[Closed] Am i entitled to a refund.

Pretty sure they have the option to repair. refund or replace - replace being one of the better options.

Don't see why you'd lose confidence - manufacturing defects happen from time to time.

Trading standards department's helpful Sale of Goods Act [url= http://sogahub.tradingstandards.gov.uk/sogaataglance ]flowchart[/url] seems to suggest you are entitled to a refund - repair or replacement is at your request.

i think you are intitled if the item is faulty.

so sounds like you are

honourablegeorge - Member
Pretty sure they have the option to repair. refund or replace - replace being one of the better options.

Don't see why you'd lose confidence - manufacturing defects happen from time to time.

Yes i understand that manufacturing defects happen all the time, but these were £800 pound wheels that cracked in easy riding conditions. And i usually subject my gear to a lot more use / abuse.

thepurist - Member
Trading standards department's helpful Sale of Goods Act flowchart seems to suggest you are entitled to a refund - repair or replacement is at your request.

The fact that he's used the goods for a month would suggest that he accepted them.

Right or wrong aside... Why lose faith in the product? Anything can break, it could be a one-off. It's always disheartening when something breaks when almost new but that's the nature of the beast, your classic bathtub failure rate, in general stuff's never more likely to break than when it's very new or very old.

If you wanted them before, then want them now, would be my solution.

Could you not get a replacement set and then return them? They will be in original packaging and unused so I see no reason why not.

No you are not entitled to a refund. You would only be entitled to a refund if you rejected them within what would be a "reasonable time to inspect them". That is how I am interpreting the flow chart up there ^.

Northwind - Member
Right or wrong aside... Why lose faith in the product? Anything can break, it could be a one-off. It's always disheartening when something breaks when almost new but that's the nature of the beast, your classic bathtub failure rate, in general stuff's never more likely to break than when it's very new or very old.

If you wanted them before, then want them now, would be my solution.

Okay dokey, ill go with that. Its a fair point. I just wanted to understand my options. 🙂

What do you mean "bathtub failure rate" ? I have enough paranoid phobias, thanks for the new one. Back to wearing a swimsuit in the bath then.

The Sale Of Goods Act is quite clear - because the problem has occurred very early in the items life, you're entitled to a refund.

The goods were not of merchantable quality, and were clearly not fit for purpose. If the shop refuses a refund they're liable to prosecution. You should ask again for a refund, and send them a letter saying that you're rejecting the goods and that that you'd like a refund.

The shop has to comply with the law. It's that simple.

Basically, the law states that in order to get a refund you have to reject the goods within a reasonable timeframe from new - ie after 1 month or so you'd be obliged to accept a repair etc. But for something under a month old, it should be pretty straight forward.

Speak to trading standards and they'll advise you further.

I rejected a car as not fit for purpose after a month and was fine (although the dealer was far from happy).

Bit like these stupid fancy independent designer clothes shops. They always offer vouchers or replacement. If its faulty refund should always be offered. Tossers. I would threaten them with everything possible.

Cheers all, good advice all round.
Northwind you are right about still wanting these wheels and maybe i should not be too hasty in chasing a refund but thats just the way i feel at the moment. Ill leave it for a bit and see how i feel. It all comes down to what the manufacturer says.

I have written to trading standards for some advice. I may not take it any further but its good to actually know my options 🙂

"Bathtub failure rate" - its the bath tub shape of the curve if you plot failures against time on a graph.

i.e. there will be a lot (relative) of failures early on in a products life due to inherent defects in the manufacture (material, poor welds etc), those that get past that early phase will last some while (normal use), and then towards the end of the product life failures will start to happen due to factors like fatigue, wear and tear, abuse etc.

thepurist - Member

Trading standards department's helpful Sale of Goods Act flowchart seems to suggest you are entitled to a refund - repair or replacement is at your request.

My interpretation of this flow chart is a little different. It appears that it all seems to hinge on whether the goods have been accepted. In this case OP seems to have accepted the goods, because he has ridden the wheels. He has had time to initially inspect the product and appears to have deemed it acceptable to mount on his bicycle and use. I think in this case it is up to the supplier to decide whether he wants to refund or replace. In this case they will nearly always replace since carbon wheels cost about 50p to make and sell for silly money.

just a note to the OP about nomenclature

Within a month the rear hub had a massive crack along the top and side and after the cassette was removed there was another hairline crack at 45 degree angle from the first. Pretty much a catastrophic failure.

