Consumer rights for personalised jewellery

Nickgdw

I bought my wife an eternity ring through the jeweller's website about 2 years ago. Just over a year later one of the stones fell out, and they said they would remake the ring from scratch, with relatively little quibble.

6 months after getting it back another stone fell out so I asked for a refund. They refused as it was out of warranty, and personalised, but did offer to repair it for a £25 charge, plus the cost for me to post, obviously insured, so another £30. I pointed out that my understanding of CRA 2015 was that 2 faults in 2 years for an expensive piece of jewellery warranted a full refund, including the cost of return postage.

They have now offered to effectively waive the charge, but are refusing to pay the postage from my end. 

Do I have it correct re my entitlement to refund incl. postage? And if so, does the postage part extend to the repair, or are we striking an entirely new agreement?

TIA

prettyandfluffy

What were/are the stones? Some are softer than others and very prone to this kind of problem,

tightauldgit

Nickgdw said:

I bought my wife an eternity ring through the jeweller's website about 2 years ago. Just over a year later one of the stones fell out, and they said they would remake the ring from scratch, with relatively little quibble.

6 months after getting it back another stone fell out so I asked for a refund. They refused as it was out of warranty, and personalised, but did offer to repair it for a £25 charge, plus the cost for me to post, obviously insured, so another £30. I pointed out that my understanding of CRA 2015 was that 2 faults in 2 years for an expensive piece of jewellery warranted a full refund, including the cost of return postage.

They have now offered to effectively waive the charge, but are refusing to pay the postage from my end. 

Do I have it correct re my entitlement to refund incl. postage? And if so, does the postage part extend to the repair, or are we striking an entirely new agreement?

TIA

I'd say it's not clear what your entitlement is under the CRA because it seems that your first claim was a warranty claim. Is that right? It's not clear to me that warranty claims satisfy the requirement that retailers have a right to repair/replace under the CRA unless you specifically said in the first instance that it was a claim under the CRA? 



 

HHarry

It would be interesting to know the Jewellers, as we had something similar with a ring for my Wife.  There’s a thread on here anout it somewhere.

In our case the Jeweller argued that the stones were being damaged through mis-use, citing an example of pushing a shopping trolley as a possible cause of damage.  I didn’t agree, raised a small claim and they provided a brand new ring.  4 days later one of the stones fell out.

 At that point we gave up.  I didn’t have the patience to argue any more, and so the ring has sat in the bottom of a drawer for 10 years. I bought a different ring, same stones, different setting, which has been worn frequently with no issue.

I hope you have a better outcome.

DullGreyGuy

You've had the item for over 6 months and so the duty is on you to prove its inherently faulty or insufficiently durable considering what it is, price etc.

What have you done to establish its faulty rather than, say one of the claws being caught on fabric or being bashed against something? 

Nickgdw

prettyandfluffy said:

What were/are the stones? Some are softer than others and very prone to this kind of problem,

First stone to fall out was diamond, second was aquamarine.

tightauldgit said: 
I'd say it's not clear what your entitlement is under the CRA because it seems that your first claim was a warranty claim. Is that right? It's not clear to me that warranty claims satisfy the requirement that retailers have a right to repair/replace under the CRA unless you specifically said in the first instance that it was a claim under the CRA? 

First stone to fall out was diamond, second was aquamarine.

DullGreyGuy said:

You've had the item for over 6 months and so the duty is on you to prove its inherently faulty or insufficiently durable considering what it is, price etc.

What have you done to establish its faulty rather than, say one of the claws being caught on fabric or being bashed against something? 

My take is that 2 similar faults in under 2 years for a £1k piece of jewellery with 'eternity' in its name does not meet the 'last a reasonable time' standard of the CRA. Was hoping someone with the requisite expertise could confirm (or refute) my thoughts.

DullGreyGuy

Nickgdw said:
My take is that 2 similar faults in under 2 years for a £1k piece of jewellery with 'eternity' in its name does not meet the 'last a reasonable time' standard of the CRA. Was hoping someone with the requisite expertise could confirm (or refute) my thoughts.

Full eternity rings are well known for stone loss because the claws on the inside are constantly being knocked. 

In a jewellers who's cheapest 1/2 eternity ring is £2,500 they will sell you a full eternity ring if you want one (cheapest is £3,950) but they recommend against them even at their price point because of the issues people have with them and if you really want one then to go for channel set rather than claws. 

You need to get it inspected, 2 similar faults could be because the wearer is heavy handed and is constantly catching/bashing the claws.

The "eternity" is meant to be in relation to your love towards the person you buy it for not the duration of the warranty. The CRA accepts that some things intrinsically don't last as long as others.