Concerned customer and dissapointed. Honor Magic V5 issues

Hello, Thank you for the call from Arlene. However, there still seems to be reluctance to address the core issue — which is that this device is no longer fit for purpose, and another repair is not an acceptable solution.
1. Excessive Number of Parts Replaced on a Brand-New Device During the first repair, six parts were ordered and replaced.
This alone is extremely concerning for a device that was less than one month old. Once six major components of a foldable device are replaced outside of factory-controlled conditions, the device is no longer equivalent to a new, factory-assembled, factory-sealed unit. This directly affects:

• Structural integrity
• Foldable durability
• Factory tolerances
• IP58 / IP59 water and dust resistance

No repair center — no matter how “advanced” — can give factory-level recalibration, sealing, or pressure-testing after so many core components are replaced.
I would like confirmation of what guarantee you can offer that the device will still maintain its IP rating after these repairs. My concern is that it cannot, and this places the device at future risk.

2. A Second, Unrelated Hardware Failure Before I even left the store with the repaired device, a new issue appeared on the outer screen — a green line that was not present before the first repair. This is:

• A different fault
• On a different part of the device
• Occurring immediately after a major repair

This strongly suggests that the device may be a defective early-batch unit. Now the device is in for a second repair, again requiring additional parts.
This number of repairs and parts replacements is unreasonable for a premium device that costs over R30,000 and that has been in my possession for less than one month of actual use.

3. Quality Issues With the Repair The first repair was returned with:

• Glue residue
• Fingerprints under the camera lenses

This is unacceptable for any repair, let alone on a flagship foldable device. It clearly demonstrates that the repair center cannot restore the device to factory standard.

4. Consumer Rights and Reasonable Expectation According to the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), the device must be:

• Of good quality
• Free of defects
• Durable
• Fit for purpose

A device requiring two major repairs, involving multiple part replacements, within the first month of ownership clearly does not meet these standards. Under the CPA, when a defect reoccurs or new defects appear shortly after a repair, the consumer is entitled to replacement or refund, not endless repairs. 5.

Conclusion Given:

• The high number of parts replaced
• The second unrelated defect
• The poor quality of the first repair
• The time I have already spent without the device
• The loss of confidence in the integrity of this unit

A replacement device is the only fair and reasonable resolution. I cannot continue accepting repairs on what is clearly a defective unit.
No customer should be without a new device for over a month, nor should they be expected to accept a “rebuilt” phone instead of a factory-fresh one after so many issues. Please escalate this matter urgently so that a replacement device can be arranged. Thank you.

I would also like to add that the ongoing absence of the device and the inability to use its core features has resulted in a direct loss of revenue for me. This device is essential to my day-to-day work activities, communication, and productivity. Being without it for extended periods — now stretching to weeks — has negatively impacted my ability to conduct business effectively. This further reinforces why a swift replacement, rather than continued repairs, is necessary.

Consumer_Protection_Act.pdf image.png 45.44 KB

Thank you very much for assisting in getting the device replaced. I appreciate it and have updated the rating.