Multiple Returns and Watch from watchshop|dot|com is Still Faulty

akf

Could do with some advice on the following case.

I bought a mechanical watch with my credit card from the Internet store watchshop on 02-Apr-2015. After an initial issue with incorrect user manuals I was happy enough with the watch.

I then traveled to the USA where I noticed the watch was not correct. The 24hr sub-dial did not match the main dials time. I found a local Michael Kors store and they replaced the watch with a new one. I emailed watchshop to update them and asked if they required new serial number for my warranty. They did not.

After this I was never convinced the watch was working correctly as the month sub-dial never seemed to increment at the right time.I waited a few months, just to make sure that I hadn't accidentally incremented the month (by catching the button for example). On 07-Aug-2015 I emailed watchshop and told them I thought there were issues. They asked me to return the watch. I was abroad so it was difficult to return so I waited a couple more months and did some tests (e.g. manually winding on the time to see if the month incremented).

On 06-Nov-2015 I emailed watchshop again informing them of my tests. Unfortunately I was abroad again and finally returned the watch and they received it on 06-Feb-2016.

On 29-Feb-2016 watchshop emailed and said there was nothing wrong with the watch. I emailed back as they had not understood the fault. They then sent watch back to manufacturer on 01-Mar-2016. I had an update on 17-Mar-2016 saying the watch had been returned from the manufacturer and the movement had been repaired. I picked watch up from local store after it was sent out.

On 11-Apr-2016 (more than a year after purchase) I emailed watchshop again informing them that the watch had not been repaired as the month did not increment when the day rolled over from 31 to 1. I sent the watch back on 27-Apr-2016. I asked watchshop to obtain a test report this time when the watch was fixed.

On 17-May-2016 I received an email back from watchshop which said:
"We have received your item back from the manufacturers today and they have serviced the item and carried out miscellaneous repair."
I said this was unacceptable and I wanted a report to prove it had been fixed second time around. If I couldn't have a report I did not want the watch back. I asked what their plan was if the watch was returned and still did not work. On 20-May-2016 they emailed back with:
"We have heard back from the manufacturer, and they have advised that the movement and date function was tested, and after this they found the watch to be functioning as it should."

22-May-2016 - I asked them if the manufacturer had tested the exact scenario I detailed to 100% guarantee the watch had been tested. If not I wanted to start the process of a refund as I doubted the competence of the repairman.

25-May-2016 I received the following reply:
"We have heard back from the service center, and unfortunately they could not be more specific about the testing procedure, other than the information already given (the movement and date function was tested, and after this they found the watch to be functioning as it should).

Please monitor the watch until next week (as we are due to change from May to June), and should you experience further issues please inform us."

I monitored the date change and it still did not work.

05-Jun-2016 I emailed watchshop informing them that after two alleged repairs, watch was still not working. They asked me to send the watch back yet again. They received watch on 29-Jun-2016.

On 12-Jul-2016 I emailed watchshop as I had heard nothing. I told them I wanted a refund as I don't believe they are fixing the watch. I also mentioned I was fed up with their service and the fact that I have to drive to a store to collect the watch each time it is returned (as they won't ship directly to home address).

14-Jul-2016 they emailed and apologised and would like to offer a 10% refund. I replied by saying I hoped that the 10% was a mis-print and I was looking for a full refund. I mentioned that they had failed to repair the watch on multiple occasions.

15-Jul-2016 A supervisor emailed and offered a 30% refund due to the circumstances. I replied and asked them to qualify what they meant by "due to the circumstances". I said that the product sold was defective and mentioned their promise that it had been repaired twice. I also said that they could not provide proof that the watch had been repaired on both occasions as there was no test report. I finished with saying the product is of unsatisfactory quality and not fit for purpose as it doesn't work.

They replied to this with the following:

"Once again, I apologise for the entire situation, but I can assure you we are making every single effort to sort the matter in the best way possible.

Please note, we received the item and the manufacturer confirmed that they repaired it and tested the water-resistance. We are now prepared to dispatch the item back to you without further delay. Moreover, as stated previously, we would like to offer you a 30% refund.

However, if you are not happy with this outcome, then we can send the item back to the manufacturer to be refurbish it and deduct eventual cost of the operation from your refund.

We can do so according with the Consumer Right Act 2015, Chapter 2), Paragraph 24), Section 8):

"If the consumer exercises the final right to reject, any refund to the consumer may be reduced by a deduction for use, to take account of the use the consumer has had of the goods in the period since they were delivered"

Please, confirm this is the course of action you would like me to take.

I await your response and if you have any other question or further comments, please, do not hesitate to contact us."


I followed this up with:

"Whilst testing the water-resistance is standard procedure as the manufacturer must have opened up the watch (again), that is not what I want tested. I would like the date function fully tested as I have asked for on previous occasions. I have explained what the issue is multiple times.

You are quoting from the wrong Act. As I already informed you the watch was purchased before Oct 2015, the Act you are quoting only came in during October 2015. If you are claiming a "Deduction for use" I think you must be joking. I have not had use of the watch because is was defective. I have already quoted the Acts that apply.

I have asked for a repair and from the Sale of Goods Act 1979 I believe you have taken an "unreasonable amount of time to perform these requirements". I maintain that I have not had reasonable use of the watch as it has been faulty."

