Jeweller recently became aware of a disagreement involving an ‘overpayment’ between the JAA and a jewellery store owner, who has been a member since 2005.
Put simply, a baffling bureaucratic stance, a confusing membership structure, and a lack of clarity regarding fees and refunds have resulted in the JAA effectively sacrificing a 20-year membership during a disagreement over $388.
The retailer – who has not been identified as a matter of privacy – was reviewing financial affairs and discovered what is believed to be a series of overpayments to the JAA over a three-year period.
The business owner initially raised the matter with the JAA head office by telephone on 28 February and was reportedly informed that the organisation has a ‘no refunds’ policy.
This conversation was followed by an email from JAA administration coordinator Kerrilie Campbell on 6 March, providing details about membership and offering to change the member’s level for future years.
Part of the confusion stems from the JAA’s membership structure, which means there are two entirely different member categories that are appropriate to this retailer, one more expensive than the other.
The member subsequently emailed JAA operations manager Megan Young that same day, outlining an understanding of the situation and repeating his claim concerning overpayments.
In summary, the member’s jewellery business was scaled down around the COVID-19 pandemic, as was the case with many small businesses. Based on the criteria outlined on the JAA website, the membership level and associated fee could have been lowered to match the circumstances of the business.
The retailer acknowledged in the email, which has been viewed by Jeweller, that it is each member's responsibility to ensure that their annual membership is renewed at the correct level.
With that said, the member requested a partial refund for the difference ($388) over three years, suggesting that this incident could have been avoided with clearer communication regarding membership levels and fees.
As part of a proposed resolution, it was even suggested that a credit towards future membership fees - rather than a cash payment as a partial refund – would be suitable.
Young did not reply; however, JAA president Joshua Sharp replied on 11 March in a response that seemingly failed to ‘read the room’ regarding the member’s frustration with the experience.
Sharp’s email stated, “Membership fees have been charged in accordance with the membership category selected at the time of renewal,” which the member had already acknowledged.
“As with all members, it is the responsibility of each individual to ensure they are on the correct membership level, as we do not have visibility over every member's specific business details unless informed.”
Sharp’s email asserted that the JAA was unable to offer a refund or credit for fees paid in previous years. He then offered the member an early bird renewal rate (5 per cent discount) that elapsed in December - and even attached an invoice to the email.
Walking away
Displeased with the JAA’s handling of this matter, the member has decided to quit the organisation after more than two decades.
The retailer’s position is easy to understand: The business is eligible for a lower membership level, and therefore, has made overpayments for three years.
According to the retailer, the commonsense resolution would be for a credit or partial refund to be issued, given the business has been an ardent supporter of the JAA for more than two decades.
Background reading: JAA: The past is haunting, and the future is unclear
In a response to Sharp on the same day, the member explained that while the money involved is inconsequential, it’s a matter of principle.
“The matter at hand is relatively straightforward and, I believe, could have been resolved more amicably. Unfortunately, the tone and approach in addressing my concerns have left me feeling undervalued as a longstanding member,” the member wrote on 11 March.
“The amount in question is indeed modest, but it reflects a broader principle of trust and care for members who rely on the JAA’s ethical and professional standards.”
Sharp responded to the member on 17 March, acknowledging that while it is a challenging economic climate for jewellery retailers, that organisation cannot be held responsible for mistakes made by members.
More to come
While researching the circumstances of this dispute, several other issues with the JAA’s membership structure have been identified.
One concerning matter — which adds to the confusion of this situation — is Sharp’s claim that the JAA cannot offer a refund or credit for fees paid in previous years, in what appears to be a ‘blanket’ no-refunds policy.
While the JAA website details a ‘Privacy + Refunds Policy’, it states that refunds will not be given to members who cancel their membership during the year and/or pay for an event they do not attend.
Neither of these refund policies relate to the dispute or cover potential overpayments made by members, such as this case.
Given the confusion experienced by this member and the possibility that others are also overpaying, an upcoming report will detail various issues and anomalies with the JAA’s membership structure. These include inconsistent terminology and descriptions between the four membership categories.
Jeweller contacted the JAA regarding this matter; however, no response has been issued as of publication.
More reading
JAA reports profit in 2023 despite retail membership decline
Is the current JAA board representative of the industry?
JAA: The past is haunting, and the future is unclear
JAA: Legacy of past presidents and their achievements
Membership blow: Major jewellery chain quits JAA
Administrative penalties: Confusion around JAA reporting requirements intensifies
JAA: Queries over governance standards; possible breach of regulations
New reporting cycle for JAA, board position filled