"For the price we pay.."

[Oceanklassik]

This thread stems from a recent thread where the service standards of the ROLEX Service Centre (RSC) Singapore was brought up for discussion. I've been talking to some like-minded friends and feel personally that it isn't right for the RSC to "confiscate" your watch's part(s) when you need any to be replaced.

For the benefit of those who hasn't know, when one brings in his/her ROLEX watch for service or repair and if any part of the watch needs replacement, RSC WILL/MUST take back that old part. You will still need to pay for the new part including the service.

Some questions came to mind:
1. Isn't that part of the watch that needed to be replaced paid for by you when you first bought the watch?
2. Don't you have the right to take back what you bought and owned?
3. How often had anyone here, through your watch purchase experience, been informed by the sales staff/dealer, that RSC has such an "unreasonable" policy at the point of purchase?

Do share your thoughts

[jieming]

It is consider "trade in." They are trying to stop the black market for parts, so they took back . Me too, prefer to have the parts back but what can we do?

[RolexSunday]

I personally do not mind SC to take back the old parts. Because if given to me I won't be using it anyway and ended up in the bin. I, however, will like them to be shown to me when I pick up my watch to verify the extend of the damage.

[pegasi]

This thread stems from a recent thread where the service standards of the ROLEX Service Centre (RSC) Singapore was brought up for discussion. I've been talking to some like-minded friends and feel personally that it isn't right for the RSC to "confiscate" your watch's part(s) when you need any to be replaced.

For the benefit of those who hasn't know, when one brings in his/her ROLEX watch for service or repair and if any part of the watch needs replacement, RSC WILL/MUST take back that old part. You will still need to pay for the new part including the service.

Some questions came to mind:
1. Isn't that part of the watch that needed to be replaced paid for by you when you first bought the watch?
2. Don't you have the right to take back what you bought and owned?
3. How often had anyone here, through your watch purchase experience, been informed by the sales staff/dealer, that RSC has such an "unreasonable" policy at the point of purchase?

Do share your thoughts

Re point 2 - I think RSC has that covered at the back of the acknowledgement slip (or whatever they call it) they issue to you when they take in the watch. I can't be 100% sure but I recall there was a clause out of the long list of terms & conditions that say they have the right to retain the parts they replace or something like that.

If that is the case, then answer to point 1 & 3 does not matter - at least where "legal rights" are concerned. I am not saying I am happy with such policy but I don't think it makes any difference even if one is told about such policy at the point of purchase.

[jieming]

In business sense . Rolex did very well. They appointed AD. Ask them to setup Rolex boutiques. Control parts market and ensure you can only go back to them . There is nothing you can do , unless you give up owning one .

[leslie]

In business sense . Rolex did very well. They appointed AD. Ask them to setup Rolex boutiques. Control parts market and ensure you can only go back to them . There is nothing you can do , unless you give up owning one .

I dun mind returning the old parts. but at least dun butcher watches. brand new watch 1 week old went in and came back like 2nd hand. like that might as well buy 2nd hand.

[Oceanklassik]

Re point 2 - I think RSC has that covered at the back of the acknowledgement slip (or whatever they call it) they issue to you when they take in the watch. I can't be 100% sure but I recall there was a clause out of the long list of terms & conditions that say they have the right to retain the parts they replace or something like that.

If that is the case, then answer to point 1 & 3 does not matter - at least where "legal rights" are concerned. I am not saying I am happy with such policy but I don't think it makes any difference even if one is told about such policy at the point of purchase.

I realized that part but isn't this "unfair practice"? I know companies can set up/create their own contractual terms in their business operations but it still has to be fair. Or they can be taken to Court. It's just that no one has ever (legally) put a challenge to ROLEX in relation to this policy. May be it's too small/insignificant a matter to challenge ROLEX in this aspect but it is frustrating when you cannot buy parts for your ROLEX watches 'off their shelves' like that. Or even keep your old parts so that you can put it back on your own later.

