Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the world
Sign up to our free Morning Headlines email
Sign up to our free Morning Headlines email
A mother has triumphed in a legal battle against luxury department store 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 without legal representation. She had purchased a Cartier “Love” bracelet online, but upon discovering it did not fit, she returned it.
Harrods’ customer service team rejected the return, alleging that Ms Romain had caused damage and scratches to the item before sending it back. The store informed her that the bracelet would be transferred to lost property if not reclaimed within 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 ruled that Harrods had “failed on the balance of probabilities” to prove the bracelet was returned with scratches. She also dismissed the claim that the 18-carat gold bangle was rendered worthless by “minor scuffs and scratches” on its surface.
“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 judge added.
The £4,550 bracelet did not fit Ms Romain’s wrist (Champion News)
Ms Romain had dreamt of treating herself to the 18-carat bracelet, which the trial judge described as a “rather pretty, luxurious item”, for years.
But having bought it online, she found it was “too small and didn’t fit right” and so arranged for it to be returned in its box to Harrods in July 2025.
However, after an exchange of emails between her and Harrods, she was told that the store had “rejected” the return, and that it would be transferred to the company’s lost property unless reclaimed within 30 days.
Ms Romain, who is in her 50s, sued Harrods at Mayor’s and City County Court, claiming she was due a refund or replacement of goods under the Consumer Contracts Regulations.
Judge Vignoli said Harrods’ customer service had taken a “pre-inspection video” of the bracelet after it was returned and examined, when they pinpointed alleged scratches and defects on the “soft” metal of the bracelet.
The dispute between Ms Romain and the glitzy megastore ultimately hinged around her claims that Harrods had presented insufficient evidence that the bracelet they exhibited in the “pre-inspection video” was the one sent back by Mrs Romain.
Soon after seeing this video last August, Ms Romain had emailed Harrods’ customer service team challenging 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 subsequent reply to her from Harrods made no mention of the video or missing serial number, simply advising Ms Romain that her return had been “formally rejected” and that the bracelet “is legally now your property”.
Ruling in her favour, the judge explained: “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”, but the judge commented: “crucially I am provided with absolutely no evidence of this”.
She said: “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 top of that, Harrods had failed to produce solid evidence about the impact on value caused 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 accumulated interest and court fees, means Ms Romain will walk away with £5,131 in total.
Ms Romain declared herself “very relieved” by the outcome outside court afterwards.
“I’m never buying from Harrods again,” she added, explaining that she had saved for years to buy the Cartier bracelet, which she had set her heart on getting for her own birthday.
“I was saving for years, I wanted to treat myself,” she said.
“I’m going back to saving now. No more spending like this.”
