A question for any experts/experienced individuals please,
not naming any names, but about a year ago, I bought a 500£plus pair of forks from a reputable independent bike shop.
I noticed that the travel adjust feature didnt work properly after about a month of riding.
forks were returned to shop, they fitted new parts, seemed to work OK.
recently, same prob developed, I sent forks to the manufacturer’s tech service department. New parts fitted, forks worked.
Now the same problem has again developed and I’ve sent them back to tech service dept again for warranty repair (still under 2 year warranty).
Now, given that the shop is not exactly my LBS (1 hour drive) and delivering package to service dept is not free, do I get a right to just sling them in and get my $ back? I understand a shop has to be allowed reasonable time to undertake a repair, but can this process go on indefinitely ???
many thanks for your advice/thoughts 🙂

No right to refund. You’ve used them for a year FFS!

I guess the warranty means they have a duty to keep them working for 2 years – but it’s down to the terms of the warranty.

Not fit for purpose though, I’d be looking for a refund.

used them for a year technically yes, but they have had to be off the bike and sent back thrice….. getting a bit owfish if you ask me.

No right to refund

why dont you just go and stand on Arthurs Seat with your kecks round your ankles and shout “TJ is an English Tory”. Will have much the same effect on the rest of this thread 😉

After a years usage no right to a full refund. You would only get a % refund based on the expected life of the fork. You would also have to show that it was a design fault that meant the fork was unfit for purpose.

it’s the kecks.

Failure 3 times over 12 months suggests it was not fit for purpose, never was and has a design flaw. I’d be looking for a full refund simply because they clearly didn’t fix the fault originally, they just covered the problem – there’s a difference. Knowing the failure mode would help of course.

You would also have to show that it was a design fault that meant the fork was unfit for purpose

In the first 6 months the burden of proof is the other way around. i.e. its on the shop to prove they were not faulty.

Considering it’s the same re-occurring problem (both times lasted less than 6 months) would this burden of proof still not fall on the shop/manufacturer?

Firstly, you should always return the product to the shop concerned, it is their responsibility to address the situation not the manufacturer (unless on finance – then its the finance companies problem).

Secondly, first six months of use its basically a no questions asked repair or replace. Beyond that the purchaser has to prove that there was a fault that existed from new, or they are not fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality (massively condensed version of the entire act there).

The act only allows you to reject the product within reasonable time (ie a matter of weeks of purchase).

The shop has the option of either repairing or replacing, and the repair must be done within reasonable time, cannot significantly inconvenience the purchaser.

You can also claim cost of repair against the retailer if they refuse to honour.

Its a bit of a pet peeve of mine, the manufacturer often gets screwed down by the retailer / wholesaler / distributor on price, they then stick their retail markup on it, and pretty much refuse to deal with any of the resulting issues.

You could start off asking for a refund, and then hopefully end up with an exchange?
3 times in a year is completely unacceptable IMO and must have resulted in time off the bike.

The act only allows you to reject the product within reasonable time (ie a matter of weeks of purchase).

The shop has the option of either repairing or replacing, and the repair must be done within reasonable time, cannot significantly inconvenience the purchaser.

Not so. You have the right to refund as well but it might only be partial refund if you have had substantial use.

Also its your choice refund replace repair – not the shops.

Not so. You have the right to refund as well but it might only be partial refund if you have had substantial use.

Also its your choice refund replace repair – not the shops.

Completely wrong there TJ, The retailer has the right to repair or replace at their option. You only have the right to reject (ie refund) within reasonable time of purchase.

If the retailer does not do this THEN you have the right to claim (through the courts) the purchase price less recision.

Completely wrong there TJ

Pink wafers for me please luv.

Contact Consumer Direct (Trading Standards link). Having been through a very similar experience to you, I was advised by them that my fork would not be considered fit for purpose – especially as it was the same component which kept failing – and that I should be entitled to a refund. In the year that I owned my fork (66 ATA) it was returned three times for ATA cart. failure. Annoyingly, the 66 RC3 that replaced the ATA ended up going back after another 10-11 months (minus six weeks spent at Windwave) because of three different crowns creaking.

I should add that in both cases I was given a full refund from the seller.

There is much confusion and conflicting advice on this subject, so I’d advise saving yourself the headache and just getting on to Trading Standards, who will give you specific and qualified advice for your case.

