Warranty denied as I stripped the bike down?

Ah… good memory Mert… lugged 853 for lugged seamed Ti seems quite a close match. I had one of the 853 ones… were quite close in price to the Ti ones IIRC.

I don’t understand why anyone thinks there is a legal claim here.  The provisions of the guarantee are clear and were available before purchase and have been applied.

Not many people are saying that. They’re talking about the ludicrousness of promising a warranty, then removing it by adding a set of caveats that are contradictory, unclear, unfair and anti-competitive.

Therefore the chances of the customer being able to adhere to the terms of the warranty are almost nil.

A fair expectation of the ultimate outcome would be that Giant settles this on account of the bad publicity it’s in the process of generating.

A fair outcome would be that Giant rewords its warranty in line with that of its competitors.

On what basis would you make a legal claim?

I would have thought (IANAL) that the T&Cs and their application were:

A. Sufficiently altering a headline warrenty that influenced the purchasing descision that it was misleading.

B. Unreasonable – a bike which you must walk back to the car and take to a dealer to be mended rather than perfoming a trailside repair is not fit for mountain biking.

C. Anti-competitive – If BMW can’t make the warrenty conditional upon your car being serviced by BMW, I don’t see why Giant can do the same with a bike.

Edit typed to slow, but yes, what he said too.

The terms of the warrantee are the terms of the warrantee

BUT If as someone else has said the authorised dealer has to strip down the bike so they can pass on information about anything that looks odd, then that should be part of the warrantee process paid for by the manufacturer rather than an extra over paid for by the client.

The reason the OP has fallen foul of the terms is because an extra cost has been added into the warrantee process bay the dealer.

Also that the warranty terms are ambiguous and do not entirely correspond with the advice in the owners’ handbook.

The question is what could be seen as reasonable for the owner of a new off-road bike to do in terms of care/maintenance and adjusting/altering the spec. The term ‘service’ is not clearly defined in the document, neither is ‘modification’. The interpretation put forward by Giant’s Warranty Department to save a few pennies is so extreme that it seems to me to be an unfair contract term, as no consumer who had it fully explained at purchase would go ahead with the transaction.

As it stands, they could claim you voided your warranty by moving a spacer from one side of your stem to the other, because the fork slipped down a bit during the process.

I’d also argue on the basis of unfair contract terms. Just because they are written down doesn’t make them enforcable. They have to pass a reasonableness test.

You might struggle in this particular case because there is substantial ‘modification’ that has been done (stripping down that does involve significant spannering), but the terms AS WRITTEN suggest that any modification voids them. Saddle too high? Adjusted the seatpost yourself Sir? Sorry, warranty void. Changed the shop provided pedals to put your own on. Warranty void. Even if you are Cytech qualified, you have to take it to a Giant shop to get it done.as per the T&C’s.

The issue being to me that they are written in a way that no-one would seriously think they were supposed to be interpreted as absolutely literal. Yet that is now looking like how they would be.

IDK, I’d think a small claims might have a 50/50 chance of success; but what it might force is for Giant (and others?) to rethink what they consider to be reasonable in other cases.

Do we know how much the OP ‘saved’ by stripping the bike down?

I don’t know. I’m guessing a standard hour at least each end so £70

Had they said bring it in and we’ll send it back I’d have taken the full bike. But I thought it was a bit rich charging labour, an admin fee and postage.

Not enough for a new frame obviously.

Ill get my coat

You would win a small claims court, in fact I will go so far as to say its a certainty.

As for Giant, they will never get another penny out of me, shabby & stupid customer service

I think you’d win too. The Giant warranty contract seems to fail the below tests…

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450410/Unfair_Terms_Explained.pdf

28. ‘Good faith’ relates to the substance of terms as well as the way they are expressed. It is based on the general principle of ‘fair and open dealing’, where terms are expressed fully, clearly and legibly, and with due respect for
the consumer’s interests. Agreements with consumers should not contain concealed pitfalls or traps, and terms that might disadvantage the consumer should be given appropriate prominence.

A business should not take advantage of consumers’ vulnerability in deciding what their rights and obligations should be and should look like. Businesses need to deal fairly with consumers, taking into account their legitimate interests.

