Rolex purchased from reputable shop reported stolen by Rolex

[Hollie_Rollie]

Originally Posted by ArtNouveau

The company that sold it to you has taken responsibility for their mistake and offered your money back, not sure what you expect beyond that. I’d take the money and find a watch to replace it, the other one is gone.

Exactly. Perhaps they will even give you a good deal on a replacement for your inconvenience


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gamingdoctor]

From the first post this seems like a larger shop network.

I would ask them to replace the watch. 100% they are aware that OP's watch would appreciate in value. I also would not be happy with a refund.

If it were a smaller mom and pop store, I would be more inclined to just get my money back.

[GST15]

This is exactly why I only buy Rolex new from the AD. I hear all the chatter on this site about Trusted Sellers. Sometimes even the trusted sellers are taken advantage of, as in this case. Also counterfeit watches are so good now that even professionals can be fooled. Be patient, wait for the watch you want from the AD. It's the only way to be 100% sure. JMHO

[petay993]

Never buy Rolex without B & P unless vintage.

Modern Rolex without papers means there is quite possibly a story....like this.

Take the money and breathe a sigh of relief that the dealer is fronting up!

[iangbris]

Originally Posted by petay993

Never buy Rolex without B & P unless vintage.

Modern Rolex without papers means there is quite possibly a story....like this.

Take the money and breathe a sigh of relief that the dealer is fronting up!

It is vintage


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NigeG]

https://www.watchpro.com/west-london...rth-1-million/

Could it be one from this little lot?

As the watch came from a reputable dealer, with a number of locations up and down the UK, it can only be a handful of businesses that fit that description. The OP also states they currently have more than 200 Rolex in stock.

Whilst it’s certainly not a great story I do think the Selling Dealer is doing the right thing. A full refund is exactly the right course of action.

If the OP’s Son is really attached to this particular watch I would suggest taking the full refund. Talk with the Loss Adjuster at the Insurance Company, that are now the legal owner of it, and try to do a deal to buy it back. Hopefully at a price that is close to the actual amount being refunded.

Then it probably needs to go back for the service as I doubt Rolex will have finished the work once they established it was stolen.

If the Son is not that attached to it: ask the Dealer to provide a similar watch of the same age. Hopefully they’re smart enough to see the benefits of “over compensating” the OP for their due diligence failure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NigeG]

Originally Posted by iangbris

It is vintage


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What is it? I gathered it’s probably mid ‘90’s from your posts above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by ArtNouveau

The company that sold it to you has taken responsibility for their mistake and offered your money back, not sure what you expect beyond that. I’d take the money and find a watch to replace it, the other one is gone.

Looking back over all the replies, this is probably the route I’d go

[Calatrava r]

Whenever a watch turns out to be stolen, someone finally gets stuck with the loss. Asking some innocent purchaser along the line to assume more than the loss is not really equitable if you aren't getting stuck with the loss. Just be glad it is not you getting stuck with the loss, i.e. the price paid.

[mml4]

Consider yourself very fortunate to have recouped your original investment. One must realize the added risk assumed when purchasing from a non authorized dealer.
Congratulations on recovering your money. Not many are as lucky as you!
Marc

[iangbris]

Originally Posted by Calatrava r

Whenever a watch turns out to be stolen, someone finally gets stuck with the loss. Asking some innocent purchaser along the line to assume more than the loss is not really equitable if you aren't getting stuck with the loss. Just be glad it is not you getting stuck with the loss, i.e. the price paid.

Let’s not be naive, we all pay for the loss, that’s how it works. Luxury goods get stolen, insurers pay out, our premiums go up.

The loss is to my son who has had his 21st birthday present taken off him. That is the only loss that interests me.

I have many options that I will explore but it is clear that some people on here have an opinion on what making it right is, that differs from mine. I’m fine with that and I’m not here to argue over any of it.

This will be resolved one way or another and I’ll update the thread when it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[iangbris]

Originally Posted by mml4

Consider yourself very fortunate to have recouped your original investment. One must realize the added risk assumed when purchasing from a non authorized dealer.
Congratulations on recovering your money. Not many are as lucky as you!
Marc

My son and I don’t consider ourselves fortunate at all. This is the worst experience you can go through buying and owning a luxury watch. If the watch was another brand and now £1500 on the open market, I’m pretty sure I’d be getting a replacement.

