Faulty watch

TELLIT01

It could be worth contacting the watch manufacturer direct and explaining the situation to them.  Let them know the name of the retailer, as they may not be too impressed with their customer service.  There is nothing to lose by trying.  Include photo's of the strap.

Ergates

The straps should *definately* last more than 2 months - the problem may be that the watch (including the strap) has been sat in the shop for quite a while during which time the strap has deteriorated.

However, this is the shop's problem, not the OPs - they're dead wrong in what they're saying. (the shop I mean).

born_again

Sandtree said:

born_again said:

S75 will need a report to say strap is faulty.

Under CRA an item that's 2 months old is presumed to be faulty and it effectively becomes the retailers task to prove otherwise. Whilst for practical reasons you can understand a bank preferring the customer to get a report its not their obligation to do so. Are banks generally ignoring this @born_again?

It's not a case of ignoring, it's a case of needing some proof of the problem. You can see why as you will always get some who will try it on.

S75 is based on "breach of contract or misrepresentation"

In Op's case. Given it's just the strap. Card Co might just happy pay out for a new strap. Or they might want to take it further & contact co to work out a solution that does not cost them anything.
Like everything. It's a balancing act of costs against time spent on resolving. 

Marvinmolar4

born_again said:

Sandtree said:

born_again said:

S75 will need a report to say strap is faulty.

Under CRA an item that's 2 months old is presumed to be faulty and it effectively becomes the retailers task to prove otherwise. Whilst for practical reasons you can understand a bank preferring the customer to get a report its not their obligation to do so. Are banks generally ignoring this @born_again?

It's not a case of ignoring, it's a case of needing some proof of the problem. You can see why as you will always get some who will try it on.

S75 is based on "breach of contract or misrepresentation"

In Op's case. Given it's just the strap. Card Co might just happy pay out for a new strap. Or they might want to take it further & contact co to work out a solution that does not cost them anything.
Like everything. It's a balancing act of costs against time spent on resolving. 

Just wanted to post an upate, given people have spent time reading and replying. Seller has agreed to replace the strap, after threats of trading standards, pointing out their responsibility under CRA and also mentioning that I'd look into a S.75 charge back anyway. Watch with new strap will be sent back to me next week.

Thanks to all who took the time to post replies. What a great resource for advice and discussion.

Manxman_in_exile

Marvinmolar4 said:

born_again said:

Sandtree said:

born_again said:

S75 will need a report to say strap is faulty.

Under CRA an item that's 2 months old is presumed to be faulty and it effectively becomes the retailers task to prove otherwise. Whilst for practical reasons you can understand a bank preferring the customer to get a report its not their obligation to do so. Are banks generally ignoring this @born_again?

It's not a case of ignoring, it's a case of needing some proof of the problem. You can see why as you will always get some who will try it on.

S75 is based on "breach of contract or misrepresentation"

In Op's case. Given it's just the strap. Card Co might just happy pay out for a new strap. Or they might want to take it further & contact co to work out a solution that does not cost them anything.
Like everything. It's a balancing act of costs against time spent on resolving. 

Just wanted to post an upate, given people have spent time reading and replying. Seller has agreed to replace the strap, after threats of trading standards, pointing out their responsibility under CRA and also mentioning that I'd look into a S.75 charge back anyway. Watch with new strap will be sent back to me next week.

Thanks to all who took the time to post replies. What a great resource for advice and discussion.

Thanks for the update.  Many people never come back to let us know the outcome.

I'd suggest you keep all the correspondence you've had with the retailer in case the strap fails again "too soon".  It would help to support any future argument you might want to put forward.  (My understanding - and if I'm wrong I'm happy to be corrected - is that as they've had one chance to correct it, if it fails again too quickly your wife can get a refund.  As I say, I may be mistaken, but no harm in keeping everything just in case... )

Marvinmolar4

Manxman_in_exile said:

Marvinmolar4 said:

born_again said:

Sandtree said:

born_again said:

S75 will need a report to say strap is faulty.

Under CRA an item that's 2 months old is presumed to be faulty and it effectively becomes the retailers task to prove otherwise. Whilst for practical reasons you can understand a bank preferring the customer to get a report its not their obligation to do so. Are banks generally ignoring this @born_again?

It's not a case of ignoring, it's a case of needing some proof of the problem. You can see why as you will always get some who will try it on.

S75 is based on "breach of contract or misrepresentation"

In Op's case. Given it's just the strap. Card Co might just happy pay out for a new strap. Or they might want to take it further & contact co to work out a solution that does not cost them anything.
Like everything. It's a balancing act of costs against time spent on resolving. 