I would not describe this as a catastrophic failure by any means. The wheel is still in one piece, it has as you describe a crack. It did not explode and it is not yet in many pieces. 🙂

Phew !

My interpretation of this flow chart is a little different. It appears that it all seems to hinge on whether the goods have been accepted. In this case OP seems to have accepted the goods, because he has ridden the wheels.

AIUI usage does not imply acceptance. IMO you cannot reasonably accept a set of wheels without riding them. The only grey area is how long it takes to determine if they are of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. I'd say a failure within a month for a set of wheels that should last years is unreasonable, your opinion differs. This is why lawyers are wealthy.

and were clearly not fit for purpose.

"Fit for purpose" is one of the most overused and incorrectly used terms when a customer tries to leverage something. I deal with Trading Standards on a monthly basis (we are going through BRDO Primary Authority approval at the moment) and my contact tells me it's one of the most hated things that clogs up their inboxes!

If a product has been produced in the thousands and doesn't have a documented high fail rate, it is more than reasonable to argue that it IS "fit for purpose" on a statistical basis. If it wasn't, or there was a design flaw or widespread manufacturing defect, then there'd by definition be loads of complaints.

This sounds like a statistically inevitable manufacturing issue, a one-off. Accept the warranty replacement, be nice to the shop, don't burn bridges by becoming an a***hole customer that thinks he is Rumpole of the Bailey because he googled a bit of consumer law.

Your new wheels will be fine.

Could you get a different set of wheels from the LBS?

Its not the shop refusing to refund, they have been ace, it's the distributor.

But as Andyrm and a few others have said it is probably a one off.

I'll go for a replacement and cross my fingers and toes.

cheers all 🙂

AIUI usage does not imply acceptance. IMO you cannot reasonably accept a set of wheels without riding them. The only grey area is how long it takes to determine if they are of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. I[b]'d say a failure within a month for a set of wheels that should last years is unreasonable[/b], your opinion differs. This is why lawyers are wealthy

I don't think anyone is saying it's reasonable for a set of (expensive) wheels to fail after a month!

But people are making the point that they've been taken out of the box, fitted and ridden, so you're past the point of 'inspection', so a refund isn't the first port of call. If the OP had got them home and spotted a crack in the rim as he was fitting a tyre then it would be different.

Its not the shop refusing to refund, they have been ace, it's the distributor

But you didn't buy them from the distributor. I don't think a refund is necessarily right, but you deal with the shop, not the distributor. The shop then deals with the distributor if they're out of pocket.

Northwind you are right about still wanting these wheels and maybe i should not be too hasty in chasing a refund but thats just the way i feel at the moment. Ill leave it for a bit and see how i feel. It all comes down to what the manufacturer says.

I'd take the replacement, and ride them as usual. If another crack turns up - then I'd be fighting for a refund.

Can you get a commitment for a refund if it happens again?

Said this a few times on here, the stupid comment 'a reasonable time scale' makes the law open to interpretation by both the buyer and seller, 'reasonable time scale' differs from product to product, and noone has yet gone down the line of getting the term tested in law as they know it would be a very long very drawn out and very expensive piece of litigation.

This basically means that morally you should probably be able to expect a refund, but a retailer who is slightly less than scrupulous can 'interpret' the law to suit themself and insist on repai replace.

Another angle that might be of more merit to you is if a product is less than 6 months old its the sellers responsibility to prove the fault wasn't there at the time of manufacture rather than yours that it was, this may be a stronger angle from which to persue a refund, oh and if the seller says he is waiting for the distributers decision ask him what this has to do with the price of cheese as your contract is with him and his negotiations with the distributor are nothing to do with you and not your problem

andyrm

If a product has been produced in the thousands and doesn't have a documented high fail rate, it is more than reasonable to argue that it IS "fit for purpose" on a statistical basis. If it wasn't, or there was a design flaw or widespread manufacturing defect, then there'd by definition be loads of complaints.

Fitness for purpose doesn't relate to general quality. Not in terms of the Sale of Goods Act at least. It relates to whether the goods were or merchantable quality. I.e. Were the goods of a quality one might reasonable expect to be durable and sufficient for the purpose intended (by the manufacturers definition). In the case of a catastrophic failure the wheels were clearly not fit for purpose.

That doesn't mean that the wheel design and general manufacture is at fault - that would be a whole other can of worms.