18-May-2016 They replied with
"As we previously informed you, the manufacturers repaired your watch and they confirmed it is performing correctly now, including the date function. Regarding the Sales of Goods Act 1979, please note that under that law as you have legally accepted the watch, and returned it after owning the watch for more than 6 months, we cannot consider the goods were faulty at the point of sale (the onus would be on you to prove this), and it is our responsibility as the retailer to repair the item.

As stated, we are more than happy to refund you 30% of the cost of your watch for this inconvenience. If you are not happy with this course of action, we can then offer you a partial refund by sending your watch to the manufacturers to be refurbished and deducting the eventual cost of the operation from your refund.

Please reply informing me of the course of action you would like me to take."

Since then I have not replied due to looking up legislation but now I would like a bit of help. They have acknowledged the watch was faulty as they have repaired it 3 times. However "at the point of sale" has me stumped.

I don't believe the watch will work if it is returned for the third time as they don't seem to know what they are talking about. Why would they need to send it back to the manufacturer for refurbishment if I wanted a refund. They have supposedly repaired it.

Ideally I would like a full refund as I have never had proper use of the watch.

[Deleted User]

You demanded a "report" from the retailer which you were responsible for yourself. It was for you, as the complainant, to organise and pay for an independent report showing that the watch has a fault which was inherent at the time of purchase.

Complicating this is the fact that you are no longer in possession of the original watch.

To be honest, I think the 30% refund Watchshop have offered you is very fair considering that you purchased it more than a year ago. They've also repeatedly told you that the watch works as it is supposed to and it seems to me that you require more of the watch than it is designed to do.

akf

@Moneyineptitude

Slightly confused. I asked for a report about the repair job and proof that they had actually tested it. I don't see how I am responsible for that. They have "repaired" the watch twice and it has not worked. They still have the watch from the third occasion I have sent it back, so I can't say whether this last repair has actually addressed the issue. I am tired of having a watch that does not work and constantly having to return it.

I am not requiring the watch to do more than it is designed to do, they allegedly repaired the watch, and returned it. When I sent it back the second and third time, they openly acknowledged that the watch had a fault and repaired it again, so I am not sure why you think I am expecting more from the watch. The watch has never worked, but was difficult to spot as particular mechanism that does not work only operates once a month.

[Deleted User]

akf wrote: »

I asked for a report about the repair job and proof that they had actually tested it.

You have no rights to such a report or "proof". The retailer is not obliged to provide such.

As you remained unhappy after the alleged repair, it was for you to show that the "fault" was inherent at the time of purchase and the recognised way of doing this is for you to organise and pay for an independent report which (hopefully) supports your complaint.

akf wrote: »

particular mechanism that does not work only operates once a month.

It's a mechanical watch which you can turn to the next month's date by use of the winder. Since this takes seconds, and only on months which don't have 31 days, I'd simply accept the 30% refund offer. You've had the watch for more than a year.

Some battles just aren't worth the effort.

marliepanda

You don't have a watch from watch shop.com

You have a watch from an American Michael Kord shop.

Did watchshop.com agree to transfer the warranty? They don't have to.

They don't have to do anything. They didn't sell you that watch. They didn't have anything to do with that watch.

philatio

Agree.
You're very lucky they didn't just say "sorry.. thats not the watch we sold you"

They seem to have been very good, considering..

[Deleted User]

marliepanda wrote: »

You have a watch from an American Michael Kord shop.

Did watchshop.com agree to transfer the warranty? They don't have to.

Clearly they did, as the OP says in the first paragraph;
"I found a local Michael Kors store and they replaced the watch with a new one. I emailed watchshop to update them and asked if they required new serial number for my warranty. They did not."

marliepanda

That doesn't necessarily imply they transferred it. Just that they didn't take the new serial number.

SuperHan

Are you sure this is a fault?


Although admittedly I scan read the OP, it seems like at first they were saying no fault found.


But given that almost half the time this feature won't work properly anyway ( as 5/12 months have less than 31 days, so will need to be manually wound ), it doesn't seem that unbelievable that it's designed to be manually wound each month...


I'd take whatever they're giving you, it is a relatively insignificant fault, even if it is one.

SuperHan

Now I've read it properly, my first post still stands.


But I will add, they are right about the faulty at the point of sale. SoGA only covers (at least in this instance) goods that are inherently faulty. That means that they were sold with a fault. The fault may not be evident at first, but the goods are such that they would have always failed before their expected life was up.


After 6 months, it is on the consumer to prove that the fault was inherent. You would normally do this from some sort of expert report. You would need to pay for this, then you could claim back the cost from the retailer.


That said, even if a report finds in your favour, they can still only offer a partial refund. Which may not be hugely more than the 30% already offered (and for 30% you get to keep the watch, they'd take it back under a SoGA claim).


The refurb point is that if you want to return it, they will maybe give it a new strap, new glass face etc to make it look as new and then resell it. They will deduct the costs of doing this from your refund.

akf

I was going through account and forgot to update this with the resolution.


I contacted retailer, went through the saga again, pointed out that the watch was not available in a number of retailers (so maybe there is a fundamental issue with the model) and asked for an exchange for the value I originally paid for the watch. They agreed to this and I chose a Tissot which I have been happy with.