Completely wrong there TJ

<audible gasp at the horror of such a potty mouth!!>

There is much confusion and conflicting advice on this subject, so I’d advise saving yourself the headache and just getting on to Trading Standards, who will give you specific and qualified advise for your case.

That’s just crazy talk……

Mighty Marmite – I suggest yo check the act and guidance. Its the consumers choice. No doubt at all.

Q2. Do I only have rights for 30 (or some other figure) days after purchase?

No. Depending on circumstances, you might be too late to have all your money back after this time, but the trader will still be liable for any breaches of contract, such as the goods being faulty. In fact, the trader could be liable to compensate you for up to six years.

Q4. I know I can demand my money back within a “reasonable time” but how long is that?

The law does not specify a precise time as it will vary for most sales contracts as all the factors need to be taken into account to be fair to all sides. The pair of everyday shoes may only have a few days before the period expires but a pair of skis, purchased in a Summer Sale, may be allowed a longer period by a court.

Q5. After the “reasonable time” has passed, what can I do?

You may seek damages, which would be the amount of money necessary to have the goods repaired or replaced. Frequently retailers will themselves offer repair or replacement. But, if you are a consumer (not making the purchase in the course of a business) you have the statutory right to seek a repair or replacement as an alternative to seeking damages.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

If you bought them with a credit card, you may also be able to claim a refund under section 75

That’s just crazy talk…

I can think of at least one has-to-know-it-all who will be mentally burning me in effigy.

In fairness, three failures on a £/$500 set of forks for the same thing and I’d be asking for my money back too or at least a brand new replacement.

It looks like the shop has tried its best to fix the problem for you but maybe contacting the manufacturer directly and asking for a replacement might be an idea now. Obviously, inform the shop that you’re doing this.

No joy from the manufacturers? You might find that Tweeting your problems and posting on their facebook site linking this thread will provoke a reaction.

My Missus is an expert on this -= that how she made her living for years in advising on consumer law and I have checked with her that this is right, the BERR guidance agrees with me. Consumer direct agrees with me.

Consumer direct agrees with me

Lol! Love the polarity of this!! I wouldn’t expect anything less!

TJ – have a read here …

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Consumerrights/Yourconsumerrightswhenbuyinggoodsandservices/DG_194650

Unfortunately the Act is very ambiguous over its requirements. You DO NOT have an automatic right to refund after you have accepted goods. The definition of “reasonable time” is given due to the huge variation of products and is the biggest PITA for both retailers and consumers.

And I am speaking from the experience of a retailer. We had a manufacturer change the spec of the Photographic Albums (namely the spine construction) without notifying us. They had a HUGE failure rate and as the retailer I was liable for the replacement and repair which spanned over a two year period. Thankfully, as given by the act we had the RIGHT to replace the albums which the manufacturer supplied to us without cost (after much castigation).

Yada yad I’m right, you’re wrong yada yada No, YOU”RE wrong, I’m right yada yada

What does it forkin’ matter TeeJ?

I think the OP has a case here…lets’ offer him some advice on how to get his forks sorted.

My Missus is an expert on this -= that how she made her living for years in advising on consumer law and I have checked with her that this is right, the BERR guidance agrees with me. Consumer direct agrees with me.

But when the OP goes to the shop and says “here’s your shitty fork, now give me back my money this because teh TandomJaz’s missus says you must…”, they’re more likely to fob him off than if he goes in armed with the excellent letter that Trading Standards will supply him with (assuming he’s within his rights).

Consumer direct agrees with me

Up. Your. Own. Arse.

Are they magura thors per chance?

Mighty marmite – I can tell you are speaking as a retailer.

it really is very clear – the consumers choice if the item has an inherent fault. – replace, repair, refund. No doubt at all.

When you buy an item from a trader (eg a shop or online shop) the law says the item must be:

* of satisfactory quality – last for the time you would expect it to and be free of any defects
* fit for purpose – fit for the use described and any specific use you made clear to the trader
* as described – match the description on packaging or what the trader told you

If an item doesn’t meet any of these rights, it is faulty and you will usually have the right to a:

* repair
* replacement
* refund

No doubt at all.

If an item doesn’t meet any of these rights, it is faulty and you will usually have the right to a:

These two statements would appear at odds?

However to go back to the OP you can see its not clear cut. You can try rejecting the fork but given the length of time I think your case may be weak. Nothing to loose by trying it tho and the advice on the consumer direct site will be helpful to you in making that case.

Cougar – they have to put that as there are rare circumstances when the rights do not apply.

