Consumer Rights Act

I know there a few shop owners and others on here involved in sales.
STW hive mind on the following.

Email shop for a price match.
They agree stating they will put the requested sizes to one side.
So go up, try them on after correcting the cock up on the manufacturers website.
Their specialist advised on the correct leg length for the armour to be in the right place despite the fact I have always personally gone for standard leg.
Having not had Rukka before and their staff supposedly having undergone manufacturers training I agreed.
Cue the first time wearing them on sunday they leaked – through the top of the boot due to how the leg rides up the boot in use!
Wen back up to them on wednesday wearing the kit to go through the issue with them and allow them the opportunity to rectify it.
Quite simple – the advised length is wrong, just swap for the longer standard leg please.
Nope.
Tough.
Go away and try them again in the rain – if it does it again, we’ll look at getting them modified in a way that doesn’t affect your warranty.

Errr??? WTAF??
I dont want £600 of Rukka trouser having crap stitched to the bottom of them when they are less than a week old!
Just swap them.
Theuy state the sales guy isn’t there but he’ll call me back tomorrow.
Nope – he doesn’t
or friday
or saturday
or sunday.
So I send a polite email requesting the trousers are swapped for the longer length as the ones supplied are not fit for use.
I get a long email back from what appears to be their director.
With so many assumptions and inaccuracies it it gobsmacking in its content.
From wearing the wrong boot
to being short in stature and riding the wrong bike

I replied in a factual manner outlining his inaccuracies to which his reply was that because I had chosen to accept that trouser it was my decision and therefore the goods were suitable and tough.
That I had also clearly worn then more than once and on one occasion getting them heavily wet and thus accumulated road dirt and grime. They do not accept returns on used items which is clear in their T&C’s.

The above is bollocks – worn once when I got soaking wet hence me returning to them in said items to show them how they issue occurred and to rectify it.
Their T&C’s on the website make no mention at all of used items.
In fact it states that they will accept returns up to a year even if you’ve just “changed your mind”
Faulty items you must contact them within 30 days.
Thats it.

His final email was rude stating that I couldn’t just “change my mind because something doesn’t fit” (despite their website clearly stating I could) and that he had instructed his staff not to engage in any further communication with me.

So Consumer Direct, Trading Standards and the Ombudsman have all opened complaints BUT what would STW do?

Pitchforks?
Bombers?
Poo through the letterbox?
Smear campaign?

How did you pay?

In short:

Op tries on some trews
Agrees to buy
Wears on shitty conditions
They aren’t the right length after all
Shop won’t take them back as they’ve been used, but offers to modify them

As you didn’t pay for the advice, but you also didn’t check the trousers fitted right in good conditions, i’d say you might well be pumped – they did initially offer to help make the trousers useful

You have a legal right to reject goods within 30 days if they are “of unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described.” Critically, this also applies to bespoke goods. How often you’ve worn them is irrelevant. Whether you’ve changed your mind is irrelevant.

Faulty is debatable, but they’re clearly falling foul of the latter two points. I think “not as described” is the most cast-iron clause here – they’ve got professionally-trained ‘specialists’ who have advised you on what to buy.

I’d be saying something like, “just to be clear can you confirm that you’re refusing to honour my statutory rights under the CRA 2015?”

and I’d imagine the OP will get no response from them if he does ask that.

They good will be as described e.g. Water resistant of such a waist and length. They are also fit for purpose, being the wrong size for the person wearing them doesn’t change that.

OTOH, the shops attitude is rotten so I’d be getting on to manufacturer. I’d also be wanting to speak to the manager than relying on email

They were fitted by the shop, whose “specialists” told him it would fit. Ergo, they are not as described.

The law is more encompassing than simply what’s on the label. Under the old SoGA, this was legally binding even if it was throwaway verbal advice – if the teenage sales drone in PC World tells you you can get Sky Sports and Asian grot on a Freeview box and after you’ve got it home it transpires that you can’t, then legally it’s not as described (though of course, good luck proving it). The CRA uses the same wording as SoGA here so I doubt it’s changed.

Yes, and then the OP agreed with the advice given, after no doubt trying them on in the shop. As you say, good luck proving anything even if they were massively insistent, so it’s a moot point.