Unfortunately Rolex didn’t sell neo vintage birth year watches at the time so I bought from the best place to mitigate the risk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by iangbris

Let’s not be naive, we all pay for the loss, that’s how it works. Luxury goods get stolen, insurers pay out, our premiums go up.

The loss is to my son who has had his 21st birthday present taken off him. That is the only loss that interests me.

I have many options that I will explore but it is clear that some people on here have an opinion on what making it right is, that differs from mine. I’m fine with that and I’m not here to argue over any of it.

This will be resolved one way or another and I’ll update the thread when it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get what you're saying. That sucks. I feel your pain, I really do.

Looking forward to hearing the update and hopefully it will be a positive one.

[Oxfordian]

You've been offered a full refund, that is a good result take it.

That you're p!ssed about your son losing his 21st present I understand, that you're p!ssed about it being his birth year watch I understand.

But.

Just be careful that your frustrations don't cause you to end up with less than what has been offered.

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by iangbris

My son and I don’t consider ourselves fortunate at all. This is the worst experience you can go through buying and owning a luxury watch. If the watch was another brand and now £1500 on the open market, I’m pretty sure I’d be getting a replacement.

Unfortunately Rolex didn’t sell neo vintage birth year watches at the time so I bought from the best place to mitigate the risk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I think the person burglarized had a far worse experience. The seller you purchased from either did poor diligence or turned a blind eye (or both) OR was duped by a more sophisticated method of covering tracks…

There is risk in buying used items of high value. Stuff happens.

[ratty]

Originally Posted by iangbris

Hi all,
...

Rolex, as per their policy have retained the watch ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm interested to hear about this as it has also happened to me.

I took a watch in to Rolex for service only to find that they had it recorded as reported stolen.

They did not / could not retail the watch as they have no legal power to do so. A company can have any policy they want, but that does not make it legally enforceable in the UK.

Rolex were very good about it and told me that I could either leave the watch with them or take it back. If I left it with them they would look into things along with the police, if I did not leave it with them they would not look into things, which I was a bit surprised about. I decided to keep the watch as I would be in a far stronger position having the watch in my possession and under my control.

I obtained a copy of my proof of purchase on the same day and took this into Rolex London where they took a copy of this to add to their file. I have to say that Rolex UK were very good about this matter. They were helpful when they saw my proof of purchase and their customer services department liaised with the insurance company involved in the claim. I was contacted by the insurance company who were also very helpful.

It transpired that I had bought the watch in, let's say, 2017. I bought the watch from Watch Club in London, a well established company. In, let's say, 2020 I had to get the watch valued by an independent valuation company for insurance purposes. The watch was then reported stollen by someone in, let's say, 2022. I then take it to Rolex in, let's say, 2024! Can you see the problem here? It was reported stollen after I had bought it. I had proof of purchase and proof of possession not only before the 'theft' but also after it!

The insurance claim was total fiction! I do wonder where the person who made the claim obtained the information that a certain model of watch had a certain serial number though! It does make me wonder about when the watch was valued by an independent valuation company who had access to the watch and it's serial number. The claim was made using a receipt from a London jeweller where the claimant alleged that they bought the watch.

Now, knowing this, how would you have felt if Rolex had decided to retain the watch, MY watch!

There is a principle in law, certainly in the UK, of 'buying in good faith'. This can be very complicated, but neither Rolex or anyone else's policy can override the law of the land. For them to do so, there would have to be legislation which allows a private individual, not the police, to retail or seize property against the owner's will. Remember, I was the owner in this case, and so was the OP until it is proved otherwise. If anyone can provide details of such legislation in the UK, I would be interested in seeing it. In my experience, this situation could result in a civil law case between the insurer and the person who later bought the watch in good faith. This is why I think it was good advice by the person on here who suggested that the OP should contact the insurer directly to discus the matter.

I want to say that when Rolex UK told me that the watch was reported stolen it was a bit of a shock. I think the way the staff at Rolex London dealt with the situation was brilliant. I have been in there on numerous occasions prior to this which probably / possibly helped, but there was no question about them keeping the watch against my will. The person I spoke to on the desk, on the day, was very helpful and understanding, as was the person in customer services who I dealt with later on.

I also want to say that the person I spoke to at Watch Club in London was also very helpful. They provided me with proof of purchase whilst I waited and offered to help in any way they could if requested. I have bought from them before and I would certainly buy from them again.

The insurance investigator, who I will not name, was also very helpful both during the investigation and after it assuring me that the watch had been taken off all known lists of stolen watches.

