Monica Vinader lost my ring when it went in for repairs

tightauldgit

DullGreyGuy said:

tightauldgit said:

sheramber said:

As the ring was sent 'for repair' what would be the value of a damaged ring?

As it was due to be repaired under warranty it shouldn't make a difference. Customer is due an undamaged ring or equivalent value.

They would be entitled to the value of a secondhand ring that has been repaired. Depending on the nature of the repair that may or may not impact its value. 

True, although I'd love to see a jeweller go to court and argue that after they'd repaired a ring it would be pretty much worthless  

Jumblebumble

bris said:

tacpot12 said:

If you have home insurance, check to see if you have legal expenses cover. If you do, call the Insurance Helpline provided by your insurer and ask them if there is a legal basis on which you could get compensation for how you have been treated.

If there isn't, you will only be able to get a refund for what you paid for the ring. I think I would buy from somewhere else in future. 

There is no legal basis for compensation, law covers losses not compensation.

Technically the loss is a £100 ring, that was the cost of the ring, anything else is just at the customer services dept discretion

Legal compensation such as airline delays are written into law, a lost ring is not.

OK so I buy a classic E type Jag in 1970
Are you seriously suggesting that if a garage lost it today then they would only be liable for the 1970 cost ?

tightauldgit

Jumblebumble said:

bris said:

tacpot12 said:

If you have home insurance, check to see if you have legal expenses cover. If you do, call the Insurance Helpline provided by your insurer and ask them if there is a legal basis on which you could get compensation for how you have been treated.

If there isn't, you will only be able to get a refund for what you paid for the ring. I think I would buy from somewhere else in future. 

There is no legal basis for compensation, law covers losses not compensation.

Technically the loss is a £100 ring, that was the cost of the ring, anything else is just at the customer services dept discretion

Legal compensation such as airline delays are written into law, a lost ring is not.

OK so I buy a classic E type Jag in 1970
Are you seriously suggesting that if a garage lost it today then they would only be liable for the 1970 cost ?

Technically the 'loss' is the market value of the item at the time it was lost so of course an E-Type Jag would have a book value which you could claim. The issue is that for most consumer items they don't typically increase in value and if the item was bought relatively recently for £x then it's going to be difficult to argue that it's worth more than that unless you have good evidence. 

If you could show the ring was e.g. being regularly sold on Ebay for £250 you might have an argument that the actual value of it was £250. But in general the value of the item is going to be based on what you paid for it, less whatever its depreciated rather than some number plucked from the air. 

And none of that changes that 'compensation' is generally not something that is awarded or considered for a lost ring. 

Manxman_in_exile

bris said:

tacpot12 said:

If you have home insurance, check to see if you have legal expenses cover. If you do, call the Insurance Helpline provided by your insurer and ask them if there is a legal basis on which you could get compensation for how you have been treated.

If there isn't, you will only be able to get a refund for what you paid for the ring. I think I would buy from somewhere else in future. 

There is no legal basis for compensation, law covers losses not compensation...

Sorry - don't want to be overly-pedantic, but isn't that contradictory and doesn't it risk confusing the OP?

If Vinander are legally liable for the loss of the ring, then the OP is entitled to compensation for their loss - whatever that loss is.  Isn't that what "compensation" means in this context?

What they wouldn't be entitled to is any "extra" recompense to cover any inconvenience or sentimental loss or disappointment etc etc over and above the value of the ring itself.

Manxman_in_exile

tightauldgit said:

Jumblebumble said:

bris said:

tacpot12 said:

If you have home insurance, check to see if you have legal expenses cover. If you do, call the Insurance Helpline provided by your insurer and ask them if there is a legal basis on which you could get compensation for how you have been treated.

If there isn't, you will only be able to get a refund for what you paid for the ring. I think I would buy from somewhere else in future. 

There is no legal basis for compensation, law covers losses not compensation.