Also the training was most likely 20mins with the rep covering the entire range

Thats basically what Consumer Direct and Trading Standards have said Cougar.
Company concerned is Motolegends in Guildford.
To be clear I’ve spent thousands with them over several years.
Always had great service so last week to basically be told tough now sod off by one guy then the other offer to “get them modified” left me gobsmacked tbh.
Lets be clear – these are £600 Rukka Navigatorr’s not £99 Oxford specials.
Legend – would you accept someone telling you they’ll stitch something on to the bottom of trousers you’ve just spent £600 on?
Yeh – didn’t think so 🙄
I had worn them once at that point when I got wet – once.
I then retturned to their shop in them specifically so they could see the issue in person – so twice at that point.
The kit itself is brilliant but the length they vehemently told me I needed “for them to be right in use” isn’t.
The shite Christopher Paul spouted in his reply to me went on about me buying road trousers and using off-road boots with buckles and clips.
Being short in stature and riding a GS.
Wanting trousers that were right on the street not the bike.
I’ve ridden since I was six.
I don’t give a flying….. what they look like walking round – I’m not hiking up Snowdon in them ffs!
They need to sit properly on the boot when sitting on the bike.
They don’t – they rise up to within 1″ of the top of the boot.and as such aren’t fit for use as advised and sold to me by their salesperson.
They are making out that their staff are there to help and offer their opinion but the choice is yours and you have to lump it.
Regardless of how much knowledge of kit I do or do not have – their staff as Cougar pointed out under the law are deemed to be professional and as such in a position of advise a “layman”.
Their advice was wrong. These are staff that were trained by Rukka apparently – not “20mins with the rep”. Something they advertise as a selling point.
Also their T&C’s he refers to make absolutely no mention of used goods in any way and clearly state you can return items up to year even if you just change your mind.
They aren’t sticking to that either.

Happy to post up his email here to show just how ill-informed they guy is in what he was stating.
One thing I don’t do is hide crap – If I’m wrong I’ll suck it up. I’m brutally honest too about things.
I’ve lost and gained clients, friends, etc because of that before now.
Its how I am and I won’t apologise for it.

But lets be honest – the guy even suggested that I sell them on eBay to recover some money if I didn’t want to change my boots!!

The off-road boots with buckles and straps that apparently I was wearing.
The boots that were in fact smooth leather Alpinestars SMX Goretex road boots.
Thats the level of arrogance and stupidity here.

I did suggest that perhaps he reviewed their CCTV from the day if he wasn’t sure what exactly I was wearing.

Let’s just be clear here: if the facts are as described by the OP, then the shop is taking the piste.

Send them back with a note explaining they are not fit for the purpose intended and then report to your credit card company if they haven’t refunded you within a few days.

Legend – would you accept someone telling you they’ll stitch something on to the bottom of trousers you’ve just spent £600 on?

Of course not! I also wouldn’t have been happy to hand over £600 for a pair of trousers I wasn’t confident fitted right. OTOH, right now you have armour in the right place, if you get the ones you want that’ll now be in the wrong place. So the modified trousers would actually be the best fit, and they might be modified by the manufacturer.

Have you fired off an email/Tweet/Facebook post to Rukka yet? Quick look at their website shows no UK office, so it’ll likely just be an importer or an agent

With a bent leg the regular length trousers would but the armour in the right place as the ones currently place the bend in the knee armour above the joint when on the bike due to the design of the pocket.
Something that was not obvious in the shop on the static bike there.
According to the specs – the longer leg has the knee armour roughly 1.5″ lower with an overall 3″ longer leg so exactly the length it actually needs to be on the GS.
Put it this way there is almost 4″ difference between hip bone and ankle from a straight leg to a bent one on the bike.
This is the issue.
This is what I was trying to get through to them on wednesday but they were refusing to acknowledge they had sold me the wrong length and that I needed to change my boots/modify the trousers/etc.
All modifying the bottom would do would possibly prevent the bottom riding up – but where is the extra length necessary going to come from?
At the end of the day they are refusing to honour their legal obligations under the CRA hence why there is now two (soon to be 3) complaints against them.

Yes, and then the OP agreed with the advice given,

Irrelevant. He was acting on advice from what he believed to be experts and the goods were neither as described nor fit for purpose.

