Expensive Watch Damaged

Daities

Hi there, if anyone has any advice to offer it would be much appreciated. If the post is in the wrong place then let me know and I will move it.

My son had an expensive watch, a gift, damaged by airport security. After some time of being passed around various people, liability has been accepted and their insurance company is dealing with the claim.

At the time of the damage, the watch was less than a year old.

They asked for a quote for repair. My son took it to an authorised repairer near his work. They gave him a quote (which he had to pay £30 for as they had to take it apart and examine it).

The estimate consists of a charge for fitting the replacement parts and then a charge for servicing the watch after fitting the new parts which they explained was necessary to make the watch work properly as it has delicate and precise mechanisms.

The insurance company initially refused to pay for the service element saying it was unnecessary and accused the repairer of trying it on (they said this in a telephone call). My son had to go back to the repairer and get him to supply an explanation that the work was indeed necessary and essential to make it all work properly again.

The insurance company has now come back and said they will only pay for half the amount of the service on the basis that there will be "betterment" to the watch and my son has to pay his share. In a telephone call all they could come up with on "betterment" was that the repairer was offering a free battery.

They have made a "final offer" which essentially reduces the cost of the repair by £125.00 plus VAT which they say he has to pay himself.

This has all taken about 6 months to sort out and they are offering him £20 for his inconvenience. And a refund of the £30 cost of the estimate

They have been asked in writing why they feel they feel an independent, reputable high street authorised repairer might be inflating the cost. They have declined to answer.

They have been offered taking the watch to another authorised repairer, which they can nominate. They have refused.

They have been asked to explain how the watch, which was almost new (they have a copy of the original purchase receipt from a high street jeweler), can benefit from "betterment". They have refused (apart from saying it is receiving a new battery).

They have been asked how the watch can be properly repaired in a manner in which it will, in their eyes, avoid betterment. They have refused to answer.

They have been asked about what the point of escalation is. They have refused to answer

As they have marked their offer as "final" they are not entering into any more discussion.

So if anyone can offer any advice please. the questions we have are:

Does anyone think that the insurance company is being reasonable in claiming that there is an element of betterment that my son should be paying for?

If not, how to do we progress this? How can we engage them again? is it worth considering a small claims court procedure? Is there an ombudsman scheme that we should appeal to?

Finally is a £20 offer for inconvenience reasonable, seeing as this has taken so long to sort out? There has been a significant amount of time dealing with different people, entering into correspondence, taking telephone calls, arranging estimates for the repairs etc. But in addition he has lost the use of his expensive watch for about 6 months - would a claim for loss of use be reasonable and if so what would be a reasonable way to calculate this, that a court or ombudsman might approve of, if it got that far (a percentage of the value for instance?).

Looking back it is quite ridiculous that it has taken 6 months so far and what was a 9 month old watch at the time it was damaged is now 15 months and still not working and him being denied the enjoyment of using it.

If any one has any experience of this kind of thing their advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance

molerat

I think the problem is that the repairers have quoted a "service" as part of the repair. Why is a "service" necessary ? Anything needed as part of the repair should just be down as parts & labour. Look at it this way, if you bumped your car and they tried to charge for a new bumper and full service would you accept this as necessary ?

Daities

Well maybe the words service are not the best choice. And I also think the repairer should consider how he estimates in future - But they have since explained the necessity for the service and that it is not optional.

Keep in mind we also offered to take to the watch to another independent, authorised dealer (even one that they could nominate) if they had any suspicions over whether the work was truly necessary.

I don't think the car bumper comparison is a fair one though. In order to fit a car bumper you don't need to go anywhere near the engine. If your new car engine was damaged and the repairer had to take it apart and fit replacement parts I think most people would feel it reasonable to have the engine tuned up and serviced so that it was running again in accordance with the manufactures instructions.

If I banged my car into your new car and your garage repaired your engine with some new parts and then had to service it to make it run properly, would you be happy to pay part of the cost? What "betterment" would you be receiving for your contribution

molerat

But they would not "service" it, they would repair and adjust. A service I feel has a definite meaning and that is why the cost is being rejected.

unholyangel

When would the watch be due to be serviced if this damage hadnt occurred?

If its an expense he would have incurred anyway (getting the watch serviced every x years) then its not solely a loss caused by their negligence.

If your son would've had to pay for a new battery/service every x years, then for them to pay it all, it is a betterment for him. He should be paying a proportionate amount towards it - how much he should be paying would depend on how often the battery is supposed to be replaced/how often the watch should be serviced.

Daities

Yes, that seems to be the opinion that they are hiding behind. Even in the face of the evidence.

So we have explained to them that the original "words" did not accurately explain the necessity of the work.

The repairer has provided a fuller, written explanation of the necessity for carrying out the work.

We have offered to take the watch to an alternative repairer (even one of their choosing).

If I banged my car into your new car and your garage repaired your engine with some new parts and then had to service it to make it run properly, would you be happy to pay part of the cost if your repairer initially, inadvertently used a word in the estimate that could have an alternative meaning? After you and your repairer had explained that they were repairing and adjusting it as required by the manufacture, and you had offered to take it to an alternative repairer of their choosing. Would you just accept they were correctly asking you for a contribution to the repair which was no fault of your own? What "betterment" would you be receiving for your contribution in this case?

unholyangel

Watches need serviced regularly to ensure they continue to work and are accurate.

If his watch was (for arguments sake) due to be serviced every year then he has indeed got a betterment as now he'll have a working serviced watch rather than just a watch (iyswim?).

Imagine you have a car that you replaced tyres on. A few months later, someone is negligent and damages them. They are not liable for the full cost of new tyres, balancing etc because you wouldve had to pay out for that anyway, but they are liable for part of the amount because you've had to have it done sooner than you would have had they not been negligent.

That is the stance they are taking with the service. If its due to be serviced every 3 years, then your son will be a better position if they pay for all of it as it will be 3 years from the date the repairer carries out the service instead of 3 years from purchase.

meer53

I have a Rolex, they only need servicing every 5 years. I would also question why it needs a service to work correctly too. I think paying half the service is a fair offer.

Daities

Interesting point unholyangel.

It says that " Quartz timepieces should be given a Complete Overhaul servicing approximately every 3-6 years"

So even taking that as a valid reason to reduce the claim, then 50% is too much for a watch that is 9 months old.

But, taking into account the argument about the new car. If I damaged your 9 month old car engine and it had to be repaired and, as per the manufacturers instructions, a service had to be carried out to get it tuned into running properly again, would you find it acceptable to pay 3/4 of the costs of the repair (assuming a car is serviced yearly?

A service on a watch is more optional anyway. My watch is around twenty years old and I have never had it serviced - just replaced the battery. In all that time it only has gone through 3 batteries and it still keeps the time accurate to the second.

burlington6

What watch is it?

Daities

Hi Meer

Please don't get too hung up on the word "service"

The repairer has explained that after he fits the replacement parts, it is the work that he is required to do to get the delicate parts into balance and working again. He cannot repair the watch properly without doing this work.

In fact he would not do the work as he would not be able to guarantee his work. It is not an option to do this work or not, it is mandatory in this instance.

PLease also keep in mind the watch was only 9 months old, so it is not as if the service will benefit him.