Mum awarded £5,000 over ‘too small’ Cartier bracelet that Harrods refused to take back

A mum has won a David versus Goliath court fight against Harrods after the luxury store refused to give her a refund for a £4,550 Cartier gold bracelet that was too small to fit on her wrist.

Georgia Romain said she saved up for years before treating herself to the ‘Love’ bracelet for her birthday, only to end up having to send it back when it didn’t fit.

But the customer service team at Harrods ‘rejected’ the return and accused her of damaging the jewellery, saying it would instead be sent to lost property unless she reclaimed it within 30 days.

Ms Romain, a hypnotherapist from Kingston upon Thames, decided to sue the iconic department store without any legal help – and has now been awarded £5,131 in compensation.

A judge at London’s Mayors and City County Court said Harrods had ‘failed on the balance of probabilities’ to prove the item was returned by Ms Romain with scratches on it.

Deputy District Judge Elaine Vignoli also refused to accept that the 18-carat gold bangle was now worthless because of the ‘minor scuffs and scratches’ on its surface.

‘Harrods said that the bracelet is worth nothing to us because we can’t resell it, but I’m not quite sure I can agree with that – if it is genuinely worthless, I would happily take it home with me,’ she added.

Ms Romain had dreamt of treating herself to the 18-carat bracelet for many years, which the trial judge herself described as a ‘rather pretty, luxurious item’.

But having bought it online, she found it was ‘too small and didn’t fit right’ and so arranged for it to be returned in its box to Harrods in July last year.

Ms Romain, who is in her 50s, sued Harrods at Mayor’s and City County Court, claiming she was due a refund or replacement of goods under the Consumer Contracts Regulations.

Judge Vignoli said Harrods’ customer service had taken a ‘pre-inspection video’ of the bracelet after it was returned and examined, when they pinpointed alleged scratches and defects on the ‘soft’ metal of the bracelet.

The dispute between Ms Romain and the megastore ultimately hinged around her claims that Harrods had presented insufficient evidence that the bracelet they exhibited in the ‘pre-inspection video’ was the one sent back by Mrs Romain.

Soon after seeing this video last August, Ms Romain emailed Harrods’ customer service team.

She asked, “how can I be sure this is the same item because it doesn’t show its unique serial number?”, and suggested ‘the bracelet you’re holding in the pre-inspection video appears thicker than the one I ordered’.

But the subsequent reply to her from Harrods made no mention of the video or missing serial number, simply advising Ms Romain that her return had been ‘formally rejected’ and that the bracelet ‘is legally now your property’.

Ruling in her favour, the judge explained: ‘In order for Harrods’ defence to succeed, I must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that when they received the bracelet from Ms Romain it contained the same damage and the same scratches.

‘But I am afraid there was a lack of evidence from the defendants before me today to satisfy me on that point.

‘I find their position in the emails to be frankly staggering.

‘Ms Romain made a very reasonable request in respect of an item of not insignificant value, she made a very reasonable request to be sent a video with some evidence showing the unique serial number on the item she had bought with scratches – and that was flatly refused for reasons beyond me.’

Lawyers for Harrods insisted that the bracelet would have been ‘secured safely and handled carefully along the way’, but the judge said she had seen ‘absolutely no evidence of this’.

‘So, I have determined that Harrods have failed on the balance of probabilities to prove that it was returned by Ms Romain with scratches on it,’ she added.

On top of that, Harrods had failed to produce solid evidence about the impact on value caused by the alleged defects, the court heard.

Harrods was ordered to pay out £4,550 for the returned bracelet, which, with accumulated interest and court fees, means Ms Romain will walk away with £5,131 in total.

A smiling Ms Romain declared herself ‘very relieved’ by the outcome outside court afterwards.

‘I’m never buying from Harrods again,’ she added, explaining that she had saved for years to buy the Cartier bracelet, which she had set her heart on getting for her own birthday.

‘I was saving for years, I wanted to treat myself,’ she said.

‘I’m going back to saving now. No more spending like this.’

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.

For more stories like this, check our news page.

Comments Add as preferred source