Am i being unreasonable???

dollargrand

In January 2010 i was given the option to purchase jewellery for a 'big' birthday - all of my family contributed and i went off to Ernest Jones to buy a diamond ring that i had seen on their website. The ring was reduced from £1400 to £500 and it seemed worth the money. After buying the ring i didn't wear it until my actual birthday in february and due to the nature of work/home lifestyle i didn't wear often. At the end of march i placed the ring on the worktop as i had taken it off to wash up - on picking it up to put back on i noticed one of the diamonds had fallen out - luckily my worktop is black so managed to save the stone. I took the ring back to Ernest Jones and was made to feel like a criminal. They said they had to send the ring off as it might be 'customer damage' and i would have to pay for repairs. I might be a bit of chancer sometimes but I'm not in the habit of taking things back that i would have damaged myself. I was left with no option at the time and left the ring with them so they could send it off for evaluation as they said they were not qualified to do this in store. I was pretty annoyed and i sent an email to their head office (they say they will get back to you in 1 working day - they took 5!). In their email response they said that the store manager had evaluated the ring and it showed evidence of customer damage - how she arrived at this conclusion i don't know - especially as they told me in store that they were not qualified to evaluate the jewellery and that is the reason why it has to be sent off. They have had the ring for 4 weeks now and although i have rang the store a few times all they say is that it is due back in and they will ring when it arrives.

I was told by the manager it was up to her discretion if i would be 'allowed' to exchange the ring for another of the same value - the thing is after reading reviews about this store on other websites i came across quite a few people who had this problem and said that the report always came back saying that it was customer damage. Am i being unreasonable in wanting a refund? And what do i do next?

Any help appreciated!!!

4743hudsonj

SO its under 6 months since purchase?

If so, under the sale of goods act its up to the retailer to PROVE (to the point that a district judge would favour with them) not just speculate that it was damage by you is they wish to not remedy the siltation. You have every right to ask what proof they have and if you dont think they have any (which by the sounds of it they wont) then you can take them to small claims.

Your rights under the act that apply are
Goods must be of "satisfactory quality"
Goods must be "durable"
Goods must be "free from defects, even minor"

This is of course related to price paid and time lapsed since purchase (a maximum of 6 years in England or 5 in Scotland to make a claim) but at £500 you dont have to worry about this in such short time.

If a good does not meet these criteria then is does not conform to contract and the retailer mut remedy it. This can be a repair, replacement or refund (possibly partial depending on enjoyment received). For the purposes of simplicity, this is their choice which to offer (its not actually but quite difficult to understand properly and they still have a big say).

What to do next?

Well..... wait. Wait for the report, give them 10 days, after this write a letter to them (yes a letter, not a call or email) recorded delivery stating all of the above, and that any remedies must be given in a reasonable time and not cause "significant" inconvenience. As such, you feel that this has taken too long and you wish to receive your replacement, repair or refund within another 7 days or you will pursue your claim through small claims court.

If by chance, the ring comes back before you write the letter and they confirm your suspicions. Write the same letter, just leave out the reasonable time stuff.

Small claims is a very simple process and has very small upfront costs £30-£50 quid-ish which if you win, you get off the opposition. You represent yourself and its very self explanatory.

Id visit consumer directs site for some template letters and more info, i wouldnt call them though as theyre not too good at advice (they often give misleading facts without stating all the info)

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100304051435/http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

dollargrand

Thanks 4743hudsonj.

Yes the ring is less than 6 months old - bought on 29th Januaury 2010 and taken back to the store on the 7th April.

I will wait with bated breath for their report - but i'm pretty sure what its going to say!

Appreciate your advice.

esuhl

To add to 4743hudsonj's advice above, if you do want to take Ernest Jones to court, I *think* you need to write them a letter (recorded delivery, of course) headed "final notice before action" stating the reasons why you want to sue and giving them one last opportunity to rectify the situation.

If you do need to sue, you can start a small claim (up to £5000) online using the government's Money Claim Online website.

Good luck :-)

Blacksheep1979

4743hudsonj wrote: »

SO its under 6 months since purchase?

If so, under the sale of goods act its up to the retailer to PROVE (to the point that a district judge would favour with them) not just speculate that it was damage by you is they wish to not remedy the siltation.

Hmmm, whose opinion is likely to carry the weight in court - a layman or a jeweller (in respect to jewellery)?

I agree that they should probably sort it out, but if they, as jewellers, state that it's damage done by the op then she is going to need to get a report from an independent jeweller proving the opposite. If you don't do this and go to court there's only one professional opinion to go on....

Equaliser123

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

Hmmm, whose opinion is likely to carry the weight in court - a layman or a jeweller (in respect to jewellery)?

..

But the jeweller would need to PROVE that it was a customer-caused problem.

Blacksheep1979

Equaliser123 wrote: »

But the jeweller would need to PROVE that it was a customer-caused problem.

So they rock up to court with a statement from one of their in house jewellers that states "In my professional opinion the condition of the piece could only have come about by the owner having knocked the fittings/scraped it against something/done something else."

you're not exactly thinking long and hard about this are you?

Equaliser123

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

So they rock up to court with a statement from one of their in house jewellers that states "In my professional opinion the condition of the piece could only have come about by the owner having knocked the fittings/scraped it against something/done something else."

you're not exactly thinking long and hard about this are you?

Typical comment.

I suspect that I have been in a fair few more courts than you have...

"Professional" or expert opinion cannot be given by a party to an action.

You've not really thought it through and how a District Judge views things, have you?

Blacksheep1979

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Typical comment.

I suspect that I have been in a fair few more courts than you have...

"Professional" or expert opinion cannot be given by a party to an action.

You've not really thought it through and how a District Judge views things, have you?

So they get an 'independent jeweller' who they happen to work closely with who is more than happy to look in their favour...

Rather than trying to win an argument with "typical comment" or "I've done this more than you" why don't you try facts and logic? Or are you unable to do this?

Equaliser123

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

So they get an 'independent jeweller' who they happen to work closely with who is more than happy to look in their favour...

Rather than trying to win an argument with "typical comment" or "I've done this more than you" why don't you try facts and logic? Or are you unable to do this?

As for my "typical comment" statement, it does really appear that you get off on put a little bit of angst in the majority of your posts. I can only assume that you are a very angry person. Therapy can help.

So they want to manufacture evidence and risk perjury for the sake of a small claims hearing? Get real.

Not "facts and logic" which are relevant here. I can only go by my experience as a legal professional having conducted or been involved in hundreds of cases. I think that is likely to be more helpful to the OP than your rather odd view.

Not willing to get into a slanging match with you. If you don't agree with my view and the rules of evidence and civil litigation procedure, we are just going to have to differ. I trust you have the courtesy and dignity to differ politely.

dollargrand

Further to my post (and thank you to all of who commented/gave advice) - i had a call from Ernest Jones saying that they had the report back and in their (the people who 'assess') opinion it was not NOT customer damage so they ordered a new ring. I went into the store to pick the new ring up and was faced with 2 incompetent salespeople - it took them a total of 15 minutes to issue returns receipts etc etc. Although i now have a shiny new ring and a new receipt to go with it i would advise people to steer clear of this particular high street jeweller - they really don't know their a**e from their elbows!