[Closed] Rock shox bubbling

Fisher tend to be pretty quick, doubt it'll be 3 weeks.

Sucks to be without the bike, but shit happens and they'll see you sorted if there's a problem

Hopefully not mate. You dealt with fisher before? Heard some horror stories before but then you do about most never the good stuff.

They turned my boxxer warranty around in under a week this time last year. If you get the same level of service you should be fine.

Once again

Your contract is with the retailer - its nothing to do with anyone else

Its your right to reject it and have it replaced or your money refunded.

Do not allow them to send it off to anyone. Read up on your rights on the consumers direct website. quote Sale of goods act at them.

TJ, Fishers are the distributors and warranty centre for Rockshox in the UK, they are the people suppliers send units to for a warranty inspection/repair.

Yes but this is a Sale of goods act situation. Nothing to do with warranty which is over ad above the sale of goods act rights. there is no need to contact or deal with anyone else - the goods are not up to standard the retailer has to replace them.

The buyer should not be without his bike at all apart from a day or two to replace the defective parts

Yes but, the most likely situation is that the forks are returned to Fishers for an inspection on the paint, they'll replace the lowers and return to the retailer, should be quite quick, the chance the retailer has the same fork in the same spec is probably quite slim, so timings would be roughly the same give or take a day or so.

The difference being you can still continue to ride your bike while the retailer sources the replacement.

Its nothing to do with fishers. They do not have to inspect it.

I'd get a new bike out of them, 2 weeks is pretty poor. I've never had a problem with any of my Rockshox though.

It is not the lowers that need replacing it is the same as this

not as bad though

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/rockshox-lyrik-crown-corrosion-under-the-paint

Ok so it is a cosmetic paint defect, they'll replace the uppers I would guess.
Speak to the supplier/retailer and see what they offer you.

I could be wrong, but I thought under the Sale of Goods act the retailer has the obligation to repair or replace the goods, at their discretion, if they are deemed to be faulty. The act, if memory serves me correctly, allows for a reasonable time for the retailer to undertake the necessary action.

In that reasonable time, I think it would be acceptable for retailer to consult an expert on the problem. In the case of Rock Shox, that expert is Fishers.

It is probably also worth noting that if the bike shop were to replace the upper assembly of the fork, it would most likely take more than a week for them to get the parts and for the mechanic to swap all the parts from the original fork. It is quite likely that the mechanic will be undertaking the task for the first time.

The alternative is to allow the shop to send the fork to Fishers who will most likely deem the item faulty and use their trained technicians to replace the offending part. The fork will probably be back to you in under a week.

I would recommend that you insist that the shop send the forks recorded delivery.

The fork crown is not a sufficiently large part of the whole bike for the shop to be obliged to refund the total cost of the bike, or even the price of the fork.

LAT - Member

I could be wrong, but I thought under the Sale of Goods act the retailer has the obligation to repair or replace the goods, at their discretion, if they are deemed to be faulty. The act, if memory serves me correctly, allows for a reasonable time for the retailer to undertake the necessary action.

Nope - only if you are deemed to have accepted the goods ( and that is arguable anyway) and at less than 3 weeks old no chance of that.

Repair / replace / refund is the buyers choice.

Edit -

The fork crown is not a sufficiently large part of the whole bike for the shop to be obliged to refund the total cost of the bike, or even the price of the fork.

Yes LAT, I wouldn't expect a shop to replace a faulty part on one of the shocks I distribute with an entire new shock, just to send it to me for the unit to be inspected and repaired as appropriate.
This in my experience is how it has/should and always work as it provides the best outcome for the Customer, retailer and distributor.

EDIT: TJ it's a small, by the OP's admission paint defect, the forks haven't exploded or something catastrophic, so the sale of goods shouting is a little excessive in this case purhaps?

No loco - the shop should obtain a new shock from you and replace that on the bike then return the faulty one to you.

Best outcome for the customer is the one that has the fault rem=edied with least hassle and delay

I thought that if you behaved as if the goods were yours (ie you rode the bike) then you have accepted the goods.

TJ, that really doesn't happen in the real world of the bike industry, shops (unless they're a large chain) can ill afford to buy another unit to replace one that maybe warranty, as they could just end up with a defective/broken by misuse unit that the distributor won't warranty.
Hence the scenario I mentioned above.

Best outcome for the customer is the one that has the fault rem=edied with least hassle and delay

which in this case is likely to be sending the fork to Fishers. Unless by some miracle the shop has the exact fork in stock, otherwise Fishers TRT could easily match/beat ordering up a replacement

The shop do have the right to have the forks assessed though so they are entitled to sent them to Fishers. Just explain your position to someone senior at the shop and see if they can help you out by replacing the forks. This might actually be better for them, as you'll be happy and they can return the forks at their leisure, rather than trying to get them turned around asap. The worst thing you can do is start going on about your rights as they will immediately be on the defensive, and may be less inclined to go above and beyond. Go in intending to have a conversation, not an argument.

Loco - the point is the buyer should not be inconvenienced by this - sending a part of his bike off to be inspected means he will be without his bike. that is not acceptable to me or to him by the sound of it.

I would expect the shop to say - forks are faulty - we will get some new ones from fishers and wil let you know when yo can come in to get the swap

Lat - its all a bit unclear and arguable but I don't think that will be the case here after a mere 3 weeks. Its a clear inherent fault

Yes don't try and 'own' them with the forks this in my experience is not the best course of action 😉

Yes but what I'm saying is that without the fork or any other item being inspected by the distributor in some cases it is not clear whether the fault will be covered by warranty, or whether the fault has been caused by misuse and therefore would leave the retailer out of pocket.
Hence items generally being returned for inspection, unless you can get a catagorical yes from the distributor.
I can't comment on how the retailer or distributor will respond in this case, just to make that clear.

