KPN warranty claim stuck between KPN and repair service, who is responsible?

It started with a broken Samsung Galaxy S23.
After 2.5 years, it suddenly stopped working — black screen, slightly lifted back cover. My first thought: swollen battery.

I went to Samsung service expecting a straightforward battery replacement. After two hours, I was told the issue was the mainboard — repair cost: €300.

At home, I started digging. How does a €1,000 flagship phone fail just after warranty?

That’s when I discovered Dutch statutory warranty (conformity rules): a product must last a reasonable period. For a premium phone, 2.5 years doesn’t feel reasonable.

So I contacted KPN.
I clearly explained the situation, including that I had opened the back cover (to see if battery is not swollen) after Samsung’s inspection.

The KPN support agent wasn’t sure how this would affect the claim and advised me to contact the repair service. I did — they told me it would not be an issue.

This is where things broke down.

The repair service treated my case as a standard repair request, not a statutory warranty claim.
They rejected it because:

• the warranty had expired
• the device had been opened

They quoted a repair cost of €700 (!).

When I tried to clarify that this was a conformity claim via KPN, they redirected me back to KPN.
KPN, in turn, pointed me back to the repair service.

A closed loop:

KPN → repair service
repair service → KPN

No one could clearly answer:

• Who is responsible for assessing the claim?
• On what legal basis was it rejected?

At some point, I gave up.

Meanwhile, KPN still charged €65 for the inspection — for a defect I already had confirmed.
When I protested, the response was essentially:
“We only charge the fee — contact the repair service.”

Conclusion

This process does not appear designed to resolve issues.
It diffuses responsibility to the point where escalation becomes practically impossible.

Result

• I lost time and energy
• KPN lost a customer (2 mobile contracts + 1 internet subscription)