Am i entitled to a refund.

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