Technically the loss is a £100 ring, that was the cost of the ring, anything else is just at the customer services dept discretion

Legal compensation such as airline delays are written into law, a lost ring is not.

OK so I buy a classic E type Jag in 1970
Are you seriously suggesting that if a garage lost it today then they would only be liable for the 1970 cost ?

... And none of that changes that 'compensation' is generally not something that is awarded or considered for a lost ring. 

Again, isn't that statement at risk of confusing or misleading the OP?  If vinander is responsible for losing the ring that was entrusted to them, you aren't suggesting the OP isn't entitled to compensation for that loss are you?

DullGreyGuy

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/public/for-public-visitors/resources/glossary

Compensation - recompense for loss, injury, or suffering.
Damages - an award, typically of money, paid to a person or organisation for loss or injury.

Damages and compensation are basically interchangeable but some here seem to think that compensation is an amount above and beyond your losses.

tightauldgit said:

Jumblebumble said:

bris said:

tacpot12 said:

If you have home insurance, check to see if you have legal expenses cover. If you do, call the Insurance Helpline provided by your insurer and ask them if there is a legal basis on which you could get compensation for how you have been treated.

If there isn't, you will only be able to get a refund for what you paid for the ring. I think I would buy from somewhere else in future. 

There is no legal basis for compensation, law covers losses not compensation.

Technically the loss is a £100 ring, that was the cost of the ring, anything else is just at the customer services dept discretion

Legal compensation such as airline delays are written into law, a lost ring is not.

OK so I buy a classic E type Jag in 1970
Are you seriously suggesting that if a garage lost it today then they would only be liable for the 1970 cost ?

Technically the 'loss' is the market value of the item at the time it was lost so of course an E-Type Jag would have a book value which you could claim. The issue is that for most consumer items they don't typically increase in value and if the item was bought relatively recently for £x then it's going to be difficult to argue that it's worth more than that unless you have good evidence. 

If you could show the ring was e.g. being regularly sold on Ebay for £250 you might have an argument that the actual value of it was £250. But in general the value of the item is going to be based on what you paid for it, less whatever its depreciated rather than some number plucked from the air. 

And none of that changes that 'compensation' is generally not something that is awarded or considered for a lost ring. 

It's much more than that, most consumer items plummet in value the second you walk out the shop with them. Jewellery in particular is rarely worth much more than its scrap value unless its by Cartier etc 

As above, compensation is certainly considered for a loss ring where the company has been negligent... as you said in the first paragraph it'd be the market value of a secondhand ring. 

eskbanker

DullGreyGuy said:

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/public/for-public-visitors/resources/glossary

Compensation - recompense for loss, injury, or suffering.
Damages - an award, typically of money, paid to a person or organisation for loss or injury.

Damages and compensation are basically interchangeable but some here seem to think that compensation is an amount above and beyond your losses.

I think it comes down to context and interpretation - there's no doubt in my mind that many use the term 'compensation' to denote sums paid over and above reimbursement of direct losses (if any) and in some environments, e.g. flight delays/cancellations, the regulations explicitly make that distinction.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2019/03/automatic-compensation-for-broadband-and-landline-users---new-ru/
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2020/02/consumers-to-be-entitled-to-p30-if-they-experience-energy-switch/

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Effectively we are all giving guidance and this tends to result in colloquial language being used which can be interpreted differently, however if you use strict legal language I think some posters looking for help don't understand what it means and rather than ask they look to posts they do understand. 

The use of language has been brought up here before, particularly over the word inherent, which technically is correct but is likely to mean something other than what is covered by consumer rights to most people. 

I don't know where the OP stands as it's a warranty issue, had it been consumer rights they'd be entitled to a repair or replacement, they can't repair a ring they've lost which would lead to replacement and the replacement should be new (assuming it's possible and not significantly disproportionate in cost). 