Just wanted to post an upate, given people have spent time reading and replying. Seller has agreed to replace the strap, after threats of trading standards, pointing out their responsibility under CRA and also mentioning that I'd look into a S.75 charge back anyway. Watch with new strap will be sent back to me next week.

Thanks to all who took the time to post replies. What a great resource for advice and discussion.

Thanks for the update.  Many people never come back to let us know the outcome.

I'd suggest you keep all the correspondence you've had with the retailer in case the strap fails again "too soon".  It would help to support any future argument you might want to put forward.  (My understanding - and if I'm wrong I'm happy to be corrected - is that as they've had one chance to correct it, if it fails again too quickly your wife can get a refund.  As I say, I may be mistaken, but no harm in keeping everything just in case... )

Hi all. The watch saga continues so would appreciate any advice. I received the watch back with a new strap in September 22. Three weeks later the new strap was falling apart. Retailer refused to replace it even though the watch was still less than 6 months old.

S.75 claim made. Card provider wrote back in November to advise that claim had been accepted and money was recredited, with proviso that this could change.

Letter received late December saying that retailer (copy of retailer's response was enclosed) had supplied a third strap so claim was cancelled and money was debited again. This is a lie and a third strap was never sent. The straps cost £100 retail and funnily enough the retailer can't provide any sort of tracking number (because it was never sent). I also have emails to the retailer from my wife stating that as one repair had failed, she wanted a refund under the Consumer Rights Act.

Letter sent back to Sainsburys bank querying why they had accepted the retailer's lie, reiterating that the S75 claim should continue as he retailer is not fulfilling their duties under CRA.

Letter received today saying that the purchase isn't covered as my wife gave the watch to me as a gift.

Is this right? If you buy somone an expensive gift, but it quickly becomes faulty, the purchaser can't make a claim? Also wondering why they didn't use this line first time round as it was known back then.

Any words of wisdom would be much appreciated. Might make a claim to Ombudsman if Sainsbury's are wrong.

DullGreyGuy

Marvinmolar4 said:
S.75 claim made. Card provider wrote back in November to advise that claim had been accepted and money was recredited, with proviso that this could change.

Letter received late December saying that retailer (copy of retailer's response was enclosed) had supplied a third strap so claim was cancelled and money was debited again. This is a lie and a third strap was never sent. The straps cost £100 retail and funnily enough the retailer can't provide any sort of tracking number (because it was never sent). I also have emails to the retailer from my wife stating that as one repair had failed, she wanted a refund under the Consumer Rights Act.

Letter sent back to Sainsburys bank querying why they had accepted the retailer's lie, reiterating that the S75 claim should continue as he retailer is not fulfilling their duties under CRA.

Letter received today saying that the purchase isn't covered as my wife gave the watch to me as a gift.

Is this right? If you buy somone an expensive gift, but it quickly becomes faulty, the purchaser can't make a claim? Also wondering why they didn't use this line first time round as it was known back then.

Any words of wisdom would be much appreciated. Might make a claim to Ombudsman if Sainsbury's are wrong.

That was a chargeback then rather than a Section 75 claim; you only get rebursed up front for chargebacks and not S75... they only reimburse at the end of the process and is also why the merchant was involved.

S75 requires direct relationships between the supplier, creditor and debtor so...

1) Who is the account holder? As your wife bought it was it her account or a secondard card on your account?
2) Who's name is on the invoice from the supplier?

Marvinmolar4

DullGreyGuy said:

Marvinmolar4 said:
S.75 claim made. Card provider wrote back in November to advise that claim had been accepted and money was recredited, with proviso that this could change.

Letter received late December saying that retailer (copy of retailer's response was enclosed) had supplied a third strap so claim was cancelled and money was debited again. This is a lie and a third strap was never sent. The straps cost £100 retail and funnily enough the retailer can't provide any sort of tracking number (because it was never sent). I also have emails to the retailer from my wife stating that as one repair had failed, she wanted a refund under the Consumer Rights Act.

Letter sent back to Sainsburys bank querying why they had accepted the retailer's lie, reiterating that the S75 claim should continue as he retailer is not fulfilling their duties under CRA.

Letter received today saying that the purchase isn't covered as my wife gave the watch to me as a gift.

Is this right? If you buy somone an expensive gift, but it quickly becomes faulty, the purchaser can't make a claim? Also wondering why they didn't use this line first time round as it was known back then.

Any words of wisdom would be much appreciated. Might make a claim to Ombudsman if Sainsbury's are wrong.

