^^^^ No worries.

Guy

Sent from my XPERIA 5 III using Tapatalk

To start with, as so many others have said, a polite letter may do the job. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. U.K. consumer law is pretty robust although (as always) open to interpretation. Have a glance at the Customer Rights Act 2015.

Here's another car related anecdote: Many years ago I had a Skoda Favorit bought as all my cars are second hand. One day the head gasket went and it was taken to the nearest garage, a Ford dealer. They sorted it and we got a bill for over £400. A couple of years later, my father in law's Skoda Felicia (same engine) needed the same repair at our local Skoda dealership, who didn't charge for the repair as they said it was a known problem. Nothing ventured, nothing gained - I wrote to Skoda U.K. enclosing a copy of the bill, acknowledged that the job had been done at another dealership and asking if they would make a contribution to the cost. Almost by return of post I received a cheque for the full amount. Now that IS customer service done right (and why I drive a Skoda).

None of which helps your situation, but I hope you get better help from CW than you have experienced so far. Fingers crossed ...

Unless CW have very good reason for not honouring their warranty, they are in breach of contract. It is the watch which is covered under the warranty, not the owner and as such it is and always has been transferable. For the cost to CW to fix this issue, I cannot understand why they would not, as the damage to their reputation will be far greater. I, for one, no longer buy new CW watches and certainly wouldn't touch an SH21 model with a bargepole, too much of a risk. Add in the regular service cost (twice that of a Tudor) and in two service intervals you are at the price point of a Tudor, so for me, decision made.
Anyway, here's the basic and generic letter to request repair, tailor to suit your needs by adding any relevant details. It is simple and effective. check out the applicability with yourself being in the states.


Letter to ask for a faulty item to be repaired or replaced

[Your address]
[Company/ supplier address]
Dear
[Reference: contract number]

On [date] I [bought/placed an order for] a [item], received it on [date]. I have discovered that the [item] has the following problem: [add details]

The Consumer Rights Act makes it an implied term of the contract that goods be as described, of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. As you are in breach of contract I am entitled to have the [item] [repaired/replaced] and I would request that you confirm that you will do this within the next seven days.
I also require you to confirm whether you will arrange for the [item] to be collected or will reimburse me for the cost of returning it.
I look forward to hearing from you
Yours faithfully,
[Your name here]

jkbarnes wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 8:36 pm

H0rati0 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 8:26 pm CW have historically made it clear that the guarantee is transferable. They do not track owners but they know the date of sale. So should be no impediment there either.

I see that as the vague part. Do they put terms on the transferability, like having the paperwork? Do other watch manufactures put terms on the transferability? Do grey market sales complicate all this (not that that’s relevant to CW sales) I only wonder because one sees reference to “box & papers” in sales description.

True, but they have not argued that point at all, so let sleeping dogs lie! But the guarantee is definitely transferable, CW CS will tell you so and I have used it myself as a second owner with no questions as wrt paperwork though I do have it. I am not aware of any conditions, is anybody else?

I almost always buy SH, and I much prefer to stalk "box and papers" items. The reason being twofold:

1. less likelihood of a stolen/forged item
2. the previous owner most likely valued and hence was considerate of the whole package, most of all the condition of the watch itself

I do agree that CW could offer a compromise, but the watch is within warranty so why not 'fess up and be done with it?

I didn’t realise that NeWard was in the states. Me being me now starts to wonder whether CW would be acting like this with a UK owner - I’d bet they wouldn’t. There’s a very real possibility here that CW know that they hold the cards due to his/her location and it being more difficult for them to contest things from the States.

TigerChris wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 9:10 pm I didn’t realise that NeWard was in the states. Me being me now starts to wonder whether CW would be acting like this with a UK owner - I’d bet they wouldn’t. There’s a very real possibility here that CW know that they hold the cards due to his/her location and it being more difficult for them to contest things from the States.

I was thinking the same thing. Across the board, this doesn’t reflect well upon CW.

TigerChris wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 9:10 pm I didn’t realise that NeWard was in the states. Me being me now starts to wonder whether CW would be acting like this with a UK owner - I’d bet they wouldn’t. There’s a very real possibility here that CW know that they hold the cards due to his/her location and it being more difficult for them to contest things from the States.

Chris, that could well be true but if so is not only shabby and mean spirited, but a very poor decision. As they have made clear in the past the US is the most important market for them to to grow. A poor CS reputation is absolutely toxic in the US and without a US presence CW are already fighting with hands tied.