This sounds like a statistically inevitable manufacturing issue, a one-off. Accept the warranty replacement, be nice to the shop, don't burn bridges by becoming an ahole customer that thinks he is Rumpole of the Bailey because he googled a bit of consumer law.

It might be a statistically inevitable failure. It may also be a one off. However, that doesn't mean that a customer is being a "ahole* for wanting and expecting a business to respect his rights and comply with the law.

As for your "thinking he's Rumpole of the Bailey"? Firstly, the law is pretty clear. And pretty easy to read. Secondly, most of the advice on here has been pretty sound and accurate. Third, your view is now getting to be the one typical of businesses who hold customers and the law in contempt. The OP isn't asking for something unreasonable - certainly, he's not being a "ahole" for wanting his statutory rights to be upheld.

Why would you give your custom to a shop that's happy to flout the law and to offer pitiful after sales?

If I had followed your advice I'd be stuck with a lemon of a car among several other things.

Your new wheels will be fine.

You missed the "probably" from that. Because it hasn't been the case with Fox 36's, Marzocchi forks and several other things where folk have been stuck with either dangerous goods or simply rubbish, poorly performing products.

The OP will probably be fine, but could be stuck with a bad product if he doesn't get a refund now. That should be his choice, without being called an "ahole*.

The purist,

Usage does imply acceptance. When you buy a pair of jeans take them home, remove all the labels and wear them it means you have accepted them.

The same applies to the wheels. They were purchased, the buyer took them home removed the labels and installed them onto his bike. It means he is intending to use them and has accepted them in the condition that they are. You cannot say I thought I would test them to see if they are fit for purpose, it does not make any sense, it is implied that the seller is selling them fit for purpose as that is what your contract is for. It is very clear.

This case falls into the "faulty goods which have been accepted" category. The OP is entitled to a repair or replacement. He would also he entitled to compensation if they take unreasonable amount of time to solve the case.

If a product has been produced in the thousands and doesn't have a documented high fail rate, it is more than reasonable to argue that it IS "fit for purpose" on a statistical basis. If it wasn't, or there was a design flaw or widespread manufacturing defect, then there'd by definition be loads of complaints.

So what you're telling me is that a product which is quite clearly faulty (ie a brand new TV which doesn't show a picture) is actually fit for purpose because they've made lots of others of the same model which all work 🙄

the hustler

Said this a few times on here, the stupid comment 'a reasonable time scale'

The rule of thumb Trading Standards go by for "big ticket" items is under month.

But you're right - there is no defined "reasonable" time scale. And it does give scope for retailers to try an manipulate the law. Up until at least the small claims proceeding that they lose.

Usage does imply acceptance. When you buy a pair of jeans take them home, remove all the labels and wear them it means you have accepted them.

So I buy a computer which has a fault in the hard drive. I cannot detect that fault without turning the PC on and using it. Have I accepted the PC by unpacking it, plugging it in and turning it on?

As above, this is why lawyers are wealthy...

spazzolino...

Usage does imply acceptance. When you buy a pair of jeans take them home, remove all the labels and wear them it means you have accepted them.

No it doesn't. Which is why Trading Standards advice is that you put in writing that you are formally rejecting the goods. And having done so, must have nothing at all to do with them again.

Fail =< 6months. Seller must prove no fault existed - not the OP.

Go collect your refund if you wish OP. Your CC provider may also be an ally if you get pushed around by shop.

If it's in the shops interest not to refund you, they should offer you a compromise which you are happy with

i.e. not make you hang on for extended period - with no wheels - while a 3rd party arbitrarily adjudicates.

Decent shop will do the right thing, but they may have to wear it - also being let down by the product..

Doesn't sound like the brand stands behind it's spendy products though, in the fullness of time we could all benefit from knowing whose wheels they are..

Usage does imply acceptance

You cannot say I thought I would test them to see if they are fit for purpose, it does not make any sense,

it is implied that the seller is selling them fit for purpose as that is what your contract is for.

it would be pretty hard to know the thing you have just bought does not work if you dont use it.

Which is fine if it fails on the first ride, not if you've taken it on several before it fails. I'm certainly not an apologist for manufacturers, shops and distributors, but that's the way I'm reading the SOGA guidance. I reckon taking it for a second ride implies acceptance.

Purist you are correct:

So I buy a computer which has a fault in the hard drive. I cannot detect that fault without turning the PC on and using it. Have I accepted the PC by unpacking it, plugging it in and turning it on?"