Loco - tough thats the legal responsibility.

Legend - he can carry on using the bike while awaiting the replacement parts

steezysix - Member

The shop do have the right to have the forks assessed though so they are entitled to sent them to Fishers.

No they do not.

its a contract between the shop and they buyer. No one else comes into it. the fork is faulty the shop is liabale to replace it. simple as

If you look at the cost of a fork crown compared to the cost of the bike,, the crown is a pretty small contributor to the overall price.

I think you are wrong when you say it is the customers choice as to the repair/replace option. I am pretty sure that it is at the discretion of the retailer. If the customer isn't satisfied with what the retailer offers, they can take the issue further.

If the customer continues to use the bike in the meantime, they would probably be considered to have accepted the goods.

Don't misunderstand me, I am not anti-consumer legislation and I don't believe the customer is always wrong. But if the OP wants my advice:

Allow the shop to return your forks to Fishers, get them fixed and get riding again. Probably within a week. Just insist that they send the forks recorded delivery.

Under the sale of goods act, the shop are obliged to

ensure the goods are repaired or replaced at no cost, minimum inconvenience and within reasonable time

Current turnaround of 3 days at Fishers, so not excessive.Most shops will try to see you right anyway.

Right back to work 😉

looks like I have opened a can of worms. I am having to send the forks to fishers as I got the bike via mail order. Not from my LBS.

I want the bike shop on my side but again, im not sure why I/or anyone should be without their bike,two weeks after spending top money on it.

3 days doesn't sound to bad.

its a contract between the shop and they buyer. No one else comes into it. the fork is faulty the shop is liabale to replace it. simple as

actually the bike is faulty. And if faulty surely shouldn't be ridden?

I want the bike shop on my side but again, im not sure why I/or anyone should be without their bike,two weeks after spending top money on it

I guess steezy. Hopefully get them sent at the weekend.

I think you are wrong when you say it is the customers choice as to the repair/replace option. I am pretty sure that it is at the discretion of the retailer.

Its absolutly clear in the legislation. refund / repair / replace is the customers choice

steezysix - Member

Under the sale of goods act, the shop are obliged to

"ensure the goods are repaired or replaced at no cost, minimum inconvenience and within reasonable time"

- They do not have to issue a refund or replacement on the spot.

Dunno where yo get that from - yes they do - the customer can elect for a repair but if they want a replacement or refund they can have it

Mail order - its still the same issue.

Dunno where yo get that from

Government consumer rights website. I hope it's legit... 😕

So you're honestly saying that you expect the mail order retailer to just send a new pair of forks to the customer without seeing the faulty ones TJ.

TandemJeremy - Member

No one else comes into it. the fork is faulty the shop is liabale to replace it.

Surely the point of the inspection is to establish if it's faulty?

steezysix - Member

Dunno where yo get that from

Government consumer rights website. I hope it's legit...

Misinterpretation I guess - thats the situation if it is not an inherent fault and / or if the customer is deemed to have accepted the goods.

Loco - its harder with a mail order company but the same applies that its their responsibility to sort it out without inconvenience to the customer.

I stand corrected, the customer does have the right choose repair or replacement.

Either way, the retailer has a reasonable time to repair/replace that does not cause the customer a significant inconvenience.

The question in my mind is what is at fault, the bike, the fork or the fork crown?

A moot point because without a trip to the courts the forks will be fixed by Fishers.

Sorry for the hijack.

The way I read it is that there is a paint defect on the crown of the Crown steerer unit or Uppers of the fork.
From experience the uppers would be replaced to retify the fault as it does not affect the rest of the forks function (internals and lowers)

The crown steerer units would also have been most likely sprayed in a different batch to the lowers as well.

It's all well and good quoting various bits of legislation but back in the the real world it will be far quicker and easier for all if the forks go to Fishers. They fix them and get them back to the OP which I guarantee will be quicker than testing the Sale of Goods Act in a court. Embrace a system that works well enough for most people rather than fight it.
What some punters forget is that retailers and distributors have to protect themselves from the small percentage of the buying public that are at best chancers and at worst scammers.
There's a thread going at the moment with some one slagging off Wiggle because they are dragging their heels on a warranty replacement that he is not even entitled to as he is not the original owner.

Matt, I wasn't going to mention that thread, but yes case in point.

I've seen alot of attempted scams in various forms over the years, hence spending the time to try and explain why things work in the way they do.

The legislation is there to protect customers in a worse case scenario I think as every retailer I've dealt with/worked for have been pretty good on faults generally.

Good grief what is all the agro?

It's a bit of bubbling paint. From experience Fishers are pretty damn good at sorting things out quickly so just get the forks back to them and get the CSU replaced.

Ask your bike shop if they have any spare forks they can fit for you to use if it's going to be more than a week.

looks like I have opened a can of worms

This is just the start of it. I would sue the retailer, Fishers, Rockshox and STW, who have facilitiated this discussion and are thus legally implicated in the issue, in the US Supreme Court. You should at the very least recover around $2-3 million in damages for distress caused by having to read TJ's endless gerbillings. As a best case outcome, you may be able to force Rockshox and SRAM into bankruptcy and cause their assets to be sold off to rectify the problem you're experiencing. Just saying.

But what do I know, Tandem Jeremy is, after all, a legal professional, isn't he? 😉