AVERAGE DAD WARRANTY HANDLING

my Oppo Find N5's inner screen malfunctioned 



judge for yourself how Average Dad dealt with it

This page is Francisco Cardigos dos Reis responsability.
It is supported by included written evidence and documents.

AVERAGE DAD response to this web siteup - down

None.

Request to Average Dad for eventual corrections or improvements on the info on this web site was sent to them on February 9th 2026. They were informed that I would:

1. Create a web site with all these emails, including images, and titled "Average Dad and warranty handling".
2. Send you the link so that you can flag anything that may not be correct, I will correct it if fair.
3. Do my best to warn other people, namely those that would import from you, about what to expect from AD warranty.
 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: from warranty to bullyingup - down

Before sending the phone I was asked to send pictures of its condition which I did
After sending the phone I received this email: "The cost to repair the inner screen is 600€" with no repair document attached
The amount was to be paid to a personal account: "Please provide payment to Mikes PayPal: magpie1607@yahoo.co.uk"
I was told "you have no legal leg to stand on because it is an imported phone".
I tell them that I will create this website and, as I'm doing now, will wait for Average Dad's fact verification.
I was told "you are an embarrassment to yourself and those around you!" and "you absolute dummy!!"
I was told about an "official report form OPPO" so I ask for it.
The report was promised for the day after (why not send it immediately)
Six days later I receive an image of a kind of a report, not from Oppo and not credible.
I say it is cnot credible so a day later they send me a document also not credible.
Judge for yourself, read the emails and see the so called reports.


Is bullying and this kind of warranty handling acceptable?
 



Here are the emails exchange about the warranty.


Emails exchange about the warranty:

Includes the so called "Oppo report".

It took 6 days for this "report" to be sent



More about the first so called "Oppo report"



Gemini 3.0 Pro: Is this a credible repair note?up - down
Based on a detailed analysis of the document and cross-referencing with public records, this repair note appears to have very low credibility and is likely fake or altered. While "Newlands Technology Limited" is a real company in Hong Kong, several critical errors in this document suggest it was not generated by a legitimate business system. 🚩 Key Red Flags
1. The "Duplicate Phone Number" Error (Smoking Gun) The most obvious sign of tampering is the phone number 69151749. It is listed as the Customer's number (under "TO: Ms.ouyang"). It is also listed as the Shop's number (under "FROM"). It is highly improbable that a repair shop would share the exact same mobile number as their customer. This suggests the number was copy-pasted into the wrong field by whoever created the document.
2. Mismatched Company Details I searched Hong Kong government records (specifically the Office of the Communications Authority's list of radio dealers) to verify the company. The official details for "Newlands Technology Limited" do not match this document: Official Address: Unit 903, 9/F, No. 1 Hung To Road. Document Address: Room 901, 9/F, No. 1 Hong To Road. (Wrong room number). Official Phone: The registered business number is 38967644. Document Phone: The document uses the mobile number 69151749 (which, as noted above, is likely the customer's number).
3. Amateur Formatting Missing Info: The "FROM:" line is completely blank, which is unusual for a formal business invoice. Typos: The customer's name is written as "Ms.ouyang" (lowercase 'o'), which is unprofessional. Visual Design: The layout resembles a basic Microsoft Word template rather than output from a POS (Point of Sale) system used by professional repair centers.
4. Suspicious Narrative The text in the "Details" section ("The screen leaks due to collision or other human factors...") is unusually specific and verbose for a standard quote. This type of phrasing is often manually added to satisfy insurance claim requirements (proving accidental damage) rather than being a standard technician's note.

Conclusion
This document is likely fabricated. It appears someone has taken the name of a real company ("Newlands Technology Limited") and manually created a quotation document—possibly to claim insurance or request reimbursement—but failed to use the correct business details and made a logical error with the phone numbers.



I replied about the first so called "report":

Any credible document would have a traceable reference usually including a serial number. That is not a document, it is not from Oppo and it is not credible.

Second "report" after my obvious comments.


Gemini 3.0 Pro: Is this a credible repair note?up - down
Based on a review of the document's internal details, this repair note contains significant inconsistencies that suggest it is not credible and likely fabricated or altered. Here are the specific red flags found within the document: 1. Suspicious Phone Number Duplication The most critical error is in the contact details. The document lists the phone number 69151749 for the Customer ("TO") , but it lists the exact same number for the Shop ("FROM").
It is highly improbable that a repair center and a customer would share the same mobile number. This suggests the person creating the document accidentally copy-pasted the customer's number into the shop's contact field. 2. Conflicting Addresses and Names The document lists two different addresses and company names for the same entity: Header: Lists the company as "Newlands Technology Limited" located at "Room 901, 9/F No.1 Hong To Road".

Footer/Stamp: Lists the company as "Newlands Hongkong Limited" located at "Unit 903, 9/F No.1 Hung To Road".

Analysis: A legitimate invoice would not have conflicting room numbers (901 vs. 903) or spellings of the street name ("Hong" vs. "Hung") on the same page. "Hung To Road" is the correct spelling for the street in Kwun Tong, suggesting the header was manually typed with a typo. 3. Missing and Unprofessional Information Blank Fields: The "FROM:" name field is completely blank, which is untypical for a formal business quotation. Formatting Errors: The customer's name is typed as "Ms.ouyang" (lowercase 'o') in the address block , but appears as "Ms. OUYANG" elsewhere. This inconsistency suggests manual data entry rather than a system-generated record.


Gemini 3.0 Pro: Is Newlands Honk Kong Limited an Oppo company?up - down
Based on public records and the details in your document, here is the assessment of the relationship between Newlands and OPPO: "Newlands Hong Kong Limited" is a legitimate authorized service partner for OPPO in Hong Kong, but the document you possess is likely fake.
1. The Real Connection "Newlands Hong Kong Limited" (often styling itself as the OPPO Service Center) is the official authorized repair provider for OPPO in Hong Kong. Official Address: Public records confirm the official OPPO Service Center is located at Flat 03 (or Unit 903), 9/F, No. 1 Hung To Road, Kwun Tong. Role: They are the authorized third-party contractor that handles warranty repairs and service for OPPO devices in the region.
2. Why This Proves Your Document is Fake While the company is real, the document you have contains specific errors that a genuine authorized partner would not make: Wrong Company Name in Header: The top of your document says "Newlands Technology Limited". The authorized partner (and the stamp at the bottom) is "Newlands Hongkong Limited". Wrong Room Number: The header lists the address as Room 901. The official authorized center is in Unit 903.
Inconsistent Data: A real service center system would not print "Technology Limited" at the top and "Hongkong Limited" at the bottom of the same invoice.
Summary The entity "Newlands Hong Kong Limited" at Unit 903 is the real OPPO service center. However, the document you have appears to be a forgery created by someone who copied the real company's details but made typos (Technology vs. Hongkong) and address errors (901 vs. 903).