# Werners Flying Watches - Postage Refund



## bill (Oct 16, 2004)

I ordered an R5 from Werners a couple of weeks ago, which arrived reasonably quickly.

When I opened the box the watch was very nice, in fact it was a great looking watch.

The only problem is the case had a â€˜dingâ€™ in the side opposite the crown. It was approximately 2mm long but quite deep, and I obviously felt that the watch should not have been supplied to me with this sort of damage.

I emailed â€˜Nickâ€™ and advised him of the problem asking for a replacement watch. He told me he had no replacement R5â€™s.

I therefore asked for a refund of the price of the watch and the cost of the return postage (why should I be liable for the cost when the watch should not have been posted to me in a damaged condition). I then posted the watch back to Werners using special delivery.

I then heard nothing for a few days so I emailed Werners and asked for confirmation that the refund had been made, including the cost of postage.

I received a very cryptic response saying the refund had been made â€˜as per the terms and conditions of our siteâ€™

I then asked whether I had received a full refund of the watch price and the cost of the return postage and received the following.

_â€˜Hi There,_

No,we have refunded the original Â£82.95.

Sorry,but wont be responsible for postage in circumstances like this.

Nick at WSEâ€™

I sent an email back saying I would be interested to know what circumstances a refund of postage would be made, as I feel I had been sent a watch that should not have been sent to me in the first place (it just happened to be the last one in stock as well).

It is especially gaulling as 'Nick' sets the watches up before he posts them, so he would have been aware of the 'ding' on my watch.

Would you guys expect a trader to refund postage on a watch that was sent out to you in a damaged condition?


----------



## PaulBoy (Dec 2, 2007)

You are right to be less than impressed with this (lack of) customer service Bill - I'll be keeping well away from this supplier ... Paul :thumbsup:


----------



## pinkwindmill (Aug 17, 2006)

PaulBoy said:


> You are right to be less than impressed with this (lack of) customer service Bill - I'll be keeping well away from this supplier ... Paul :thumbsup:


Agreed - I've had this with an Ebay trader when he labelled the bracelet as a 20mm and it was in fact 18mm.









It's a shame because I though Werners had a decent rep.

Cheers,

Guy


----------



## jbw (May 6, 2008)

When i ordered my R7 online i got the confirmation e-mail saying i would receive the

watch the next day...After 3 days i rang up and spoke to Nick and asked if there was

a problem...he said they could not get the funds from my credit card , He told me he

had tried to ring me and also e-mailed a few times (No e-mail or phonecalls).The watch

arived the next day...He had put in a wrong no for my credit card! As for paying for the

return postage...definately not!


----------



## feenix (May 27, 2008)

Perhaps you should get him to have a look at this website http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/.../page38102.html

drawing his attention to this section _"When consumers exercise their right to cancel they are under a duty to take reasonable care of the goods and to â€œrestoreâ€ them to the supplier. The term â€œrestoreâ€ does not permit the supplier to demand that the consumer send back or deliver the goods, but only that the goods are made available to the supplier for collection. "_


----------



## bill (Oct 16, 2004)

I've had a follow up email from Nick, saying among other things, that the 'ding' on the watch was insignificant, and they they've resold the watch to a customer who was aware or the damage.

Iâ€™ve chosen not to get into a email war with the guy, but it seems strange that heâ€™s willing to give a refund on the watch (damage unseen,), and then call the damage insignificant, I donâ€™t know about you guys, but any mark on my watches is very significant.

Unfortunately when I buy something described as new, and â€˜limited editionâ€™ I expect it to be in perfect condition, especially since if I sell any marks will affect its resale value.


----------



## Toshi (Aug 31, 2007)

bill said:


> I've had a follow up email from Nick, saying among other things, that the 'ding' on the watch was insignificant, and they they've resold the watch to a customer who was aware or the damage.


I think the key phrase here is "who was aware or the damage". If the new buyer is happy with the watch knowing about the damage, that's fine, but to insinuate that you should have been happy too is wrong IMO. It would have been different had you neen "aware of the damage" when you made the purchase, but you weren't, so actually the fact that they successfully re-sold the watch and / or the present owners satisfaction is insignificant to the original issue.


----------



## MIKE (Feb 23, 2003)

If it's the chap from Telford who also has a site selling MWC and the like, I've read other tales of woe on the different watch forums :cry2:

At least you got _most _of your money back 

Can't argue with the principle of, the watch should never had been sent out so why should you be liable for return postage!

Mike


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

Under distance selling regulations the vendor must supply "clear and comprehensible "prior information" "

Regarding returns the contract with the consumer should specify who pays any postage necessary to return unwanted goods.

If his site conforms to these rules then there isn't a lot you can do. If it doesn't ...


----------



## Chally2 (Jul 11, 2008)

Thanks for the heads up Bill, I'll shop elsewhere.

The pound may not be worth much but sensible retailers will be trying to attract as many customers as they can instead of losing them, particularly in the current financial climate.

This is one dealer I'll be happy not to feed my pounds to.


----------



## axys (Sep 25, 2007)

From the Office of Fair Trading guidance for business on distance selling:

"3.57 If the goods are faulty or do not comply with the contract, [the trader] will have to pay for their return whatever the circumstances."

I was about to order a watch from this guy, he seems to be held in god like status on the pistonheads forum, but I'll go elsewhere now.


----------



## Boxbrownie (Aug 11, 2005)

axys said:


> From the Office of Fair Trading guidance for business on distance selling:
> 
> "3.57 If the goods are faulty or do not comply with the contract, [the trader] will have to pay for their return whatever the circumstances."
> 
> I was about to order a watch from this guy, he seems to be held in god like status on the pistonheads forum, but I'll go elsewhere now.


Conditions from his site

"Cancellations of any orders must be placed within 7 working days. Regretfully, Werners Flying Watches are unable to accept returns for goods that have been worn (Except, of course, in the unlikely event of a fault). It is the customer's duty to pay for the cost of returning goods. In addition he/she will be charged a 10% re-stock fee plus postage and packaging (The re-stock fee, again, not applicable in the unlikely even of a fault on reciept). All sealed items are not covered by this cancellation charge."

So I guess the fair trading laws do not apply to him?


----------



## axys (Sep 25, 2007)

He does sort of cover himself by the last sentence on the terms page 'Your statutory rights will not affected.' Yes, its got a word missing, but the point is that he can say what he wants, but nothing will override the law. Itâ€™s a try on. Given that well over 300 have read this thread, he's probably lost a few sales because of it, so that Â£5 or so he held back has cost him a lot of money.


----------



## skyMAX08 (Aug 21, 2008)

Good comment,reading this thread has stopped me buying from them.


----------

