Auction item doesn't match photos - auctioneer claims damage muct have occured after photos taken

regency_man

Hi all,

I recently purchased a £4000 watch from an online auction (through the i-bidder platform).  The auctioneer put up many high-resolution photos of the item, including the engraved serial number and the authenticity certificates and lots of supporting documentation.  I did a lot of research and concluded that the watch was genuine.  It was a good price but not a 'too good to be true' price as this model could be picked up for ~£5500 brand new, so took the plunge.

The watch arrived and I am satisfied it is genuine, however the watch has significant damage to the internal dial face which is not present in any of the photos.  I raised this with the seller and they said that their photos don't always highlight damage and said it was 'sold as seen'.  I responded to say this wasn't satisfactory, the damage is to the face is clearly visible with the naked eye and is clearly not present in the high resolution photos showing face of the watch in the auction.  I suggested that a different watch of the same model must have been used for the photos.   I sent side-by-side comparision photos for them to review.

Faced with this the seller responded with (I think mock) outrage and said they would never do such a thing and that the damage must have occured after the photos were taken. They went on to say that this is still not their responsibility because I bought the watch 'as-is' and are refusing to engage in any further correspondence. 

This is extremely unlikley, the damage is on the sealed face of the dial, the only way this could have occured after the photos were taken is if the watch was dissassembled. It is much more likely the seller swapped in a pristine watch for the photoshoot and this was clearly done deliberately because the pristine watch is photographed with the authenticity certificate matching the serial number on the damaged watch that was sent to me.

So the only possible series of events is:

A ) The seller photographed the watch and subsequently dissassembled it and during the course of that dissassembly damaged the watch face but did not update the photographs or the description to state this
-OR-
B ) The seller substituted a different watch into the photos in the auction so as to deliberately mis-represent the auction lot.

Where do I stand legally with this?  The seller is a 'professional' auction company (a Limited company). If they continue to refuse to engage with me is the next step to go to small-claims court or something similar? 

pbartlett

Do the auction company have a formal complaints system?

Did you pay by card - I expect not.

Are they a member of NAVA / the Property Ombudsman scheme?

Auctions & Chattels (tpos.co.uk)

Otherwise yes small claims court - easy to do online.

dj1471

Did you have the option of visiting the auction house to inspect the item before bidding?

Physical (rather than purely online) auctions are a special case in the consumer rights legislation. Items are sold as seen because you’re meant to inspect them for yourself before bidding.

RFW

dj1471 said:

Did you have the option of visiting the auction house to inspect the item before bidding?

Physical (rather than purely online) auctions are a special case in the consumer rights legislation. Items are sold as seen because you’re meant to inspect them for yourself before bidding.

Exactly this. It can only be sold as seen if you are given an opportunity to view the item, otherwise you have quite a number of consumer rights.

Have you searched if the seller has sold similar watches and used the same pictures?

I'd contact Trading Standards via your local council.

I could hazard a guess at a company this could be. I know one auction housewho regularly sell expensive watches and I certainly wouldn't chance it, having dealt with them in the past.

regency_man

RFW said:

dj1471 said:

Did you have the option of visiting the auction house to inspect the item before bidding?

Physical (rather than purely online) auctions are a special case in the consumer rights legislation. Items are sold as seen because you’re meant to inspect them for yourself before bidding.

Exactly this. It can only be sold as seen if you are given an opportunity to view the item, otherwise you have quite a number of consumer rights.

Have you searched if the seller has sold similar watches and used the same pictures?

I'd contact Trading Standards via your local council.

I could hazard a guess at a company this could be. I know one auction housewho regularly sell expensive watches and I certainly wouldn't chance it, having dealt with them in the past.

They offered viewing in the listing however when I contacted them to do this they said due to covid their venue was closed and all auctions were taking place online.  

But in this case, it wouldn’t have helped, the auctioneer is claiming damaged occurred after the virtual ‘viewing’.  What is the situation if an auctioneer damages an item after you have physically viewed it? 

Viewings are typically several days before the auction hammer.  