You don't know it works. But you have intended to use it. If you return it to the shop without opening it and turning it on you are entitled immediately to a refund.

No it doesn't. Which is why Trading Standards advice is that you put in writing that you are formally rejecting the goods. And having done so, must have nothing at all to do with them again.

Well p8ddy. Why do you think you have to formally write to say you are rejecting the goods? Its because that the default situation is accepting them. You don't have to write and officially accept them it is implied unless you don't accept them.

Junkyard I think you didn't read my post correctly, or you misunderstand.

You are correct, but by using or attempting to use the item you are showing that the item is the one you want and if it did work, you would not have a problem.

Lets use your shoe example:

It depends. If you are in the shop and have tried them and purchased them you have pretty much accepted them. However you still have a chance. If you now take them home and try them again return them without using them you can have a refund.

If you buy your size 12 shoes and USE them even for a little while and decide they are the wrong size. Its tough, they are now yours, you cant have a refund.

 

I recently returned a product that broke after 3 months use for a full refund.

I had "accepted" the product well over 2 months and 3 weeks ago.

However the product was not a budget product, and should of lasted at least a year for the price paid vs the competition of the same price.

I wrote a kind letter explaining how for the premium I paid I expected a product to last longer than 3 months, therefore deeming the product not fit for purpose due to not lasting a reasonable length of time, as detailed by the sales of goods act 1979.

The shop agreed and issued me my refund.

This stuff about accepting a product is largely rubbish, and is more to do with distance selling than sales of goods.

IE: If you ordered something online you "accept" the product by using it (not unpacking, packaging is covered under distance selling rules to enable you to inspect a product properly, if i remember) you can then no longer return it because you simply don't want it any more. However if the product then fails it comes under sales of goods act.

If you bought a brand new car, "accepted" it at the showroom and then 1/2/3/4/5/6/... weeks later the gearbox went you wouldn't say "well I guess I accepted it as fine at the showroom...".

So what you're telling me is that a product which is quite clearly faulty (ie a brand new TV which doesn't show a picture) is actually fit for purpose because they've made lots of others of the same model which all work

it could easily be argued that is a case of manufacturing defect, no?

spazzolino...

Well p8ddy. Why do you think you have to formally write to say you are rejecting the goods? Its because that the default situation is accepting them. You don't have to write and officially accept them it is implied unless you don't accept them.

THe default situation. The one you are *not* accepting. Rejecting means "not accepting".

You don't automatically accept the goods by taking receipt of them. Acceptance is assumed in the absence of rejection within a ceratin timeframe. The reason for writing is simply to add a formal notification that you're NOT accepting.

Rejecting the goods mean you relinquish all claim to them and take nothing more to do them - aka, they are NOT your goods. In the eyes of the law this means they have never been your goods - you are rejecting them.

It doesn't mean - "I accepted these, but have now changed my mind". Which is why the timescale for rejection is so narrow.

So what you're telling me is that a product which is quite clearly faulty (ie a brand new TV which doesn't show a picture) is actually fit for purpose because they've made lots of others of the same model which all work

Almost no product has a perfect manufacturing run, human error, tolerance variances etc so a defect that is considered a warranty fault, ie affects a very small percentage, isn't the same a 'not fit for purpose'. A warranty is part of the agreement between retailer, maker and customer that allows a manufacturer/retailer to replace a faulty item to put you back to the same position you were in when you originally purchased the item.
NFFP is (as I understand it) to protect against mis-selling of junk product. If you have 3 fails of the same kind, or the item is sold / advertised as meeting a criteria that in use it cannot, then NFFP may be a valid point. One failure will rarely mean NFFP. A loss of confidence is a shame but sometimes you get the duff 1 in a 100 that came off the line that day, it's just how it is in reality. Let the manufacturer replace it and if the product is as it should be, you've got what you originally wanted and all's good.

Talk of acceptance is irrelevant.

Product materially failed - within an unreasonable time frame i.e. 1 month.

It is not for the OP to prove this, in fact regulations allow that the *seller* must now in fact prove no fault existed (good luck arguing that) to avoid providing a remedy (refund at buyers preference).

This is the single relevant fact and the one which the shop may be forced to address.

As ever the mnfrs warranty simply restricts your rights and leaves the buyer witness to arbitrage between shop and distributor.

It all boils down to 2 options really......

