Forum menu
Indeed
Sounds like he was unlucky. If during the crash your momentum applies across the rear-triangle rather than down through it, then the stays might deform and not go back - esp. as it's a light-built frame.
The fact that the paint has flaked elsewhere suggests to me non-plastic deformation. It could be a manufacturinjg fault of course but you cant tell really.
Give it to Halfords to send back to Boardman who might be nice about it and either give you a new frame or a discount on one.
BTW. I have a Boardman Team frame (1.7kg) with F120 forks and think it makes a really decent XC/trail bike.
A cheap lightweight frame has bent? As keith Bontrager famously once said "Cheap, light, strong, pick any two"
So you want to quote law but then attempt to lie about it thus breaking the law
I don't want to attempt to lie about anything thank you [it isn't my bike], merely pointing out what would happen if you did
Can one of you please explain what Q13 means from this gov site?
Now the retailer may well point out obvious signs of it having been in a crash but I still read that as the onus being on the retailer & not - as the lawyer up there said - on the consumer.
Dear Sir,
I was recently riding my new (ish) bike, when all of a sudden I fell off and damaged it, there seems to be a dent/scuff on the frame and it may be bent. This is clearly the fault of you or your supplier, therefore you must give me a new frame for nothing.
You are having a laugh of extreme proportions, surely!!
Replace 'riding my new bike' with 'driving my car' walk into a dealer and ask for a new one and see how far you get. 😆
You are having a laugh of extreme proportions, surely!!
I don't expect he'll succeed, merely pointing out that the retailer has to prove it & not him
Al - in general the point is true - under SOGA a fault is assumed to be a manufacturing fault if it appears within six months. Its really clear.
However in a case like this the retailer merely has to say - its crash damage therefore not a manufacturing fault. The retailer has expert opinion. The fact that there is crash damage establishes that it is not necessarily an inherent fault and the burden of proof would return to the buyer. He would have to sue and to show that it was a manufacturing fault.
i.e common sense prevails
I've crashed all my bikes numerous times and I'd be well hacked off if the frames had broken in other than catastrophic circumstances. I'd expect to fall off my bike about 50 times a year, and for the bike to survive years of such treatment - hell, I often jump off and drop it on the floor to catch a shot 🙂 Mountain biking is inherently risky and the bikes should be built to withstand routine impacts.
The comparison with a car is spurious - you don't expect to crash a car, and if you do, you want it to crumple and absorb the shock to protect the occupants
Pretty much mark. I wouldn't fancy your chances in court trying to prove that a crash should not have caused that much damage.
BTW - someone said above racing invalidates warranty - It may well do but your rights under SOGA are a separate thing. If racing would be a reasonable use of the bike then racing with it would not affect your SOGA rights
He's a car dealer, so if he leans on his car and the wing 'creases', thats a manufacturing fault?
Son No2's XTC has a huge dent in the top tube where Son No1 dropped his GT on it... when/if it fails I'll just buy another frame.
TandemJeremy - Member
Al - in general the point is true - under SOGA a fault is assumed to be a manufacturing fault if it appears within six months. Its really clear.However in a case like this the retailer merely has to say - its crash damage therefore not a manufacturing fault. The retailer has expert opinion. The fact that there is crash damage establishes that it is not necessarily an inherent fault and the burden of proof would return to the buyer. He would have to sue and to show that it was a manufacturing fault.
It's not a fault though, that's my point - it's damage.
So "the retailer merely has to say - its crash damage" kind of makes "a fault is assumed to be a manufacturing fault if it appears within six months" meaningless, no?
Exactly al. Have a we read of the links above - its onerous on the retailer hence many try to get out of it. It does not make it meaningless - the six months reversed burden of proof is a general principle not a cast iron written in statute absolute.
By pointing to the crash damage and saying that is the reason for the bent tube the retailer shown that it is not an inherent fault.
The point is that at less than six months old it is up to the retailer to show / prove that it was not an inherent fault - after 6 months it sis up to the buyer to show it is an inherent fault.
But it could be a fault that it wasn't able to survive whatever impact it took when it should have done.
Or it could have been normal damage for the given impact
whichever, if the consumer claims that it was a fault - the burden of proof is with the retailer [in the first 6 months]
It does not make it meaningless
It does in this situation.
TJ this is hardly an unbiased opinion is it.The retailer has expert opinion
You make this sound as though there is some govt written handbook on SOGA cases?The fact that there is crash damage establishes that it is not necessarily an inherent fault and the burden of proof would return to the buyer. He would have to sue and to show that it was a manufacturing fault.
Ultimately this will just be a squabble between two parties where the OP's mate will have to go to court if the retailer refuses to meet his expectations.
I don't know much about SOGA but I have done countless research and report writing for failure cases where my then boss did the appearing as an expert witness, and I currently provide consultancy services for a solicitors here where product failure is an issue. Admittedly I'm still learning the ropes when it comes to legalese, but my experience is that if there is obvious crash damage as described, and an expert is likely to conclude your mate bent it in a crash then this will likely only make it as far as solicitors letters if he were too push it that far. Most solicitors, upon receiving an engineers report that blames the crash will advise him to not go any further. Your mate could push it further than that but it would probably be a waste of time. Like others said, I think common sense will prevail, he is not likely to win anything because of some perceived SOGA technicality.
Did your friend travel to the race in a yellow bus with lots of tongue marks on the windows 🙄
Uplink - the point being that the retailer can give a reasonable explanation for the damage -"its crash damage" and refuse to replace. next step for the buyer is to sue in court. The claim would rest on is the retailers refusal to replace reasonable ( remember "reasonable" has a legal meaning). I would think it unlikely a court would find against the retailer in this situation.
Its not like a TV failing - unless there is obvious signs of the TV having been dropped.