Ctdi Reviews 11

I sent my OnePlus phone to CDTI in Poland, believing it to be an official and reliable repair center. Unfortunately, my experience has been extremely disappointing.

After diagnosing the issue, CDTI demanded an exorbitant amount of money for the repair. Since I refused to pay such an unreasonable fee, they returned my phone in a worse condition than when I sent it. The device was deliberately disconnected internally and now it won’t even power on.

This is not only unprofessional but also irresponsible behavior, showing a complete lack of respect for the customer. Instead of returning my device in the same condition in which it was received, they intentionally made it unusable.

I strongly advise anyone considering their services to avoid CDTI Poland at all costs. Such practices damage customer trust and are completely unacceptable for a company that claims to operate as an official service center.

Everything I state in this review is true and fully documented through official letters and email correspondence, even if it cannot be uploaded on Trustpilot.

HMD Global provided me with a Nokia 5.3 device as a replacement for a previous phone. On 7 June 2024, I received a signed letter from HMD’s General Counsel confirming that the device was new (not refurbished) and covered by a full two-year warranty.

From the first weeks of use, the phone exhibited major, recurring problems:

frequent call drops during conversations;

failure to reconnect automatically to the network when traveling;

the need to reboot the phone to regain signal;

very poor battery life.

Despite repeated reports, HMD and CTDI EU (their repair center) claimed the device is “working” and refused to consider a replacement, offering only repair.

Their conduct violates:

The Italian Consumer Code (Leg. Decree 206/2005), articles 129–132: the product is not conforming, and replacement is due if repair fails;

EU Directive 2019/771: requires sellers to provide conforming goods and proportionate remedies, including replacement;

EU Directive 2005/29/EC: repeated denial of remedy in case of documented defects constitutes unfair commercial practice;

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Article 38: ensures high-level consumer protection;

Article 26 of the Charter: protects vulnerable individuals – in my case, I assist a disabled family member under Italian Law 104/92, art. 3(3), a fact completely ignored by HMD.

What I find unacceptable is that despite providing all the required documentation, my requests were dismissed without proper analysis, and real, persistent defects were simply ignored.

I have now submitted a formal complaint to the European Commission’s consumer protection office and a petition to the European Parliament.

Beware: this is not an isolated issue, but a systemic practice that may affect many HMD customers across Europe. I encourage anyone who experienced similar behavior to document everything and report it to national or EU authorities.