Also the training was most likely 20mins with the rep covering the entire range

Again, irrelevant. They were presented as specialists. And even if they weren’t, see previous statement. Morally perhaps, yes, you’re quite right that it’s his own fault for not checking; legally though it’s quite clear and that’s what we’re dealing with here.

They are making out that their staff are there to help and offer their opinion but the choice is yours and you have to lump it.

Again, irrelevant. If the Work Experience trainee told you they’d fit and you bought them on the back of that advice, the product is not “as described” at point of sale and they’re liable.

the goods were neither as described nor fit for purpose.

Nonsense, they just didn’t fit.

Motorcycle protective gear ninfan and as such them not fitting means they are not fit for purpose.
Their advice in store was wrong and instead of just swapping them at which point their exemplary service would have remained intact they refused to acknowledge an issue blaming me.

The fact they market themselves as holding the largest stock of this sort of kit in the UK, that they are the largest specialist for certain manufacturers, etc should mean that if/when they do make a mistake they are in a position to quite easily swallow it – not punt it on to the consumer who took their advice.

You seriously would not believe what the guy put in his email reply to me.
The YTS could have come up with something better.

Nonsense, they just didn’t fit.

But it was described to the buyer (by their specialists) that they would.

Maybe the OP should just have an ‘off’ and then hop back to them on his one working leg to discuss ‘fit for purpose’?

Sounds like a very poor response from them, I’d talk to my credit card company about it and see what they suggest but should that fail it possible you may need to take it to the small claims court.

You have the right to return them if you’ve changed your mind? End of story.

You’ve gone to TS etc? Even more so.

Great to see lots of irrelevant guff and gossip tho.

They’ve refused it Al – in an email.
Said no – end of, go away, take us to court.

You have the right to return them if you’ve changed your mind? End of story.

Under Consumer Contracts Regulations (formerly Distance Selling Regs) yes. Going into a shop, no.

Erm, he’s quoted that from their website (presumably because it doesn’t apply only to online sales).

What are TS doing for you?

A small claim is not difficult BTW

I can’t see the in the post where it says how long ago it was you bought them?

Sounds to me like the shop have a moral obligation to keep you happy by exchanging your product as really they are for for purpose, it’s just that they are the wrong size due to the recommendation by the sales staff.

Forget the fact that it’s a 600 pound pair of motorcycle trousers. It would be the same for a 20 pound pair of jeans. You bought them based on sales recommendations.

TS have a complaint opened already.
Consumer ombudsman open theirs Friday.
I bought the items on the 14th.
Worn on the 16th and discovered issue.
Returned to shop on the 19th at which point I was fobbed off.
Call
Promised which didn’t happen.
Email sent on the 22nd
Reply from Christopher Paul spouting bollocks on the 23rd

No right to return just because anybody’s changed their mind. Goods have been accepted, that’s it. Had a look at the website out of interest and their returns policy clearly states only on new and unused items, maybe they’ve changed it? They’d argue that the website was different anyway but you could have argued back that they have a returns policy and that legally they have to stick to it.

Your best bet imo would be to speak to your bank about a chargeback, your other complaints won’t actually get you anywhere if the shop doesn’t back down whereas if the card co find in your favour then you will. TS/CAB etc will just advise your rights. Your only stick to beat them with though is the professional advice and you have to be able to prove that the salesperson was not just a salesperson but acting in a professional capacity to specifically advise on that equipment. That gets harder to prove unless you’ve done something like pay for the fitting, when it’s clear. If they’re advertising specially trained staff etc then it’s going to influence your desicion so that helps your case.

The point is there is that if they don’t back down you’ve got to prove their fault and unless the bank sorts it for you it’s going to cost you a lot more than what you’d lose selling the trousers on and buying another pair, plus the grief, which is what they’ll be banking on.

Retailer myself. I’ve had similar situations and gone both ways – from what you’ve said I’d offer an exchange, and just flog the pair you bought at cost price assuming it’s as new.

Does anyone read threads anymore?

Their T&C’s on the website make no mention at all of used items.
In fact it states that they will accept returns up to a year even if you’ve just “changed your mind”

Does anyone read threads anymore?

Second line of my post…