Surely in this situation, which is what the auctioneer is claiming, they are duty bound to either withdraw the lot or declare the damage? 

If you went to view a antique table on Monday, won the auction on Tuesday then went to collect it on Wednesday and find it’s suddenly missing two legs, surely that’s not buying “as seen”. 

I think I have a pretty strong case so I’ll tell them I will take it to Trading Standard and Small Claims and see if that gives them a change of conscience. 

RFW

regency_man said:

RFW said:

dj1471 said:

Did you have the option of visiting the auction house to inspect the item before bidding?

Physical (rather than purely online) auctions are a special case in the consumer rights legislation. Items are sold as seen because you’re meant to inspect them for yourself before bidding.

Exactly this. It can only be sold as seen if you are given an opportunity to view the item, otherwise you have quite a number of consumer rights.

Have you searched if the seller has sold similar watches and used the same pictures?

I'd contact Trading Standards via your local council.

I could hazard a guess at a company this could be. I know one auction housewho regularly sell expensive watches and I certainly wouldn't chance it, having dealt with them in the past.

They offered viewing in the listing however when I contacted them to do this they said due to covid their venue was closed and all auctions were taking place online.  

But in this case, it wouldn’t have helped, the auctioneer is claiming damaged occurred after the virtual ‘viewing’.  What is the situation if an auctioneer damages an item after you have physically viewed it? 

Viewings are typically several days before the auction hammer.  

Surely in this situation, which is what the auctioneer is claiming, they are duty bound to either withdraw the lot or declare the damage? 

If you went to view a antique table on Monday, won the auction on Tuesday then went to collect it on Wednesday and find it’s suddenly missing two legs, surely that’s not buying “as seen”. 

I think I have a pretty strong case so I’ll tell them I will take it to Trading Standard and Small Claims and see if that gives them a change of conscience. 

You do have a strong case. The trouble is if the auction house remains adamant you will find it difficult and a long process to get a refund, if at all. Before going to small claims you should try exhausting other options. You'll also want to check that this is a company that has been going for a while and has other auctions planned. It may be that they have done a couple of auctions, sold a lot of tat and scarpered with everyone's money. If that's the case you'd be wasting your time trying small claims.

So, in exhausting all avenues, try Trading Standards, as I said earlier, you can also ask them if it could be a police matter. If it's a big company try contacting their MD, politely (though it may well be that that's who you've already been messaging). Google the company and see if it's happened to others via their reviews, etc.. Try a Google image search of the item picture and you may find that it was a stock picture and not of the item. Try contacting I-bidder, probably via Twitter will have more impact. Also contact the company via Twitter and their Facebook pages, if they have.

theoretica

Also look through the auction house's own past sales for potential image matches.

Does the watch have a second hand?  Was it in different places showing the watch was running when the images were taken?  If the watch was not running when the pictures were taken but was when you got it (and is a battery watch) that implies it was opened up.  If it was running in the images and not when you got it perhaps a different watch?

regency_man

Thanks for the input.  They are not stock photos as several of the photographs show the pristine watch set on-top of a serial-numbered authenticity certificate, receipt and service card.  That exact certificate is the one for the damaged watch which I was sent, along with the certificate, receipt etc. So it certainly seems the photo was deliberately staged with the pristine watch, or as they claim, the damage somehow occured after the photo was taken. Either way, something is not right.  The hands are in different positions in the photos and the one I was sent was also ticking, so I don't think that rules anything out.

I suspect this was a case of them getting a smashed watch from another source, replacing the glass and trying to sell it on as original and pristine.  Unfortunately for their little game, the face has got damaged either from the accident or subsequent repair and is now very clearly not the watch they advertised.

The company has been around for over 10 years.  However it seems they are not as active now as they were several years ago, their website is a mess and much of it is broken.  They have a Facebook page that they post their auctions on which is up to date.  Their companies house records and accounts are up to date (although show a large amount of debt).  If anyone wants to know who it is, please DM me, but I won't post it publicly while I'm negotiating with them.