Watch repaired 4 times!!!!

unholyangel

bod1467 wrote: »

The first failure was within 6 months.

Yep and its been 14 months since that first failure.

Joe_Horner

The retailer can't simply hand you off to the manufacturer's warranty and, in theory at least, you could require a refund having given plenty of opportunity for a satisfactory repair to be done - returning it 4 times is more than patient!

The problem is, to do that you'd almost certainly have to take the retailer to court (from the tone of their T&C page it's very unlikely they'll agree from the goodness of their sweet little hearts) and I suspect that, even with a judgement against them, you'd be hard pressed to actually get any money from them.

In many cases the internet has become the modern equivalent of street traders, but with a facade of respectability because it's far easier to make a website look kosher than it is a market barrow. But you're often buying off the same type of trader.

As for the watch itself, the markers are usually riveted to the dial during manufacture and, if the design or production QC are lacking, can easily come loose. This is the sort of detail that marks out proper watch companies from the myriad fashion names out there who design for looks, often with little or no concern for technical quality. UW are - obviously - a fashion brand and it's a better than even chance that there's an underlying design issue as a result.

For the repair they're almost certainly simply exchanging the dial (or possibly the whole watch) for new, when they'd be better individually re-attaching the markers on the existing one. It takes a little longer, and requires a certain amount of skill, but at least you then have a dial where you know all the markers have been given individual care rather than relying on a factory process that appears to have issues.

Once you get the watch back, if it happens yet again, you'd probably be better off finding an independent repairer to check and attach all the markers. If done properly then it should be the end of your problems with it.

Granted, you shouldn't have to do that, but it shouldn't be too expensive and may be the best long-term outcome if you (presumably) like the watch when it's working!

bod1467

unholyangel wrote: »

Yep and its been 14 months since that first failure.

IMHO a repeated failure of the same nature means the original fault still exists, ergo burden of proof still lies with the seller.

unholyangel

bod1467 wrote: »

IMHO a repeated failure of the same nature means the original fault still exists, ergo burden of proof still lies with the seller.

What if its not the same number that kept dropping? Meaning each repair has been successful. What if the first repair lasted 9 further months before failing? What if the OP has never contacted the retailer and simply read the website? What if OP only contacted the retailer the first time and the retailer aren't aware of subsequent repairs?

Even with the acceptance period, the clock stops running once the consumer reports it to the retailer, but resumes as soon as the consumer receives the goods back/replacement goods. It doesn't start anew and nor is it extended if the same fault reoccurs later down the line.

mryan321

Thanks for the information. I would be happy to take them to court. Each time it has been a different numeral - so the same fault but a different number (now a 3,4,5,6). Do you think I can still claim via Credit Card Protection Section 75?

I have contacted the retailer numerous times - everytime the same sort of response, no responsibility at all. My most recent communication below:

Hi Nicole,

Since our last communication I've had my watch repaired twice. Only for exactly the same fault to occur again today (with a different number falling off - so a 5,3 & 6 now), four days after receiving in back repaired. This watch clearly is not fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality.

Please advise.

Rgds,
Mark

3/26/15
to me, Customer
Hi Mark,

I hope you are well and I'm sorry to hear about your watch.

It seems this is a much more serious fault than previous. Have you contacted Uniform Wares to explain that this has happened for the third time?

As we are not aware of the manufacture or repair process of these watches we can not in this instance explain why your watch continues to be faulty.

This is an unusual fault which can only be explained by Uniform Wares.

We are very sorry for the inconvenience this has caused.

Do let us know how you get on.

Best wishes,

Nicole

Joe_Horner

unholyangel wrote: »

What if its not the same number that kept dropping? Meaning each repair has been successful. What if the first repair lasted 9 further months before failing? What if the OP has never contacted the retailer and simply read the website? What if OP only contacted the retailer the first time and the retailer aren't aware of subsequent repairs?

Even with the acceptance period, the clock stops running once the consumer reports it to the retailer, but resumes as soon as the consumer receives the goods back/replacement goods. It doesn't start anew and nor is it extended if the same fault reoccurs later down the line.

All true but multiple repeat faults of (essentially) the same nature go quite a long way towards demonstrating that the product had inherent faults at purchase, in which case the time taken for them to materialise becomes far less important.

unholyangel

Joe_Horner wrote: »

All true but multiple repeat faults of (essentially) the same nature go quite a long way towards demonstrating that the product had inherent faults at purchase, in which case the time taken for them to materialise becomes far less important.

Having the same repeated fault doesn't prove anything towards whether its inherent or not.

You're right that once faults are deemed inherent, when they materialised is unimportant. But initially, only faults that become apparent in the first 6 months are assumed to be inherent unless the retailer can prove otherwise. After that, there are no assumptions made and the consumer needs to prove its inherent.

JayCartwright

unholyangel wrote: »

Having the same repeated fault doesn't prove anything towards whether its inherent or not.

You're right that once faults are deemed inherent, when they materialised is unimportant. But initially, only faults that become apparent in the first 6 months are assumed to be inherent unless the retailer can prove otherwise. After that, there are no assumptions made and the consumer needs to prove its inherent.

I'd ask Joe Horner what he does for a living before arguing whether a watch is inherently faulty or not.

unholyangel

JayCartwright wrote: »

I'd ask Joe Horner what he does for a living before arguing whether a watch is inherently faulty or not.

Yes he's a watchmaker, perhaps you should reread the posts.

He was not stating that this type of fault is inherent. He was stating that numerous faults of the same nature somehow prove it was inherently faulty at purchase.

However it doesn't. Repeated faults of the same nature can just as easily happen through misuse.

Joe_Horner

Joe_Horner wrote: »

All true but multiple repeat faults of (essentially) the same nature go quite a long way towards demonstrating that the product had inherent faults at purchase, in which case the time taken for them to materialise becomes far less important.

unholyangel wrote: »

Yes he's a watchmaker, perhaps you should reread the posts.

He was not stating that this type of fault is inherent. He was stating that numerous faults of the same nature somehow prove it was inherently faulty at purchase.

However it doesn't. Repeated faults of the same nature can just as easily happen through misuse.

Sorry, I thought I was very carefully not saying that they "prove" anything - just that they go "a fair way towards demonstrating" an inherent fault. If they "proved" anything then surely they'd go all the way?

Obviously, as you suggest, repeat abuse can cause repeat faults but the size of impact or vibration needed to dislodge suitably attached dial markers will usually leave other signs - chipped / broken glass, damage to the case, broken dial feet and so on - because a marker that falls off at the "normal" impact levels you could occasionally expect for something worn on a wrist isn't, by definition, suitably attached for something worn that way.

Every time a marker comes loose without such damage occurring reduces the chance of them having been attached properly in the first place.