1: Accept it as a one off manufacturing issue - which I am sure it is or else the internet (or at least bike forums) would have melted by now with crying people who have bought said wheels only for them to break. Get warranty replacement wheels, be nice to the shop, ride happily on pimp wheels.

Or

2: Take some kind of mad moral stand. Waste loads of time writing all sorts of emails, get upset, do the whole "I know my rights", alienate your LBS who will be left in a financial difficult spot while they and the disty argue. Have no pimp wheels.

Personally, I'd be reasonable, realistic and opt for option 1. We would have heard on all the forums if there was a significant issue otherwise. Think of the Crank Brothers ones for example.

My view is that you should always seek to achieve an amicable solution rather than fight from atop some moral high horse. You just got unlucky once is all.

why bring moral's or horses into it a bike shop at all? Refusing a statutory right to a refund don't seem amicable or reasonable to me 🙂

I expect that is not their considered or final response.

I'm sure an amicable resolution is possible though.

Shop needs to earn it's margin now and negotiate a satisfactory outcome - good luck OP!

Remember: what is satisfactory is up to you (refund, repair, replace) - not the shop or distributor.

andyrm

1: Accept it as a one off manufacturing issue - which I am sure it is or else the internet (or at least bike forums) would have melted by now with crying people who have bought said wheels only for them to break. Get warranty replacement wheels, be nice to the shop, ride happily on pimp wheels.

I don't remember the internet melting with reports of Fox 36's breaking. Mine did, and I was utterly unaware. Of course, after the fact Fox launched a recall, but not before I'd sold mine off as scrap.

And the OP should be nice to a shop that's trying to not only limit his/her rights, but also acting in contravention of the law?

Every day on here there are (rightly) posts about drivers breaking the law, and we're collectively outraged. But a bike shop breaks the law? We should just suck it up?

Or

2: Take some kind of mad moral stand. Waste loads of time writing all sorts of emails, get upset, do the whole "I know my rights", alienate your LBS who will be left in a financial difficult spot while they and the disty argue. Have no pimp wheels.

The moral stand is so "mad" it's actually part of the basic rights you have as a consumer. And is the law. Not so mad methinks? 🙂

And basically, the OP should be left financially vulnerable (or disadvantaged) so the bike shop shouldn't?

Personally, I'd be reasonable, realistic and opt for option 1. We would have heard on all the forums if there was a significant issue otherwise. Think of the Crank Brothers ones for example.

You mean reasonable like the bike shop who have presented the OP with a fait accompli? A simple blanket refusal to comply with the law? Or reasonable like the OP who is exploring his *actual* options (as opposed to the ones the bike shop wants to impose on him?)

My view is that you should always seek to achieve an amicable solution rather than fight from atop some moral high horse. You just got unlucky once is all.

I completely agree on trying to find an amicable solution - having worked in a bike shop (back in the day) for a decent period of time, I've seen this from both sides. Reasonable warranty claims and utter chancers. We would always bend over backwards to accommodate the customer. Sometimes giving a refund would mean the customer would give us repeat business because they knew that we'd always try and help. On this occasion the bike shop shop isn't trying to be flexible or accommodating. Or trying to seek an amicable solution.

It seems like the bike shop is trying to hold on to the cash rather than the customer. And given that he's just flung £800 on a set of wheels, that looks short sighted.

Just my opinion, but I think it's the bike shop being unreasonable. And if I was treated like that, I'd be looking for a refund.

This is a reply that i got back yesterday from Trading Standards. I was pretty impressed to get a reply on the same day. 🙂

Im am going with a replacement and they are going to get some hard use / abuse in Spain soon. if they are working fine after the trip then ill be happy. As i was told my my better half i need to stop reacting and just cool off for a while before making decisions.

Again, cheers for all the help guys 🙂

Dear xxxx

When good are returned to the trader faulty, the consumer is entitled to either a repair, replacement or to reject the goods. In this case the trader has offered you a replacement which they are perfectly entitled to do. You could wish to argue that you want to reject the goods but if the trader was adamant that they are just willing to offer a replacement then you would have to pursue the matter in a small claims court. From experience I think you would struggle to raise a successful action on the basis that the trader has offered a solution that complies with the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

One possible avenue is that if you have paid for the goods via credit card then you may be able to make a claim against your credit card company.

Many Thanks
xxxx

Trading Standards
Environmental Protection
Environment Department
1 Highland Chief Way
Claverhouse West Industrial Park
Dundee