Not upheld: Other regulated complaint complaint against Attenborough Jewellers Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5146124 of 2014-01-17T00:00:00+00:00. Other regulated complaint complaint against Attenborough Jewellers Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5146124 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2014-01-17T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Attenborough Jewellers Limited |
| Product | Other regulated product |
| Claim type | Other regulated complaint |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | Compensation of £2,172 in accordance with the adjudicator's revised assessment, comprising: £1,972 for the jewellery value (second-hand wholesale value of £750 adjusted for gold price increases to September 2009, with retail markup considerations) plus £200 for distress and inconvenience, less the £290 loan repayment. |
Summary
Mr N pledged 11 gold items with Attenborough Jewellers in 2007 and renewed the pledge twice. The business mistakenly sold the items in June 2008, believing they belonged to another customer, and Mr N discovered the loss in April 2009. The business admitted liability and offered compensation ranging from £1,450 to £1,700, but Mr N rejected these offers seeking £4,000. The ombudsman upheld the adjudicator's revised assessment of £2,172 as fair compensation, applying industry valuation standards and rejecting Mr N's claims for retail value or gold price appreciation beyond September 2009, when the business made its final offer.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied NPA industry standards for valuation, calculating the second-hand wholesale value at pledge (£290 pledge = £580 wholesale value) and accounting for a 30% gold price increase to May 2009 (£750 wholesale value). The business's sale price of £738.46 was consistent with this valuation. Since Mr N wanted cash value rather than replacement items, the retail value was not relevant. The ombudsman rejected applying gold price increases beyond September 2009 (when the business made its revised offer) as it was unfair to hold the business responsible for delays caused by Mr N's illness. The business's waiver of the loan and fees, plus the recommended £200 for inconvenience, meant Mr N was treated fairly overall.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Attenborough Jewellers Limited, all decisions | 2 | 0% |
| Other regulated complaint, all decisions | 19,202 | 17% |
| Other regulated product, all decisions | 52,408 | 30% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website