Wrong watch sent, contradictory explanations, return process obstructed — Amazon had to intervene
Wrong watch sent, contradictory explanations, return process obstructed — Amazon had to intervene
Around three weeks ago, I ordered a Casio G-Shock GM-S2110-1A7ER from Juwelier Bektas through Amazon. Instead, the seller sent the different GM-S2110-1A1ER model.
This was not a minor colour variation. It was a different model reference, and the seller’s own invoice identified the model actually shipped.
Before delivery, the seller assured me that only the invoice was incorrect and that the correct watch was inside the parcel. I requested a corrected invoice showing the model I had ordered, but the seller did not provide one. After delivery, the seller reversed the explanation, confirmed that the original invoice matched the different model sent, and told me that I should not have accepted the parcel. By then, refusal was impossible.
The return process then became unnecessarily difficult. The seller’s first GLS return attachment could not be opened or used. The Amazon-generated return document was not prepaid and visibly required postage.
After repeated communication with the seller, Amazon, UPS and GLS, I had to arrange and pay for a tracked UPS return myself simply to return an item I had never ordered.
Ten days ago, I shipped the parcel back. Six days ago, UPS confirmed delivery to the seller’s receiving office in Hamburg, where it was received by BEKTAS.
Despite receiving the returned watch, the seller did not refund the original delivery cost charged for sending the wrong item and refused to reimburse the customer-funded return-shipping cost.
Amazon therefore had to intervene through its A-to-z Guarantee process. Nine days ago, Amazon confirmed in writing that the seller had refused reimbursement, that a claim for the return-shipping cost had been initiated, and that the full order amount would be refunded.
Only the original retail value of the item was initially refunded. Both the seller’s original delivery charge and the customer-funded return-shipping cost remained unresolved.
This was not merely a customer-service preference. Article 14 of EU Directive 2019/771 requires remedies for non-conforming goods to be provided free of charge and without significant inconvenience. German BGB Sections 439 and 475 likewise place the necessary transport and return costs on the seller. In practice, the customer should receive a usable, cost-free return method, such as a working prepaid label or an equivalent arrangement, rather than being required to finance correction of the seller’s mistake.
What should have been a straightforward correction turned into weeks of contradictory communication, unusable return arrangements, repeated contacts, additional expense and formal escalation.
My documented experience involved:
• A misleading product listing
• Shipment of the wrong model
• Contradictory statements before and after delivery
• Failure to issue the corrected invoice requested
• Reversal of the seller’s explanation about the invoice and shipped model
• An unusable GLS return attachment
• A non-prepaid Amazon return document
• Failure to provide a usable and cost-free return method
• Failure to refund the original delivery cost
• Refusal to reimburse the customer-funded return-shipping cost
• Confirmed delivery back to the seller
• Amazon A-to-z intervention being required
After my experience, I found another Amazon customer publicly describing a similar situation involving a returned watch, reimbursement difficulties and the need for Amazon intervention.
This does not prove deliberate conduct, and I cannot know the seller’s internal procedures. However, the similarity raises a legitimate concern that my case may not have been an isolated administrative error and may reflect a recurring problem in the handling of returns and reimbursements.
Where customers must fund returns caused by seller errors and then struggle to recover both original delivery and return costs, the practical effect is that the financial burden remains with the customer unless the matter is escalated.
I cannot determine whether this outcome is intentional. However, repeated cases could indicate a process that shifts costs arising from seller mistakes onto customers and creates a financial advantage whenever a customer does not pursue the matter further.
Based on my fully documented experience, I cannot recommend Juwelier Bektas.
Reply from Juwelier Bektas
Thank you for your detailed review. We would like to clarify the facts.
The model reference in the Amazon listing was incorrectly linked. As a result, the delivered watch did not match the model shown in the offer. We acknowledge this error, and the product assignment was corrected immediately after your first message.
The invoice identified the model actually shipped. Before the parcel was opened, our customer service initially assumed that only the invoice data was incorrect. Once the contents were confirmed, this assessment was corrected. This was an initial misunderstanding, not an attempt to mislead you.
A new invoice for the originally displayed model could not be issued because that model had not been delivered. An invoice must reflect the item actually supplied.
You reported that the first GLS attachment could not be used. A technical issue with a return document is regrettable, but it does not prove that the return was intentionally obstructed. The watch was returned, accepted and the product value refunded.
Questions concerning additional shipping costs were handled separately through Amazon. The A-to-z Guarantee is a standard dispute-resolution process and does not, by itself, prove misconduct.
We expressly reject the suggestion that Juwelier Bektas systematically obstructs returns or deliberately shifts costs to customers for financial benefit. You state yourself that you do not know our internal procedures and cannot determine intent. One other review concerning a separate order is not evidence of a systematic business practice.
In summary: an incorrect product-data link occurred and was corrected immediately. We regret the inconvenience. However, the conclusion that our conduct was intentional, systematic or financially motivated is unsupported.
--------------------------------------------
Vielen Dank für Ihre ausführliche Bewertung. Wir möchten die Tatsachen klarstellen.
Die Modellreferenz im Amazon-Angebot war fehlerhaft verknüpft. Dadurch entsprach die gelieferte Uhr nicht dem im Angebot angezeigten Modell. Diesen Fehler erkennen wir an. Die Produktzuordnung wurde unmittelbar nach Ihrer ersten Nachricht korrigiert.
Auf der Rechnung war das tatsächlich versendete Modell aufgeführt. Vor dem Öffnen des Pakets ging unser Kundenservice zunächst davon aus, dass lediglich die Rechnungsdaten falsch seien. Nachdem der Inhalt bestätigt worden war, wurde diese Einschätzung korrigiert. Dabei handelte es sich um eine anfängliche Fehleinschätzung und nicht um einen Täuschungsversuch.
Eine neue Rechnung über das ursprünglich angezeigte Modell konnte nicht ausgestellt werden, da dieses Modell nicht geliefert worden war. Eine Rechnung muss die tatsächlich gelieferte Ware abbilden.
Sie meldeten, dass der erste GLS-Anhang nicht verwendet werden konnte. Ein technisches Problem mit einem Rücksendedokument ist bedauerlich, beweist jedoch keine absichtliche Behinderung der Rückgabe. Die Uhr wurde zurückgesendet, angenommen und der Warenwert erstattet.
Fragen zu zusätzlichen Versandkosten wurden separat über Amazon geklärt. Die A-bis-Z-Garantie ist ein reguläres Verfahren zur Streitbeilegung und beweist für sich genommen kein Fehlverhalten.
Wir weisen die Behauptung ausdrücklich zurück, Juwelier Bektas würde Retouren systematisch erschweren oder Kosten aus finanziellen Gründen bewusst auf Kunden verlagern. Sie erklären selbst, dass Sie unsere internen Abläufe nicht kennen und keine Absicht feststellen können. Eine weitere Bewertung zu einer anderen Bestellung ist kein Beleg für eine systematische Geschäftspraxis.
Zusammengefasst: Es gab eine fehlerhafte Produktdaten-Verknüpfung, die sofort korrigiert wurde. Wir bedauern die Unannehmlichkeiten. Die Schlussfolgerung, unser Verhalten sei vorsätzlich, systematisch oder finanziell motiviert gewesen, ist jedoch unbelegt.