I don't know for sure, but I think this fixed price thing is a Phase One policy since several years, and Leaf now got the same when they merged. I don't know what the policy was when Leaf was independent.
Probably the fixed price is quite good when you have a high-end back for 30,000 and the likely repair if any is a big one (dropped into a stream of water type of things), but for servicing old gear which is worth say 5000 or less and get simple errors like depleted clock batteries it is not so good.
Another thing is that they have a separate fixed price for sensor glass replacement, which is ~900, and in that package I think a simple clean should be included. So probably your problem would be fixed if buying that package instead instead of the generic repair package.
And then there's the final strange thing, you can swap mounts for I think it is 2000 (say change a H-mount to a V-mount), but what I've heard is that you actually get the whole back exchanged since the Leaf Aptus backs cannot have mount exchanged. Not 100% sure this is true though.
Anyway I don't really think this is a good model. One problem is that the major part of the cost of a high-end back is not manufacturing/parts cost, but development cost due to low sales volumes (and maybe a large margin). If we exclude the sensor the manufacturing cost of the whole back I would guess is around 2000 or less, but I think the MFDB manufacturers want to maintain a myth that the hardware indeed is extremely expensive so repairs must not make the stuff look "cheap".
I more than agree with you that 5000 euro is absurd. I do understand the need for a smaller company like phase to turn a profit, but somewhere in the dealer,to manufacturer, to dealer (and tax man) process something is definitely sideways.
This process of getting a buyer in the "loop" is what I've always thought is a very poor long term business strategy for the mfd makers.
Sure, you always look for repeat business, but honest long term repeat business comes from excellent service, quality and value. Sounds like silly talking points, but those three assets hold true for any business that wants to continue, regardless of the competition.
It's a shame, because had your back been fixed quickly and at a reasonable costs, you, your friends and associates would probably consider Leaf/Phase without hesitation. Now you've been moved the opposite way.
It's also a shame that it seems that the process of trade in and trade up is a way for the mfd market to control used product entering the market and essentially manage the market.
We've seen this before, when a company or market segment tries to control a segment front to back and eventually some rival company realizes there is a hole in the market, i.e. the Nikon D800 and in some ways the Pentax 645 and capitalizes on it.
If Phase/Leaf/Blad had applied discounts to returning buyers and allowed them to sell or keep their existing backs rather than trade in, I don't believe it would have harmed their market, I actually believe it would have grown all medium format involvement and sales.
Also an extended warranty offering that is longer term and at a reasonable costs goes a long way with brand loyalty.
From day one medium format has had this position of people will pay more because they don't want to lose their investment in existing lenses and bodies. Kinda of worked, but not for the long term.
Now they seem to have a position of financially forcing a user with a mechanical issue to move up to a bigger newer back and this type of force, real or implied also doesn't work in the long term.
I know for me, my Phase backs are cost effective and continue to perform very well, but the day it costs me $2,500 to replace the watch battery, is the day I start looking in other directions.
Sorry this happened to your Torger, but something is wrong in this process. I can understand that you bought used, took your chances, but to replace a board on a back should not cost more than the back is worth.