He obviously being threatened with the legal stick, so I can half understand if he's panic deleting all his posts.
What I really want to see is the seller come on and give their side of the story...
I'd like to hear why the dealer refused a refund when they were legally obliged to do so based on the long distance selling rules. They clearly had no intention of honouring the OPs consumer rights. And when it comes to vilifying the OP it seems a little extreme, especially when he has been unfairly threatened with legal action.Originally Posted by ~dadam02~
Well they're clearly so ignorant as to not even know their legal obligations. A modern day Del Boy from all accounts.
I agree with most of what you're saying and feel it's right to reserve judgement on the OP.
Having said that, nowhere has (had) the op stated that he'd been threatened with legal action and it's not looking likely that he'll be back to clear things up anytime soon. I expect it's the last we'll see of him as he's had the result that he wanted.
It is still a useful reference wrt the dealer in question though.
Whatever the facts, should they emerge, the seller has had his reputation trashed regardless. It's a pity that the seller doesn't come forward with his own perspective which, as things stand, can do him no harm at all.
100% agree - the right result has been reached, so why not come on and tell their side. As I have no doubt they will have their own side to the story.
If the seller came on here, explained their side of the story, apologised sincerely (if an apology is due, which so far we have lead to be the case) then there's a chance that some form of credibility may be restored. Absolutely nothing to lose here, as it stands anyone who comes across this thread when doing any kind of research would understandably avoid the seller completely.
I'd simply like to see the watch back in the sellers stock.
I would like to hear from the OP regarding the post removal, but I won't hold my breath.
There's usually the same problem with these threads...we only hear one side of the story. Everything we have been told comes from the perspective of the OP, every word if it may well be true. But supposing there's another version of all this? I imagine most traders are wary of conducting their business in a forum, not least because it seems unprofessional.
If that were so, and I have no way of making any judgement, then the seller might have a very powerful case for libel, because, as has been pointed-out, his reputation must have been damaged.
The problem has been magnified in this case by the OP backtracking and removing his entries....which might lead the less generous among us to wonder just what has really been going on. It seems we may never know. Certainly intriguing
Whilst it's frustrating that posts have been deleted which may help others, it is good to know that the OP got his money back.
I understand that there are two sides to every story but having seen those pics... That is if they are the real pics...
Reading between the lines it looks like the OP might have been threatened with litigation. For all we know there might be very good reasons (eg career related) why he felt the need to comply with whatever demands might have been made by or on behalf of the retailer as a condition of avoiding proceedings. I think vilifying him using terms such as "spineless" is unfair and presumptuous when we don't know all the circumstances.
Let's imagine another version of events (which I have just made-up to illustrate the complexity of this...it's not based on any knowledge of this affair). Suppose the dealer pointed-out all the problems, and offered a price that reflected this? What then?
I'm not accusing anyone of behaving badly, I just can't know, especially when the OP doesn't seem to be standing by his own version. It's one thing to explain the outcome, and state that you are now content; it's quite another to start removing all the evidence , because a lot of people have already read it. Well done the moderators for standing steady.
It would be totally and utterly irrelevant.
The buyer was legally entitled to a refund within 14 days of purchase, without having to provide any justification or explanation - by all accounts, this refund was initially refused by the seller.
I guess that they must have discussed it with "the admins" at one of the regular Forum Management Conferences and come to that decision...
The sellers response to the email from a member here tells the tale.
It's not completely irrelevant. The OP is/was legally entitled to a full refund and that was initially denied, however the (alleged) dishonesty at the original point of sale may never have happened. This is also a key factor in all this, in terms of the honesty and integrity of the seller.
Last edited by CardShark; 14th February 2016 at 15:24.
FYI there's only 1 mod here and that's the forum's owner Eddie, the same chap that runs Timezone :-)
What's happened here, in my view, is the seller has huffed and puffed and threatened legal action, but offered the carrot of money back and no action if the posts are removed. The truth is that he would never take any legal action for two reasons:
1. It would cost more than the value of the watch just to get the ball rolling in any meaningful way - and an awful lot more to bring about any resolution.
2. He knows he's in the wrong and contravening distance selling regulations.
Point one is in no doubt. Sadly, I know this first hand! Point two is in no doubt whatsoever either, without any evidence from the OP. It's there for all to see on his website.
We won't hear from the seller because he doesn't have a side of the story which will play well. The top and bottom of it is that he had the guys money and didn't want to give it back. Simple as that really.
Should the OP want to come back and clear the air, I'd be glad to hear what he has to say, should the dealer have threatened legal action I think I'd be utilizing the legal cover that often comes bundled with home insurance and have my day in court but then not everyone is wired that way and I'd have to believe I was squeaky clean myself.
well it appears they've managed to change their returns policy to something more sensible now....
Interesting new terms. They seem to have realised now that consumer law applies to them, but haven't been able to resist putting a few more obstacles in the way of a refund which may or may not be legal. Apparently all watches have a 'security tag' which must not be removed or the right to refund is voided. Why? Security from what? My guess is that it's impossible to try he watch on or see it properly (and hence decide on suitability) without removing the tag.
They can put what ever terms they like. Consumer law stands regardless I would assume.
iconic has the same return policy. When i bought watches all had silly sticker. If i removed they would not accept return. Dont know really how it would work out as i have not had a need to return anything yet.
Last edited by stateless; 15th February 2016 at 00:07.
Exactly. Why do some companies think they can make up their own terms and conditions? You can't deviate from the law.
Really? Did the sticker? prevent you from seeing the watch properly. If so, that seems unreasonable, unless the law is designed to allow you to cool off (have a change of mind) rather than assess the quality and suitability of what you've bought.
