in it it mentions scratching around the edges of the display and a deeper scratch near the side button. This indicates that whoever inspected the watch gave it a very close inspection due to scratches reported therefore it stands to reason if such scratches were found then a fault with the display would have been noticed as well. The fact that nothing was reported about the display in the report implies that the person who inspected the watch did not find anything wrong with the display because if they had they would have noticed it and reported it.

If you are 100% absolute that there was nothing wrong with the display, then there are only two possibilities:
One: The store employee handling your watch for the initial visual inspection and testing did something to damage the watch further and never reported it on the report
or
Two: There was nothing wrong with the display hence why nothing was noted on the visual inspection and test report and it got damaged by Apple's 3rd party repair tech who the store is protecting because if the tech damaged it the Apple store knows they would have to repair it at their own expense.

So, find out exactly what this hardware issue is and how it affects the display. This is important because if the hardware issue being claimed affects something that is easily noticeable on the display then you can argue with the Apple store as to why this was not picked up during the visual inspection and testing of the watch. If what is affecting the display is noticeable then you can complain to the store that who did the visual inspection and testing did not do their job properly because they picked up scratches on the casing but nothing about the display, This will force the store manager to defend their employee who carried out the testing. If the store manager stands by the visual inspection and testing report which does not state there was anything wrong with the display, you can then argue that the 3rd party repair place damaged the watch further because it was sent to them with no display issues (nothing noted in the visual inspection and test report) but yet somehow a display issue just happens to be found at the 3rd party repair place which causes the repair cost to be increased.

Either the store employee did not do their job properly and failed to indicate there was a display issue when they carried out their visual inspection and test OR the store employee did do their job properly, sent the watch away with the only issues being the battery and scratches to the watch case and it got damaged by the 3rd party repair tech who is not owning up to damaging it and is trying to claim the display issue was there went it was sent to them. So you can say to the store manager, which one was it?, did the store employee not do their job properly or if they did, did the 3rd party tech damaged the watch?.

 

[Anaxarxes]

Great line of thought and a fair last stop before legal action for me. Thank you!

 

[Anaxarxes]

Just came back from Apple Store - they are not disclosing the details on the display issues due to "Proprietary Information".

They acknowledge that when they took the watch it was visually & functionally OK. But they stress that they tested at the Apple store and they have to send to a 3rd party repair service for more tests. In those more tests if they find an issue, they will requote the works.

When I said to them I'd like to know the exact details, they mentioned that they won't be able to disclose per the agreement they have with the 3rd party service. I said that the display works jsut fine, they agree but some part of the funtionalty may not work and I could not use this functionality and hence may not be aware of it...

What a load of cr*p.

They then said that they understand and for a middle ground solution they can take the watch as trade in and offer 10% discount on a new watch and that's the only thing they can do.

This really is frustrating as I cannot get a service unless I OK the extra costs of faulty display where the display is working perfectly.

The battery service process has some really big gaps in the grey...