Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • hollie.weimeraner
    • By hollie.weimeraner 12th Jan 18, 7:54 PM
    • 1,522Posts
    • 996Thanks
    hollie.weimeraner
    Sad Fart works (Eventually)
    • #1
    • 12th Jan 18, 7:54 PM
    Sad Fart works (Eventually) 12th Jan 18 at 7:54 PM
    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
Page 1
    • powerful_Rogue
    • By powerful_Rogue 12th Jan 18, 8:01 PM
    • 3,398 Posts
    • 4,972 Thanks
    powerful_Rogue
    • #2
    • 12th Jan 18, 8:01 PM
    • #2
    • 12th Jan 18, 8:01 PM
    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
    Originally posted by hollie.weimeraner
    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.
    • Fosterdog
    • By Fosterdog 12th Jan 18, 8:03 PM
    • 3,831 Posts
    • 6,626 Thanks
    Fosterdog
    • #3
    • 12th Jan 18, 8:03 PM
    • #3
    • 12th Jan 18, 8:03 PM
    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!
    • powerful_Rogue
    • By powerful_Rogue 12th Jan 18, 8:07 PM
    • 3,398 Posts
    • 4,972 Thanks
    powerful_Rogue
    • #4
    • 12th Jan 18, 8:07 PM
    • #4
    • 12th Jan 18, 8:07 PM
    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!
    Originally posted by Fosterdog
    Oops, I missed that part!

    I agree, Beaverbooks have gone above and beyond in this situation.
    • hollie.weimeraner
    • By hollie.weimeraner 12th Jan 18, 8:25 PM
    • 1,522 Posts
    • 996 Thanks
    hollie.weimeraner
    • #5
    • 12th Jan 18, 8:25 PM
    • #5
    • 12th Jan 18, 8:25 PM
    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!
    Originally posted by Fosterdog
    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.
    • powerful_Rogue
    • By powerful_Rogue 12th Jan 18, 8:29 PM
    • 3,398 Posts
    • 4,972 Thanks
    powerful_Rogue
    • #6
    • 12th Jan 18, 8:29 PM
    • #6
    • 12th Jan 18, 8:29 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by hollie.weimeraner
    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.
    • hollie.weimeraner
    • By hollie.weimeraner 12th Jan 18, 8:49 PM
    • 1,522 Posts
    • 996 Thanks
    hollie.weimeraner
    • #7
    • 12th Jan 18, 8:49 PM
    • #7
    • 12th Jan 18, 8:49 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by powerful_Rogue
    Thanks for that, looks like I was fortunate then
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,138Posts Today

8,135Users online

Martin's Twitter