Following this, Rolex also sent me an email as proof that my watch had been taken off their 'stolen' list.

[SVH]

it's frustrating, but you're unlikely to get anything more than a refund - and that's probably b/c the shop is making an insurance claim, too.

[GONZO2LR]

Originally Posted by whiskyrolex

It seems like a reasonable offer. They shouldn't be expected to compensate based on market value 8 years after the fact.

Question, i got an appraisal 3 years later after my insurance agent requested that i get my watch reappraised, good thing i did the value increased 4.5k, so its now covered at the higher appraisal. So it's a good thing to check with your ins agent.

your insurance might cover the loss, check the small print....

[Harry-57]

Insurance against additional loss above the purchase price for things like post purchase improvements or market value increase is the responsibility of the buyer, not the seller. I have watches that are no longer in production regularly appraised and insured accordingly. I don't know if there is a clause which would cover me for the loss of a watch in these circumstances because I don't need one. If no such insurance is available it's a calculated risk on the part of the buyer.

[Aquinas]

Do yourself a favor and check your local laws on good faith title acquisition (as poster above suggested) and applicable statutes of limitation. If you have title, great. If you don’t and your claim against the seller should be time barred (or the TnC preclude full damages and limit to purchase price, and that’s effective under your local laws) take what you’re offered. You don’t want to see a lawyer after rejecting an offer that’s better than your statutory and contractual rights.
I’m not England and Wales qualified so no opinion from me re your situation.

[PenDelicate]

Sorry to hear your tale, OP.

Though what a difference that word, "Reputable," makes.

If you'd bought it down a dodgy alley, well ... anything can happen. But buying it from a reputable dealer raises ... interesting questions.

Firstly, I thought it was a crime to sell stolen goods in the UK, but the Most Superficial Web-Search Ever turns-up a UK law in 1968: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/22

This says that dealer is only selling stolen goods if, "knowing or believing them to be stolen." And presumably the dealer did not believe it to be so.

So what is the incentive for a UK dealer to check whether goods are stolen? If they don't check, they can sell the watch and simply refund the price if they're caught. If they're not caught, they keep the profit from the sale. So it's a numbers game.

And how do they check? I presume they can't check stolen numbers with the police, so they're left with voluntary sources like TheWatchRegistry and Rolex themselves (the latter having famously terminated this service).

This leads to the intriguing question: is there any incentive for me to inform Rolex that my insured watch was stolen?

If I insure my watch, and it's stolen, my insurance company will only require a police report, not that I inform Rolex. And once the insurance company pays-up, I'll never see the watch again. Then a dealer buys the watch, can't establish whether it's stolen, and sells it to the OP, who has it taken from him when he has it serviced, because I've reported it to Rolex. Wouldn't it have been better if I'd simply not told Rolex of the theft, so that the OP could get his watch back?

The thief, in here somewhere, isn't punished because I reported the theft to Rolex. He would be punished if the dealer could 100% ascertain that the watch is stolen, could call the cops and have the ne'erdowell clapped in irons. But that is not the world we live in.

So it seems that only if I don't insure my watch should I inform Rolex of a theft (because then, presumably Rolex can return it to me ... eventually).

I'm sure I'm missing something, as it seems ... odd that things work this way.

Finally, I look forward to seeing any reputable dealer with the advertising bumf, "We have absolutely no way of guaranteeing that the watch we're selling you is not stolen, but if it is and you catch us: we'll refund you!"

[NAUI1982]

Long thread, and feel sorry for the buyer. But the seller is doing the right thing by offering a full refund. Take the money, move on. Could be way worse! Sellers says too much time passed. Seller is gone. Seller says no and you have to sue. Etc…

Take the refund. PS, my insurance company won’t insure a watch that is naked. Not to make this an insurance thread, but if you’re here and reading this and have an insurance company with will insure a naked watch, I’m curious who that is…

Thanks!

Good luck OP!

[Calatrava r]

I think most insurance on personal items only covers accidental loss/damage and theft. Buying stolen property is more of a breach of contract/warranty situation which is not covered by insurance. Another problem too is subsequent processors of stolen property have no ownership interest in the property so they cannot insure something they do not legally own. The original owner could be insured against the theft but subsequent good faith purchasers for value would have to look to their respective sellers for reimbursement of the price they paid. I doubt, but don't know, if a business can actually buy insurance to cover their losses from buying stolen property. It is a mess for people down the line to be sure.