My own take: this is falling between the cracks, understandable but unacceptable, they need to get a grip.

Legally, there is nothing to stop Neward getting a judgment in a US court (they have a simplified small claims procedure too) though of course he would have to enforce in the UK. But really, for a 350 quid repair? CW should just make the OP whole.

nik

H0rati0 wrote:
. . . ... But really, for a 350 quid repair? CW should just make the OP whole.

nik

Nik,

Isn't the £350 / $500 cost for a Service that CW are saying needs to be done; for the warranty to be applicable (hotly being debated).

Semantics, I know.

Guy


Sent from my XPERIA 5 III using Tapatalk

Are CW just getting a little more formal dealing with warranty issues?

I think a 5 year guarantee should not need a (not free) 3 year service to maintain it. If that is the case just give a 3 year warranty from new, and a 2 year warranty for a service. ie don't go advertising a 60/60 and then try to avoid honouring it.

Secondly there are increasing stories about 60 day returns being disputed. I think they are on stronger ground with this one, but I think they do need to say precisely the condition they need, and if it's basically "unworn".

Bahnstormer_vRS wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 9:31 pm

Nik,

Isn't the £350 / $500 cost for a Service that CW are saying needs to be done; for the warranty to be applicable (hotly being debated).

Semantics, I know.

Guy


Sent from my XPERIA 5 III using Tapatalk

Guy

I think it all comes down to when is a guarantee not a guarantee? CW offered a five year movement guarantee, no mention of a service being required back then. They have since backtracked on that but at the time that was a condition of the sale and they are in breach of contract by denying it, I do believe.

But in perspective this is small beer, why be difficult and risk collateral damage?

nik

^^^ Reading this thread from start to finish the collateral damage is already done.

A car crash of a thread.

Seems quite bizarre to me. I get it that junior employees tend to follow guidance and instruction. But in a company with a small number of employees it shouldn’t be difficult for there to be oversight at a senior level.

I would be rather surprised and disappointed if MF has seen this and thinks it’s a good idea for CW to dig their heels in. He is a far better businessman than that.

The whole episode looks to be trying to change the rules after the event. Recent events indicate that is never a good idea. Almost like someone crashed the car…

Neil

Just read the thread too and it’s not a good look for the brand.

This refusal to honour the manufacturers guarantee. Other threads refusing 60/60 returns on unworn watches. A thread on CWE about a watch being returned post-service with a different, damaged bracelet (and CW refusing to remedy the situation). It seems like CW customer service is in serious need of an overhaul before they drag the entire company down. Or perhaps it's the other way around? The company needs to reduce CS costs to keep themselves afloat. No idea, just speculation on my part.

jkbarnes wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:44 pm I don’t see how CW can retroactively change the terms of a guarantee after the purchase of a watch. The change in terms won’t keep me from buying a CW, but I don’t consider it a 5 year guarantee.

Agreed. The guarantee change won't stop me from buying a CW, although I fully understand it's a 4 year guarantee, not 5. However, how CW chooses to conclude this particular matter WILL impact any future purchase decisions.

We’re caught somewhere between what is a legal requirement and what is the right thing to do.

I’ve worked with contract law on and off for the last 20 years and this case is nowhere near as cut and dried as some are suggesting. There are so many variables it’s likely that either side could win if a case was brought, but it’s not certain either way. It would be for a court to decide. If I were a betting man, I’d say the ruling would favour CW, but I’d be a fool to bet on this case! So sadly the suggestions of letters with thinly veiled legal threats are not likely to move things on very far.

So we come to what is the right thing to do, only CW can decide what they think that is. They will need to balance cost with reputation, of course. But even the most successful companies with the the best customer service will tell you the customer is not always right.

To get a result here, you will need to get CW do so something for you not because they have to but because they want to. So the suggestions of polite letters to Mike France, stating the case and capturing the disappointment are the way I would go.

I’m familiar with contract law when it comes to insurance; not far off from how it should apply to warranties I’d imagine.

If it came to a court case, I believe the court would decide in favor of the watch owner here.

When one party holds all the power in deciding the terms of a contract (no negotiation possible for the other party), it’s called a contract of adhesion. If there is a dispute over fulfilling the terms of the contract, and if the contract is not crystal clear (i.e. multiple interpretations of a term), then courts generally side with the interpretation from the side that had no power in negotiating the contract in the first place.

CW should not let it get that far though.