That was a chargeback then rather than a Section 75 claim; you only get rebursed up front for chargebacks and not S75... they only reimburse at the end of the process and is also why the merchant was involved.

S75 requires direct relationships between the supplier, creditor and debtor so...

1) Who is the account holder? As your wife bought it was it her account or a secondard card on your account?
2) Who's name is on the invoice from the supplier?

Hi

We made a S75 claim in writing to the credit card company. Does it sound like they've treated it as something else?

My wife is the account holder, purchased on her card (we don't do secondary cards as we both earn) and it was her name on the invoice (we did this deliberately). So...if a gift had never been mentioned, they would never have known.

DullGreyGuy

Marvinmolar4 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Marvinmolar4 said:
S.75 claim made. Card provider wrote back in November to advise that claim had been accepted and money was recredited, with proviso that this could change.

Letter received late December saying that retailer (copy of retailer's response was enclosed) had supplied a third strap so claim was cancelled and money was debited again. This is a lie and a third strap was never sent. The straps cost £100 retail and funnily enough the retailer can't provide any sort of tracking number (because it was never sent). I also have emails to the retailer from my wife stating that as one repair had failed, she wanted a refund under the Consumer Rights Act.

Letter sent back to Sainsburys bank querying why they had accepted the retailer's lie, reiterating that the S75 claim should continue as he retailer is not fulfilling their duties under CRA.

Letter received today saying that the purchase isn't covered as my wife gave the watch to me as a gift.

Is this right? If you buy somone an expensive gift, but it quickly becomes faulty, the purchaser can't make a claim? Also wondering why they didn't use this line first time round as it was known back then.

Any words of wisdom would be much appreciated. Might make a claim to Ombudsman if Sainsbury's are wrong.

That was a chargeback then rather than a Section 75 claim; you only get rebursed up front for chargebacks and not S75... they only reimburse at the end of the process and is also why the merchant was involved.

S75 requires direct relationships between the supplier, creditor and debtor so...

1) Who is the account holder? As your wife bought it was it her account or a secondard card on your account?
2) Who's name is on the invoice from the supplier?

Hi

We made a S75 claim in writing to the credit card company. Does it sound like they've treated it as something else?

My wife is the account holder, purchased on her card (we don't do secondary cards as we both earn) and it was her name on the invoice (we did this deliberately). So...if a gift had never been mentioned, they would never have known.

The first one was certainly a chargeback, its normal for most disputes to be processed as one initially if within the timelimits/rules.

On the second one you need to log a complaint, section S75 says there must be a D-C-S link, urban myth not the law says there are issues for gifts etc. 

Marvinmolar4

DullGreyGuy said:

Marvinmolar4 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Marvinmolar4 said:
S.75 claim made. Card provider wrote back in November to advise that claim had been accepted and money was recredited, with proviso that this could change.

Letter received late December saying that retailer (copy of retailer's response was enclosed) had supplied a third strap so claim was cancelled and money was debited again. This is a lie and a third strap was never sent. The straps cost £100 retail and funnily enough the retailer can't provide any sort of tracking number (because it was never sent). I also have emails to the retailer from my wife stating that as one repair had failed, she wanted a refund under the Consumer Rights Act.

Letter sent back to Sainsburys bank querying why they had accepted the retailer's lie, reiterating that the S75 claim should continue as he retailer is not fulfilling their duties under CRA.

Letter received today saying that the purchase isn't covered as my wife gave the watch to me as a gift.

Is this right? If you buy somone an expensive gift, but it quickly becomes faulty, the purchaser can't make a claim? Also wondering why they didn't use this line first time round as it was known back then.

Any words of wisdom would be much appreciated. Might make a claim to Ombudsman if Sainsbury's are wrong.

That was a chargeback then rather than a Section 75 claim; you only get rebursed up front for chargebacks and not S75... they only reimburse at the end of the process and is also why the merchant was involved.

S75 requires direct relationships between the supplier, creditor and debtor so...

1) Who is the account holder? As your wife bought it was it her account or a secondard card on your account?
2) Who's name is on the invoice from the supplier?

Hi

We made a S75 claim in writing to the credit card company. Does it sound like they've treated it as something else?

My wife is the account holder, purchased on her card (we don't do secondary cards as we both earn) and it was her name on the invoice (we did this deliberately). So...if a gift had never been mentioned, they would never have known.

The first one was certainly a chargeback, its normal for most disputes to be processed as one initially if within the timelimits/rules.

On the second one you need to log a complaint, section S75 says there must be a D-C-S link, urban myth not the law says there are issues for gifts etc. 

Thanks for your advice on this one. I thought Sainsbury's were trying it on.