Once again some faceless bureaucrat has dared to cross swords with me. He may win but, it will cost him dearly. We purchased a Seiko watch for Adam as a Christmas gift and doing the usual price search found that Amazon UK had the best deal albeit from an American dealer. Watch arrives and is in perfect condition, works fine until about end of January when the adjustment button for the day date fails miserably.
Not to worry says I, it is guaranteed. However, no local Seiko dealer would touch it as it originated from over the pond, where the hell do they think Seiko watches are made, Stoke On Trent? I had contacted Mr Watch the Yanks and they said no problem send it off to Seiko and they will fix it under guarantee.
Seiko customer services sent me several letters explaining why they would attempt to welsh on their obligations because: I had not sent them a guarantee card (thing is like a small bible, not surprised it was not sent from USA with watch) The watch was probably too old, sent them copy of receipt. I would have to pay £56.42 for service and repair, cost of watch £51.20. Finally the idiot claims I had broke the watch because I attempted to change the date between the forbidden hours of 9 pm and 4 am!
Below are copies of my replies, hope they may inspire you next time some moron tries to pull a fast one.
First response:
Dear Christopher,
Please find enclosed copy of original email and reply from supplier Mr Watch, with whom the order was placed via Amazon UK. You will clearly see that this company is under the impression that returning the watch to yourselves with the proof of purchase would be sufficient to facilitate a repair for a product that your company generally guarantee for a full two years.
As you quite correctly pointed out the watch itself was despatched to me from the United States and therefore it was packed with protection in mind and a reduction in the weight of package was achieved, by removing the watch from the bulky presentation box. I am also assuming this is where the bulky warranty booklet was parted from your product. I was not, originally, unduly worried about this because, as previously stated I have already owned and purchased several of your watches without any fault.
Your returns policy requests the senders to supply the watch reference numbers from the back case of the watch. I would have thought, had you still doubts of my honesty, that you would have been able to track this registration number back through your systems to validate any authenticity you require.
As a world wide organisation I am rather surprised that you take the view that only watches purchased in the UK are suitable for repair under terms of the warranty. What would you ask someone to do if they had visited Japan and purchased a watch whilst on holiday, return to Japan with proof of purchase? Though I do not profess to be an expert on Contract Law, I do believe that goods purchased “mail order” should still be guaranteed by the manufacturer and I am frankly more than disappointed by the response to what I considered to be a simple request.
Where I a gambling man I would think the odds would be even at worse, that most production of Seiko watches has been switched to mainland China where; overheads, labour and component costs are much lower than mainland Japan or Europe. Furthermore, having worked in manufacturing and purchasing I would be willing to bet that the manufacturing cost of the watch was no more than a third, at most, of the retail cost and yet you still have the audacity to quote me a service and postage deal equivalent to 110% of the retail purchase price.
In short, retail cost £45.40, estimated manufacturing cost £15.14. Now if an international company like Seiko cannot repair, NOT replace a watch of that value under the terms of warranty, but rather keep finding technicalities to avoid their moral obligations, then I think it is a poor show. The repair itself must surely cost less that the manufacturing so I put it to you that I am not out to defraud your company of millions, but rather want to get a faulty watch repaired without having to pay more than the original purchase price.
May I remind you of Seiko Europe’s mission statement:
Our commitment has always been to provide our customers with the best products and unrivalled service. I see no mention here of ripping the customer off by getting them to pay more than the watch is worth to have a fault repaired whilst still under warranty. Meanwhile I am left feeling I have taken on the role of John Cleese in the Dead Parrot Sketch. All I want is for your company, which I still believe to be a reputable company providing a good line of products, to do the equitable thing and repair the watch free of charge as it is still under your two year warranty. What are you going to ask for next? A copy of the warranty on a tablet of stone?
Enough. If we cannot come to an agreement shortly I am herby serving notice that I will feel compelled to take up the matter with the small claims court. I do not intend to keep sending letters re-stating my case until the warranty period expires. I do hope this finally clarifies my position and expectations.
Second response:
Dear Christopher,
In response to your letter dated 8th March 2011, replying to my letter dated 24 March 2011, I was quite shocked to see that your powers now include ‘time travel’, or had you already drafted this response?
I am not very happy with the level of service or attitude I have received to date from the Seiko Corporation and feel it is more in line with that of an Arab market trader than a multinational company. Quite clearly you have made little or no attempt to resolve my problem equitably.
I was quite insulted by the remark that the fault, in the considered opinion of your ‘workshop supervisor’, was caused ‘as a result of accidental damage’ because, in the illustrated guide to date/day change supplied by yourself, the watch had been reset between the hours of 9pm and 4am. Your team must be quite astounding in their never ending abilities. Just by looking at the watch they can determine that we attempted to set the day and date within the ‘forbidden time’ period. A skill I doubt that the combined powers of Sherlock Holmes and the complete NCIS team could match.
It is not clear at this point whether this claim of self damage is based on an outright lie or just plain old fashioned total lack of knowledge of the product range of Seiko watches. You will clearly see from the copy of the instruction leaflet in my possession (copy enclosed) that changing the date within this time period will not cause the watch to self destruct but, rather may result in an inaccurate change of the day/date.
As previously stated I am well familiar with the Seiko watch brand having purchased no less than four men’s day/date watches and four ladies models with the same function and in addition a further ladies battery powered dress watch. Up until this last purchase I have never encountered any problem with changing and resetting the dates, even when, as is so often the case, there is a dual language reading for the day.
I would also like to point out that in the copy of the leaflet you forwarded to me the large illustration clearly shows the time at the classic display setting of 10:10 with no regard as to PM or AM indicated. In fact there are two identical illustrations of the watch face with the instructions alongside and then we come to the footnote displayed in a smaller font, where there is no warning of any dire consequences that may occur as a result of failing to comply with this after thought. Your leaflet may need some redesigning. However, that is immaterial as changing the day date outside these hours actually does the mechanism of the watch no harm at all.
The general attitude of the response to what I consider a simple request to supply the watch in good working order as per the Sale of Goods Acts has been to say the least been very disappointing and has done the Seiko company’s reputation no good whatsoever. I no longer feel able to recommend your products and I am unlikely to make any further purchases of this brand.
I hereby serve notice that unless my watch is returned in good and full working order, under the terms of the warranty free of charge by Thursday 21st April 2011 I will be referring the matter to the Small Claims Court. In addition I will be claiming for full costs, including postage and correspondence and ask for a small sum of compensation for the period of time I have been deprived of the use of the watch because of your stalling tactics.
Just to put the icing on the cake I sent a copy of my last letter to the MD Hiro Ouchi (what a great name) informing him that his customer service department had pissed me off and were doing the company no favours.