A mom has triumphed in a authorized battle towards luxurious division retailer Harrods, after it refused to refund her for a £4,550 Cartier gold bracelet deemed too small for her wrist.
Georgia Romain, a hypnotherapist from Kingston upon Thames, took the high-end Knightsbridge retailer to court with out authorized illustration. She had bought a Cartier “Love” bracelet on-line, however upon discovering it didn’t match, she returned it.
Harrods’ customer support crew rejected the return, alleging that Ms Romain had precipitated injury and scratches to the merchandise earlier than sending it again. The retailer knowledgeable her that the bracelet can be transferred to misplaced property if not reclaimed inside 30 days.
However, Ms Romain’s persistence paid off, with London’s Mayors and City County Court now awarding her £5,131 in compensation.
Deputy District Judge Elaine Vignoli dominated that Harrods had “failed on the balance of probabilities” to show the bracelet was returned with scratches. She additionally dismissed the declare that the 18-carat gold bangle was rendered nugatory by “minor scuffs and scratches” on its floor.
“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,” the decide added.
Ms Romain had dreamt of treating herself to the 18-carat bracelet, which the trial decide described as a “rather pretty, luxurious item”, for years.
But having purchased it on-line, she discovered it was “too small and didn’t fit right” and so organized for it to be returned in its field to Harrods in July 2025.
However, after an change of emails between her and Harrods, she was advised that the shop had “rejected” the return, and that it will be transferred to the corporate’s misplaced property until reclaimed inside 30 days.
Ms Romain, who’s in her 50s, sued Harrods at Mayor’s and City County Court, claiming she was due a refund or substitute of products below the Consumer Contracts Regulations.
Judge Vignoli mentioned Harrods’ customer support had taken a “pre-inspection video” of the bracelet after it was returned and examined, after they pinpointed alleged scratches and defects on the “soft” metallic of the bracelet.
The dispute between Ms Romain and the glitzy megastore finally hinged round her claims that Harrods had introduced inadequate proof that the bracelet they exhibited within the “pre-inspection video” was the one despatched again by Mrs Romain.
Soon after seeing this video final August, Ms Romain had emailed Harrods’ customer support crew difficult that, “how can I be sure this is the same item because it doesn’t show its unique serial number?” and suggesting that “the bracelet you’re holding in the pre-inspection video appears thicker than the one I ordered”.
But the next reply to her from Harrods made no point out of the video or lacking serial quantity, merely advising Ms Romain that her return had been “formally rejected” and that the bracelet “is legally now your property”.
Ruling in her favour, the decide defined: “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”, however the decide commented: “crucially I am provided with absolutely no evidence of this”.
She mentioned: “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.”
On high of that, Harrods had failed to supply strong proof in regards to the affect on worth brought on by the alleged defects, the court heard.
“This is a case which has turned very much on the evidence before the court and I am afraid to say that the defendants have been found wanting in this respect,” she concluded.
Harrods was ordered to pay out £4,550 for the returned bracelet, which, with gathered curiosity and court charges, means Ms Romain will stroll away with £5,131 in complete.
Ms Romain declared herself “very relieved” by the result outdoors court afterwards.
“I’m never buying from Harrods again,” she added, explaining that she had saved for years to purchase the Cartier bracelet, which she had set her coronary heart on getting for her personal birthday.
“I was saving for years, I wanted to treat myself,” she mentioned.
“I’m going back to saving now. No more spending like this.”