In theory loads of companies have wierd return policies and almost all of them state that "This does not affect your statutory rights".... they will play hard game but if you state clearly thats its against the law they have to comply... the law isn't very clear hence some retailers try their luck...
Im not sure how Pc World is getting away with Apple products... if you open the box you allegedly "can't" return it unless it's faulty.... but then it falls into the domain of warranty...
I see their point with this; fantasist orders flash watch, wears it out and about for 12 days to impress thick mates and the laydeez, then returns it legally for a full refund. I really don't blame them for trying to prevent that with a sticker!
Good point. Although most of the Walter Mitty types I've known don't have the money to shell out on a decent watch in the first place, even on a credit card.
As a retailer, sometimes it does feel like the law is stacked in favour of the consumer, but when you get a dodgy case like this, you can see why.
I bought from Iconic Watches and remember particularly asking them about distance selling regulations and the girl I dealt with insisted I was not entitled to return the watch for a refund if I wasn't happy. When I mentioned distance selling rules she was not able to provide a decent response and then copied my email to the owner but stupidly put in a remark about me being an idiot which the owner forgot to delete when he replied to me!
I remeber him telling me that because they have to source their watches and aren't from stock that distance selling doesn't apply or something of that ilk.
Unberleavable, has anyone here sent a watch back to Iconic other than faulty or not as described etc.
I'm glad I never dealt with them now if that's how they behave toward prospective purchasers
Wow.... wasn't expecting that from Iconic.... have you brought up the remark in the email???
Oh yeah, he apologised. It didn't stop me buying from them and I'd buy from them again.
Having looked at Iconic terms and conditions, they seem to get around the regulations by saying that they are sourcing the watch and this is a SERVICE, rather than selling goods at a distance. I assume the regulations don't apply to a service, but I don't know for sure.
I doubt they would make that stick - what do they charge for this service and do they itemise it on your invoice?
They are a retailer, you buy the product from the retailer and pay the money to the retailer, the contract of sale is with the retailer, therefore they are bound by the same laws as any other UK retailer and I'd be very surprised if any UK court saw it differently, unless Iconic make the legal difference (if there is one) very clear at point of purchase and not buried deep within a list of T&Cs.
Of course, I could be wrong.
From the Iconic T&C's....
1.4 In addition to the above, you cancellation rights outlined in clause 9.1 do not apply in the case of non-stock watches that are ordered from third parties. The “sourcing” of non-stock watches in this instance can be classed as the supply of a service (as opposed to the supply of goods).
They can twist the T&Cs the want but it wont stand in the court.... this could work if they charged only a service fee which is their margin and you paid the remaing balance to the main supplier but in this case they charge you for the whole watch which means they have bought it from a supplier like any other business to sell it on with a profit therefore it is sale of the goods...
My thoughts exactly but who wants to go through the pain of testing it out?
Ahem….TimeFactors!
Thought that, typed the other. D'oh.
Thats how I see it. I think they are trying to get round the law with this clause.
I don't think so. If they're ordering a watch in especially for you as it's not in stock, then it's a 'custom order'. Lots of places offer no refund on customised products e.g. those with your name on etc. I would guess it's a legitimate exclusion to distance selling regs as they're not standard in-stock items. You can't expect a dealer to order in a less popular model just for you and be stuck with it if you then decide you don't want it.
Money talks, eh?
But if you go on Iconic's web site they have hundreds of models advertised for sale most of which are non stock items. So it's hardly custom order, you're buying primarily because they're advertising a watch at a good price which you respond to.
But they're listing what they can obtain for you, as a service
Isn't it odd though how they are so keen to "hide" this service, buried in the T&Cs, until something goes wrong.But they're listing what they can obtain for you, as a service
You'd think they'd be much more obvious about it.
Cynical? Moi?
I would have thought it was obvious that if they have to order something in for you specially that different rules may apply. It's quite often the case.
There is a thread specifically about Iconic which is currently on the forum's first page; that may perhaps be an easier place for people researching Iconic to find such comments in due course. FWIW, I think what has been highlighted with them is a minor issue (though I don't dispute it) and that Iconic's many satisfied forum members are a greater indication of their bona fides.
This thread relates to the OP's position with www.ukspecialistwatches.co.uk.
General comment might apply :
I find it difficult to believe that most threats of legal action are serious.
Bringing any legal action legal is expensive in time and money, its outcome uncertain ("it may have been my son / colleague / that exotic dancer from Pwllheli who knew my log in, Password1, and wrote some of those posts, but in any case here is the evidence that supports what they said.....") and the risk that the litigant will actually recover any award / costs judged in their favour is an unknown.
When a subject has already attracted thousands of interested viewers without any legal activity, one can only imagine what an audience it would attract on all the watch fora if such an action were indeed initiated. Any dealer (but especially one with a predominant internet trade, rather than a physical store) who brings an action against a retail client would risk destroying his own business from hundreds of thousands who might read the internet coverage arising.
There are always additional, unforeseen consequences. For example, we read earlier that, in this instance, there is a link to the website www.ukspecialistcars.com (indeed, the mobile number 07874 223456 is given on both websites). It would be most unfortunate if publicity spread (deservedly or otherwise) to websites like www.pistonheads.com (which many of us who like cars as well as watches frequent), such that this grew into an ever wider issue.
i think that a single, comprehensive post from either party explaining what had happened would be the best way to "close this matter down."
Until then, people will continue to draw their own conclusions and that may not be in anyone's best interests.
16,895 views in 13 days !
H
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 15th February 2016 at 11:18.
Yes please back on the subject!
I still want to see the OP or the dealer to explain themselves....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote