FAULTY AND SUBSTANDARD SERVICES RENDERED BY LUXURY TIME (PTY) LTD

REPORTING OF FAULTY AND SUBSTANDARD SERVICES RENDERED BY LUXURY TIME (PTY) LTD IN RESPECT OF MY BREITLING TIMEPIECE – MODEL AB0120, SERIAL NUMBER ***, RESULTING IN DAMAGE 1. Representation of expertise and services offered Luxury Time (Pty) Ltd (“Luxury Time”) represented itself to me, both verbally and through its website, as being experienced and suitably qualified to service high-end luxury watches, including Breitling timepieces. Luxury Time’s website represents, inter alia: “Your luxury watch deserves the utmost care to keep it performing flawlessly. At Luxury Time, we offer professional watch servicing tailored to high-end timepieces. Whether it’s routine maintenance or intricate repairs our skilled team ensures your watch remains in perfect condition.” These representations were relevant to my decision to entrust my Breitling timepiece to Luxury Time for servicing. 2. Servicing of the timepiece On or about 8 December 2024, I entrusted my Breitling timepiece, Model AB0120, Serial Number ***, to Luxury Time for purposes of a routine service. Luxury Time issued a repair notice in respect of the timepiece, which was subsequently followed by an invoice in the amount of R11,700.00. I entrusted the timepiece to Luxury Time on the reasonable understanding that the service would be performed with the appropriate skill, care and diligence expected from a service provider holding itself out as being experienced in the servicing of high-end luxury watches. 3. Moisture ingress following the service Following the service performed by Luxury Time, my Breitling timepiece developed moisture ingress on two separate occasions. Prior to Luxury Time’s service, the timepiece had never experienced moisture ingress during the approximately 15 years that I had worn and used it. The occurrence of moisture ingress only after the timepiece had been serviced by Luxury Time raised serious concerns regarding the quality and adequacy of the service performed. I brought the damage and moisture ingress to the attention of Luxury Time and provided them with evidence relating thereto. 4. Assessment by an alternative specialist service provider As a result of the moisture damage sustained by the timepiece, I subsequently submitted it to an alternative specialist service provider for inspection, assessment and repair. The alternative service provider’s findings indicated that the timepiece had failed its water-resistance (WRT) test. as a result of generic replacement components, alternatively the failure to replace the relevant gaskets during the service previously performed by Luxury Time’s technician. These findings provide a direct basis for my concern that the moisture ingress and resulting damage were caused by deficiencies in the service previously performed by Luxury Time. 5. Repair costs and notification to Luxury Time I provided Luxury Time with the documentation relating to the assessment and repair performed by the alternative specialist service provider, including the relevant report and invoice. The total cost of the subsequent repair amounted to R20,110.00. Despite being provided with the relevant documentation and evidence concerning the damage and the findings of the alternative service provider, Luxury Time denied responsibility for the damage and denied that any fault or substandard workmanship had occurred on its part. Importantly, since the timepiece was repaired by the alternative specialist service provider, no further moisture ingress has occurred. 6. Concern regarding the standard of service provided The circumstances described above have caused me to seriously question the standard of workmanship and level of expertise app**** by Luxury Time in servicing my Breitling timepiece. In my opinion, the following circumstances are of concern: • the timepiece had operated for approximately 15 years without experiencing moisture ingress; • the moisture ingress occurred on two occasions after Luxury Time had serviced the timepiece; • the alternative specialist service provider subsequently identified a failure of the timepiece’s water resistance test; • the alternative service provider’s findings raised concerns regarding the use of generic replacement components and/or the failure to replace relevant gaskets during the previous service; • I incurred a further R20,110.00 in costs to have the damage diagnosed and repaired; and • following the subsequent repair by the alternative specialist service provider, the moisture ingress has not recurred. 7. Purpose of this report I consider it important to place these circumstances on record and to bring them to the attention of the public. In my opinion, and based on my personal experience, the documentation in my possession and the findings of the alternative specialist service provider, I am concerned that the service rendered by Luxury Time was substandard and did not meet the level of skill, care and diligence that I reasonably expected from a service provider holding itself out as being capable of professionally servicing high-end luxury timepieces. I further question whether the service performed by Luxury Time was consistent with its public representation that it provides: “professional watch servicing tailored to high-end timepieces” and that its “skilled team ensures your watch remains in perfect condition.” I accordingly record this report as a factual account of my experience, the subsequent damage to my timepiece, the findings communicated to me by the alternative specialist service provider, and the financial loss I incurred in having the resulting damage diagnosed and repaired. I retain all relevant supporting documentation, including Luxury Time’s repair notice and invoice, correspondence and evidence relating to the moisture ingress, the alternative service provider’s assessment/report, and the invoice for R20,110.00 relating to the subsequent repair.