Here we go again and TJ’s misguided consumer rights, the problem is the vaguary of the ‘reasonazble timescale’ this gives reytailers wriggle room to really do as they please as the ‘reasonable timescale’ has never been tested in law.

most consumer sites will advise this is approx four weeks, but can vary by product.

TJ will now come along and ask me to show where the 4 weeks is written in law, which I will point out I have already mentioned it isn’t and is just an assumed period by most parties.

Tj will then say if its not written in law then nit isn’t legal, to which I will point out his own supposedly field of expertisde uses a thing called ‘contract by implication’ something again not written in law but never the less used in law

To this he will then ignore the thread…..

we have done this merrigo round sooo many times and he still cant see his error

Thanks for repeating that bit again TJ, obviously didn’t follow the link to the direct.gov.uk website so I’ll paraphrase a few salient bits for you

” trader will USUALLY offer you a refund for a faulty item if you:”

“if a trader won’t give you a refund for a faulty item, they should usually offer to repair or replace the item for free …”

There is no automatic RIGHT to a refund once goods are deemed to be accepted.

As I said earlier, its a pet peeve of mine because I know the responsibility as a retailer is mine, and it annoys the balls off my when certain retailers try to buck their responsibilities. The same retailers no doubt advertise themselves as being better than most online outlets due to their support and backup should a claim eventuate …

Thanks all for advice 😀

I’m hoping the warranty repair this time will do the trick- they have always been helpful so far…

Yes there is a reasonableness to how long you can claim your rights for and yes you can be deemed to have accepted the goods. That is irrelevant if there is an inherent fault.

However non of that detracts from the very clear provision that if the goods are faulty and have been since sale IE its an inherent fault you have an absolute right to refund repair replace the consumers choice.

Retailers will try to find wriggle room but actually the law both statute and case is very clear.

I’m hoping the warranty repair this time will do the trick- they have always been helpful so far…

I’d still be pushing for a replacement/refund if I were you. Fork the debaters here. You’ve been patient so far.

You mean this part of the law (again from the Direct.gov.uk website … you should try it sometime)

“If a repair or replacement isn’t practical

A trader doesn’t have to offer you a replacement or repair if:
it’s too costly for the trader
it will take too long
it will cause you significant inconvenience, eg you’ll be without a phone for months

If this happens, the trader should either:
offer you a partial refund if you return the item (to allow for the use you’ve had from it)
let you keep the item and give you a reduction in price for the fault”

Kind of hints that the Trader is the one making the decision there … not the purchaser ?

From here
http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/treating-customers-fairly/sogahome/sogaexplained/

Faulty goods that have been accepted
If the item does not conform to contract (is faulty) for any of the reasons outlined and the customer has accepted the goods, the law says the customer is entitled to claim a repair or replacement of the goods in the first instance.

If either a repair or replacement is not possible, or the cost is greater than the value of the item (disproportionately costly), or the customer claims either option is taking an unreasonable amount of time or is causing unreasonable inconvenience, the customer is then entitled to
keep the goods and claim a price reduction from the retailer to compensate them for the fault in the goods – this would be the difference between the value of the product in perfect condition and the value of the product in the faulty condition, or
return the goods and rescind the contract. This would mean that the customer returns the goods and you provide a partial refund, calculated to reflect the benefit the customer has received from the product.
Where a customer is entitled to repair or replacement because they have accepted the goods, they can claim price reduction or partial refund if the repair or replacement is
taking an unreasonable time, or
causing an unreasonable inconvenience, or
if the repair or replacement is not satisfactory when they receive it.
When you calculate price reductions or partial refunds, think about what an impartial person in a court would think is a reasonable amount.

You’re wrong Uplink … I just googled it and I found this

Not so. You have the right to refund as well but it might only be partial refund if you have had substantial use.

Also its your choice refund replace repair – not the shops.

😆

You’re wrong Uplink

no, I’m not wrong, I was quoting 🙂 – oft.gov.uk must be wrong then?

That is true IF the goods have been accepted. However if there is a inherent fault in them that you did not or could not know about you have not accepted the goods!

I checked with t’missus on this and she said “nice try but” in reference to your attempts at wriggling out of it. She is legally qualified and has done this sort of work for many years.

Anyway From uplinks quote

(the customer)
or
return the goods and rescind the contract. This would mean that the customer returns the goods and you provide a partial refund, calculated to reflect the benefit the customer has received from the product.