Sad Fart works (Eventually)
Options
hollie.weimeraner
Posts: 2,147 Forumite
I had a watch bought for me from Beaverbrooks last March which developed a fault in June (misting). We took the watch back to Beaverbrooks in June and asked for a refund but they insisted on sending it away and then replacing it with a new watch which I accepted as I did actually like the watch.
Anyway in December the replacement watch developed the same fault so I took it back and one of the staff saw the misting issue when I got into the shop. I quoted the sad fart rule at them but they wouldn't budge and insisted the watch had to go back to the manufacturers agent for testing despite my protestations.
I was promised a refund as long as the agents agreed the watch was faulty even though the staff member had seen the misting issue.
Anyway after 8 days the agents still hadn't tested the watch and Beaverbrooks caved in and gave me a refund after I showed them the sad fart details on my phone.
So a good result thanks to Martin and his sad fart:T
Anyway in December the replacement watch developed the same fault so I took it back and one of the staff saw the misting issue when I got into the shop. I quoted the sad fart rule at them but they wouldn't budge and insisted the watch had to go back to the manufacturers agent for testing despite my protestations.
I was promised a refund as long as the agents agreed the watch was faulty even though the staff member had seen the misting issue.
Anyway after 8 days the agents still hadn't tested the watch and Beaverbrooks caved in and gave me a refund after I showed them the sad fart details on my phone.
So a good result thanks to Martin and his sad fart:T
0
Comments
-
hollie.weimeraner wrote: »I had a watch bought for me from Beaverbrooks last March which developed a fault in June (misting). We took the watch back to Beaverbrooks in June and asked for a refund but they insisted on sending it away and then replacing it with a new watch which I accepted as I did actually like the watch.
Anyway in December the replacement watch developed the same fault so I took it back and one of the staff saw the misting issue when I got into the shop. I quoted the sad fart rule at them but they wouldn't budge and insisted the watch had to go back to the manufacturers agent for testing despite my protestations.
I was promised a refund as long as the agents agreed the watch was faulty even though the staff member had seen the misting issue.
Anyway after 8 days the agents still hadn't tested the watch and Beaverbrooks caved in and gave me a refund after I showed them the sad fart details on my phone.
So a good result thanks to Martin and his sad fart:T
Sounds like they have been very reasonable, despite having things quoted at them. They could have easily of sent you away to get an independent report to prove the fault was an inherent one as the watch was over 6 months old.0 -
Except as you were not the purchaser you had absolutely no rights whatsoever to any remedy and sad fart did not apply.
The fact that Beaverbrooks chose to not only help you but end up refunding you just speaks volumes for their level of service. Well done them!0 -
Except as you were not the purchaser you had absolutely no rights whatsoever to any remedy and sad fart did not apply.
The fact that Beaverbrooks chose to not only help you but end up refunding you just speaks volumes for their level of service. Well done them!
Oops, I missed that part!
I agree, Beaverbooks have gone above and beyond in this situation.0 -
Except as you were not the purchaser you had absolutely no rights whatsoever to any remedy and sad fart did not apply.
The fact that Beaverbrooks chose to not only help you but end up refunding you just speaks volumes for their level of service. Well done them!
My son, who made the purchase, accompanied me to the store on both occasions. Both watches failed within 6 months which would show that there was possibly an inherent fault on that model and therefore not fit for purpose (especially as it was supposedly waterproof to 50 metres).
Staff at Beaverbrooks were generally helpful but insisted on both watches being returned first.0 -
hollie.weimeraner wrote: »My son, who made the purchase, accompanied me to the store on both occasions. Both watches failed within 6 months which would show that there was possibly an inherent fault on that model and therefore not fit for purpose (especially as it was supposedly waterproof to 50 metres).
Staff at Beaverbrooks were generally helpful but insisted on both watches being returned first.
They are entitled to check that the fault is not down to user damage - So there is no issue with them sending the watch away.
The second watch would have been over 6 months old as the replacement is classed as the date that you purchased the original. So they could have made you get an independent report to prove it was inherently faulty.0 -
powerful_Rogue wrote: »They are entitled to check that the fault is not down to user damage - So there is no issue with them sending the watch away.
The second watch would have been over 6 months old as the replacement is classed as the date that you purchased the original. So they could have made you get an independent report to prove it was inherently faulty.
Thanks for that, looks like I was fortunate then
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards