H.Samuel damaged my watch

Phatkat

Hi

I need some advise on something please.
I bought a Seiko watch from H.Samuel a few months ago and shortly after the Chrono stopped working. I took it back to the shop and they sent it to seiko for repairs under the guarantee. When the lady at the shop entered it on the system she described the condition as worn as it had a small scratch on the metal casing and another one on the screen.

I got it back 2 weeks later and it worked fine but there was about 6 more larger scratches on the screen, it wouldnt be so bad if they were small but you cant miss them now and it looks terrible. I told the lady I was not happy with that and that they had damaged it further and asked for it to be sent back to get sorted.

They called me up yesterday and said that Seiko are certain that they did not cause the damage and that they could replace the sreen at a £36 cost to me:mad:. I told her that H.Samuel should cover that cost surely. She said H.Samuel will not cover the cost and that if I wanted it fixed I would need to pay for it.

I feel they have me bent over a barrel here as its my word against theirs.

Is there anything I can do, or must I just accept this and just not every buy from them again?

Any advise would be much appriciated.

thanks

dmg24

Are H Samuel denying that they caused the damage? When the assistant described the condition as worn did she detail the earlier small scratches?

I have had poor experience with H Samuel also, when they replaced a black leather strap with a black one. When I refused to accept it, they offered to give me the watch face back with no strap at all!

Firefox1975

You need to be able to prove the condition of the watch before and after it went to H Samuel. If you can't do this then forget it.

<shrug>.

Phatkat

Hi dmg24, yeah they deny it all. I told her that the damage was done whilst in their care but she denies it all. When she entered it on the system originally it was just stated as being 'worn'. Which i said was crazy because that could mean anything, its too vague.

no strap at all!! i think i'm gonna loose it with these guys.

Phatkat

Firefox, by proof i assume that means photo's or something which is just not possible. Ideal, yes, but who takes pictures of their watch.

I think your right there, i'll just have to forget it, just makes me mad how they can get away with ruining peoples property. Its not professional at all. I would expect service like that from smaller less connected and less experienced jewler and certainly not a big high street shop like H.Samuel.

reehsetin

I certainly wouldn't forget it,
you have evidence some it wasn't damaged previously, worn should mean very slight damage that has been caused over time not big hefty scratches which make the watch ugly and un-useable. if the scratches were there before the sales advisor should have noted them in their own right! I would first of all speak to the store manager and if he is no help than H samuels head office, if they insist they are covered by the "worn" comment ask them for their definition of worn and go from there

dmg24

Oh pants, just wrote a long reply and pressed delete!

To summarise, I agree with reehsetin, if the scratches are significant, then they should have been noted by the assistant prior to being sent off. If they were not, then it is reasonable to assume that they were not there.

Speak to head office, and if no joy follow that conversation with a Letter Before Action, detailing your intention to proceed with a small claims action. Most retailers will settle small amounts at this stage, but if not, you stand a fair chance of winning an action against them.

Unfortunately, H Samuel are not a jeweller, they are a retailer. After my incident with them (many years ago now, I was too young and naive to take it further!), I realised the difference between them and a proper jewellers. I will only use the latter now.

Phatkat

Thank you both, that is some excellent advise. The unrepaired watch is being sent back to store from seiko at the moment, when it arrives i'll speak to the manager and follow the advise you have given me and take it from there. I'll post up any progress I may or may not have to help others.

Firefox1975

reehsetin wrote: »

you have evidence some it wasn't damaged previously,

does she? i must have missed something here.

OP can you just post up your evidence it wasn't damaged previously?

then this one is pretty clear cut. Ta.

(naturally, if you can;t prove it wasn't damaged previously then we are back where we started! )

reehsetin

Firefox1975 wrote: »

does she? i must have missed something here.

I think she does, she has a statement saying the watch was "worn" not that it had big scratches on it. I think there is a pretty big difference, in my previous job when sending repairs we had to fill in a similar form I certainly wouldn't have put "worn" if something had big scratches on it they would have been noted in their own right. I'm not saying that if the OP took it to court it's a guaranteed win but it's certainly worth fighting for

Phatkat

I think the evidence is the fact that if the scratches were there already then the assistant would have definatley noted it to cover themselves. The fact that she didnt do this proves that there is a high probability that they must have been done after the watch was checked in to their care.

When i speak to the manager i will ask to see how the watch was packaged, if its just an envelope then clearly that does not offer enough protection as compared to something like bubble wrapped envelopes.