Which would then lead to refund were replacement not to occur, had the purchase been longer than 6 months ago a deduction for use would be permitted which would no doubt place some specific value on the ring using some kind of calculation. Lifespan vs ownership seems fair but a ring may last a lifetime so it's hard to say really. 

tightauldgit

DullGreyGuy said:

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/public/for-public-visitors/resources/glossary

Compensation - recompense for loss, injury, or suffering.
Damages - an award, typically of money, paid to a person or organisation for loss or injury.

Damages and compensation are basically interchangeable but some here seem to think that compensation is an amount above and beyond your losses.

tightauldgit said:

Jumblebumble said:

bris said:

tacpot12 said:

If you have home insurance, check to see if you have legal expenses cover. If you do, call the Insurance Helpline provided by your insurer and ask them if there is a legal basis on which you could get compensation for how you have been treated.

If there isn't, you will only be able to get a refund for what you paid for the ring. I think I would buy from somewhere else in future. 

There is no legal basis for compensation, law covers losses not compensation.

Technically the loss is a £100 ring, that was the cost of the ring, anything else is just at the customer services dept discretion

Legal compensation such as airline delays are written into law, a lost ring is not.

OK so I buy a classic E type Jag in 1970
Are you seriously suggesting that if a garage lost it today then they would only be liable for the 1970 cost ?

Technically the 'loss' is the market value of the item at the time it was lost so of course an E-Type Jag would have a book value which you could claim. The issue is that for most consumer items they don't typically increase in value and if the item was bought relatively recently for £x then it's going to be difficult to argue that it's worth more than that unless you have good evidence. 

If you could show the ring was e.g. being regularly sold on Ebay for £250 you might have an argument that the actual value of it was £250. But in general the value of the item is going to be based on what you paid for it, less whatever its depreciated rather than some number plucked from the air. 

And none of that changes that 'compensation' is generally not something that is awarded or considered for a lost ring. 

It's much more than that, most consumer items plummet in value the second you walk out the shop with them. Jewellery in particular is rarely worth much more than its scrap value unless its by Cartier etc 

As above, compensation is certainly considered for a loss ring where the company has been negligent... as you said in the first paragraph it'd be the market value of a secondhand ring. 

Agree that most consumer items are technically worth buttons if you attempt to resell them but legally the question is what can be evidenced and established in terms of value. If you buy something for £100 on the 1st of June then I think a court would be likely to assume that it's value is still very close to £100 on the 2nd of June unless you can provide a more compelling valuation. 5(?) years later then its probably scrap value unless you can provide a more compelling valuation and then between that its a bit of a grey area of who can make the best case. 

You can see rings regularly selling on Ebay for reasonable prices (i.e. more than scrap value) but providing any kind of accurate valuation is difficult. One thing is for sure though - it's generally not going to be worth more than you paid for it, even if you bought it in a sale. 

As for the 'compensation' thing the reason I put it in quotes is because generally when people are asking for compensation they are looking for something over and above the value of the item. 

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Effectively we are all giving guidance and this tends to result in colloquial language being used which can be interpreted differently, however if you use strict legal language I think some posters looking for help don't understand what it means and rather than ask they look to posts they do understand. 

The use of language has been brought up here before, particularly over the word inherent, which technically is correct but is likely to mean something other than what is covered by consumer rights to most people. 

I don't know where the OP stands as it's a warranty issue, had it been consumer rights they'd be entitled to a repair or replacement, they can't repair a ring they've lost which would lead to replacement and the replacement should be new (assuming it's possible and not significantly disproportionate in cost). 

Which would then lead to refund were replacement not to occur, had the purchase been longer than 6 months ago a deduction for use would be permitted which would no doubt place some specific value on the ring using some kind of calculation. Lifespan vs ownership seems fair but a ring may last a lifetime so it's hard to say really. 

In terms of the wording, 'compensation' was originally brought up in reference to 'compensation for how you have been treated' which is why people pointed out that you really don't have any legal right to anything other than being made good on your loss. 

If you could show that you have incurred a financial loss because of how you have been treated then you might have a claim but there's no real suggestion here that the treatment caused any loss other than annoyance.