Seriously, have you guys ever wondered how those ROLEX watch parts you can get online/from overseas came from, if ROLEX is so stringent on releasing the sale of their parts? Where do our watch parts that they 'confiscated' go to anyway?

[Mezz72]

Aiyo obviously is "smuggled" out by rolex staff.
Just like those wrongly minted coins, wrongly printed stamps or currency notes.
Got out because of lapse in security checks.
Some are fakes of course so be careful.

[pegasi]

I realized that part but isn't this "unfair practice"? I know companies can set up/create their own contractual terms in their business operations but it still has to be fair. Or they can be taken to Court.

You are absolutely right about that, Oceankalssik. However, a "fair practice" does not only take into account the sole interest of the consumers but also that of the business.

Under our local Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, there is the following as one of the 20 "Specific Unfair Practices":

Taking advantage of a consumer by including in a consumer agreement terms or conditions that are harsh, oppressive or excessively one-sided so as to be unconscionable.

Is not being able to keep a defective part that is being replaced during a repair job harsh, oppressive and unconscionable? Not in my opinion but perhaps I am an easy customer

[pegasi]

Slightly off topic, but the watch community might be interested to know that the following 2 practices are also considered as unfair practices by law, under the CPFTA:

Representing that a service, part, repair or replacement is needed or desirable if that is not so, or that a service has been provided, a part has been installed, a repair has been made or a replacement has been provided, if that is not so.

Telling the customer that the product he bought needs repairing when there is no such need.

Example:
Falsely representing that a watch has been sent for servicing to the manufacturer's Service Centre when it has not. Or influencing the customer to send the watch for servicing when it is not due or necessary.

Representing that a particular person has offered or agreed to acquire goods and services whether or not at a stated price if he has not.

Falsely claiming that someone else is about to buy the goods, to put pressure on the consumer.

Example:
Consumer wanted to purchase an exclusive watch. Agent tried very hard to persuade her to complete purchase, maintaining that there was another interested buyer. Any delay would mean that the watch would be sold to someone else. However, there was no such other buyer.

Source of the above acts, including the examples: CASE. Interestingly, both use watches as the example

[triton]

any reason why sc don't show the parts replaced to customers when collecting watch?

I personally do not mind SC to take back the old parts. Because if given to me I won't be using it anyway and ended up in the bin. I, however, will like them to be shown to me when I pick up my watch to verify the extend of the damage.

[Oceanklassik]

Aiyo obviously is "smuggled" out by rolex staff.
Just like those wrongly minted coins, wrongly printed stamps or currency notes.
Got out because of lapse in security checks.
Some are fakes of course so be careful.

See what I mean?! Parts are "smuggled out" by their own staff!! And there you go, we are actually paying for them. In the first place, there should not be such a policy/practice. I recalled there was a member here who said he could buy original ROLEX accessories/parts freely from the RSC in another country. I remembered him/her posting pictures of how he/she modified ROLEX watches with the original accessories.

[Watcha]

I think it's unfair. If I buy Pepsi, I want my coke too.

[pegasi]

Does anyone know the practice/policy of the service centre of other popular high-end brands in similar situation?

Do they return you the defective parts that are replaced? Will they even replace the dial for you when it is still in good/perfect condition?

[pegasi]

Aiyo obviously is "smuggled" out by rolex staff.

Is this based on facts or hearsay or speculation? Maybe such thing did happen in the past but not anymore? Maybe those parts from unofficial channels are salvaged from old rolex watches/movements beyond repair? Maybe they are from another country where purchase of parts from RSC is/was allowed if what the other member (as recalled by Oceanklassik) claimed it was possible is true?

I am not in anyway related to RSC and am not trying to defend them. I am challenging some of these points just so that we view and discuss this topic (and other topics) in the most objective possible way.

The fundamental of fairness, is to me, being objective and fact-based