Consumers tend to have weaker bargaining power because of their lack of financial resources, their need for the service or product they are buying, their lack of experience of negotiation and their relative unfamiliarity with the subject matter of the contract.

29. When drafting contracts, it is important to take into account how consumers actually behave in practice, including for instance the fact that most consumers do not read standard written contracts thoroughly before making a purchase.

I assume this has been posted over social media? Any response from Giant? They’re not getting another penny of my hard earned.

I personally have not. Giving the shop I purchased from time to contact Giant after the LBS debacle. Seemed slightly fairer as technically that’s who my contracts with.

I’ve seen it on Twitter

My biggest takes from this thread is never buy a Giant and that warranty is hard to spell.😂

Ah… good memory Mert… lugged 853 for lugged seamed Ti seems quite a close match. I had one of the 853 ones… were quite close in price to the Ti ones IIRC.

Can’t remember exactly because the Bonded Ti were phased out before i worked there, but i think the best of them was about 400 quid F+F, so a similar price to the lugged 531, 853 (lugless) started at about 650-700, maybe a bit more and the Ti Plasma welded started around 900 (i got my first Ti Plasma MTB frame for 700, with a nice discount)

Just on the Raleigh Ti thread derail….

I know 3 people that had the plasma welded Raleigh Ti MTBs and they all cracked in weird places, never actually from the weld – two near the top of the seatstays and one right around the downtube (edge of HAZ presumably).

One of the last replacements was Ti but painted not raw.

And I’ve repaired somebody else’s 853 MTB where the seatstay brace tube collected water and rotted through underneath and both ends into the stays themselves.

Bicycles serviced by a non Authorised Giant Dealer.

Terrible wording

To me that says you warranty is void if your bike is serviced by some one who is a Giant Dealer that hasn’t been authorised. Maybe a grey import Giant Dealer?

Presumably they meant

“Bicycles serviced by anyone other than an Authorised Giant Dealer”

My unqualified opinion is that this shouldn’t go any where near a court. The case might be winnable but the costs would exceed The claim.

Oh and a shout out to the OP for not going to social media yet. I hope the original retailer is more helpful

Wot Vinnyeh said.

I don’t care whether there’s a “legal basis for a claim”, its the ridiculous response from Giant in the email that’s been shared, that a customer removing parts from a frame constitutes the bike being “worked on by a non-Giant retailer” and that removing parts = servicing, that has wound me up!

I will be buying a new full sus this year. Giant will not be on the short list.

I looked for it on twitter but found another amazing warranty experience instead

Thread. I own a @GiantUK bike. Recently the frame snapped. Giant offer a lifetime warranty on their frames. I got in touch with them and they arranged for the bike to be inspected at @GiantCamden to see what damage had occurred and wether it was covered under the warranty pic.twitter.com/cqHNDAuH1X

— aidan mcmanus (@mcmanus_aidan) November 18, 2021

Awful. Worth opening the screenshot photos in that thread to see how the poster had saved the email contact.

… and that removing parts = servicing…

It sucks when people just make up a completely irrational interpretation of something and stick to it. Reminds me of when ebuyer refused to consider sending me a replacement TV remote because ‘the remote came free with the TV, so it’s not covered by any warranty or rights’. I’d been going round in circles with them for weeks by then and didn’t have the energy to take them to the Small Claims Court, so I guess they won.

It’s OK, they took the time to add a helpful reply to the thread. I think their PR Bot needs a reboot, though.

@mcmanus_aidan
Hi Aidan,

We are really sorry for the disappointment caused.

As the Giant authorised store has advised you correctly, in line with our warranty policy, we are unable to help further.

Thanks, Team Giant

— Giant UK & Eire (@GiantUK) November 19, 2021

Wow that’s pretty shocking. I like the bit where they inspected the whole bike and missed the snapped frame 😆

LOL at inspected bike and recommend the following replacements including a chainset, but when ascertaining the chainset was needing replacement totally missed the **** massive hole in the frame right next to it.

“Because the location of the crack wasn’t described on the job sheet”

Possibly Giant are toughening up on warranty claims as they are experiencing financial difficulties as seen in the news articles about them delaying supplier payments etc.

Goodness – I wonder if that chap took his bike to Marin like they offered.

“Because the location of the crack wasn’t described on the job sheet”

I especially liked how they opened with, the bike has been in a crash, obviously missing the broken frame and then moved on to wear and tear.

How does a seat tube rip out of a bb shell through wear and tear?

From the list of parts required it did initially read like it’d been run over, or Crashed heavily and the chap was trying his luck, but clearly not or that’d be an easy end to the conversation for the pretend warranty department.

Possibly Giant are toughening up on warranty claims as they are experiencing financial difficulties as seen in the news articles about them delaying supplier payments etc.

Their warranty certainly used to be decent. An ex colleague snapped a chain stay 10 years ago on a then 5 year old road frame and it was replaced without bother.

The Camden Giant store story….the worst part of that is that it appears a bike shop mechanic has been allowed to have an opinion that matters on the fabrication of a frame. Now I know there are some lovely folk that work in bike shops (including some here) and ‘some’ are knowledgeable people (often the ones that have done something else first and are working in a bike shop as second or third career) but they tend to be the exception. Your ‘average’ bike shop mechanic struggles to dribble in a straight line let alone have any sort of useful opinion to contribute on the nuances of tig weld failures.

lugged 853 for lugged seamed Ti

I certainly didn’t get offered an 853 frame……

Yeah, realised that after i thought about it. Maybe 531, or even 501 depending on which of the Ti frames you cracked!

Anyone know what the deal here is if you upgrade your kit. Different wheels, fork, brakes etc, doing the fittings yourself.

Anyone know what the deal here is if you upgrade your kit. Different wheels, fork, brakes etc, doing the fittings yourself.

The warranty document says that ‘modifications’ will void the warranty. Giant appears to want to apply its warranty exclusions well beyond what most people would say is reasonable, so anyone with one of their bikes should work on the principle that ANY change from stock could be potentially problematic.

The handbook rather confusingly says you should seek advice from your Giant dealer before swapping parts, and that any ‘servicing’, which in the OP’s case, appears to cover taking parts off, should be carried out at a dealer or void your warranty.

Confusing and contradictory, which is not what you want when you own or are considering buying thousands of pounds worth of equipment.

I certainly didn’t get offered an 853 frame…

Yeah, thinking about it… mine wasn’t 853… no point with glue and lugs. Had steel handlebars as well.

The warranty document says that ‘modifications’ will void the warranty.

Wise catch all clause. So many parts you can change on a frame that’ll push it beyond what it was designed for.

The handbook rather confusingly says you should seek advice from your Giant dealer before swapping parts

See above.

On the basis of this thread…  any Giant dealer (LBS or on-line) should be highlighting to the potential customer that although the bike may be very good etc that in reality it has no warranty.  That’s the implication.

Wise catch all clause. So many parts you can change on a frame that’ll push it beyond what it was designed for.

Perhaps, but seeing that Giant has now clearly showed an appetite for catching all its warranty claims (and binning them), consumers should start taking them seriously.

Well if you can’t send a shock for service without invalidating your warranty you can’t fit forks yourself

So many parts you can change on a frame that’ll push it beyond what it was designed for.

Sure, but most companies list those e.g. max rotor size, max fork length. You can’t claim that changing say pedals or saddle would cause a crack. That fails the ‘reasonableness’ test.

You can’t list them all. Create any list of inappropriate component swaps and I’ll give you an example of one you might not have foreseen…. “the manual didn’t say I couldn’t put a 275 wheel in my 26 wheel bike” (when the manual was written before 275 wheels were a thing). Catch alls are probably needed… and then you’re relying on a sensible implementation… that’s what’s really be argued about here, isn’t it? You’d expect the catch all to be useful for the manufacturer or shop to be able to turn down warranties because of any use of inappropriate components, or them being poorly fitted or maintained… the allegation here is that this one is being used to avoid warranty claims. Not sure it’s a valid allegation in the OP, but I seem to be in the minority here.