Warranty claim, how does this work then...

Northwind

So... Turns out my Mmmbop has a manufacturing defect, the lefthand dropout plate that the brake etc bolts to is bent. Possibly overheated in welding or something, I dunno. I'd noticed when I built the frame that it needed shims at one end of the brake mount to get it straight but I didn't realise what was causing it, I just assumed the brake mounts were needing faced. But nah, turns out the plate they're on is bent. Spoke to Ragley and no fuss at all, they said send it back, they've seen a couple like this so get a new one.

So far, no bother from CRC either, so it's going back free post. Buuuut... It's an outright defect from new and it's not damage, it does however have about a tenner's worth of helicopter tape on it and o'course I've built the bike up so there's an expense there (well, I built it myself so there's a time expense but if I'd had a pro do it I'd be out of pocket). I'm going to get a replacement but would people expect to just get the replacement, or is it reasonable to get a wee bit back as well to compensate for the loss?

It's a great bike btw and I'll be getting another, just in case anyone's wondering! And in the mean time I'll rebuild the Soul so I'm not griping over not having a bike to ride

weeksy59

IMO you get back what you sent, nothing more.

meesterbond

I think your theory's sound... you've wasted time and effort and should be compensated for it, however I wouldn't fancy your chances of seeing any financial compensation out of it!

I think the best you could hope for is the problem to be rectified quickly and without complaint and maybe something small by way of an apology... discount voucher or extra Haribos...

Annoying, but at least it's being sorted.

peter413

I would expect something a little extra if it left me with no bike, looks like the Superstars are looking that way but if you had a bike that you could ride instead, I wouldn't expect any extra but I would hope they would supply you with things that have been damaged/lost because of the defect (like heli-tape if it was on the frame that you sent back)

wordnumb

Ha ha, no chance. They'll say you should've noticed the fault before building it up.

supersonic

you could claim some compensation if the time periods are unreasonable. But generally no, they have done everything by the book it seems.

cooldad

Small problem, they happily agree to sort it out. Still a whinge.
This 'I want compensation for everything' is getting annoying.
Get a life.

Like this - whinging about Superstar over two threads now.

peter413 wrote:

I would expect something a little extra if it left me with no bike, looks like the Superstars are looking that way but if you had a bike that you could ride instead, I wouldn't expect any extra but I would hope they would supply you with things that have been damaged/lost because of the defect (like heli-tape if it was on the frame that you sent back)

diy

In their warranty which you could drive a coach and horses through there is a basic attempt at a limitation of liability clause...

The owner will also be responsible for any labour costs involved in transferring existing components to the replacement frame and the cost of any additional components required. We reserve the right to withdraw an offer, or change the level of support without prior notice. From previous experience in the industry, can we just say that we’re happy to act reasonably with reasonable people.

However, nothing in the above limits their liability for replacement hire and loss of use and all the bollox about being reasonable with reasonable people would give their lawyers a right headache if ever someone sued them. For the very fact that it actually obliges them IMO to act reasonably and that could imply an obligation of "all reasonable efforts" which they don't want to be obliged to have without a basic understanding of what it means. Its also not clear if they have to charge labour at cost, I would argue they do.

you are way beyond your statutory protection, so you are left with the terms of the warranty. Also without the above it would be perfectly reasonable (legally at least) to expect them to cover the costs of repair, loss of use etc. etc. As they actually haven't limited their liability at all.

which is friggin crazy IMO. that warranty is a law suit waiting to happen. Which is a shame, because I really like the spirit (and style) of what they are trying to say.

MacAndCheese

cooldad wrote:

This 'I want compensation for everything' is getting annoying.

I have to agree with cooldad, sounds like they've shown better customer service than some companies already. I'd be happy with that, as long as they don't take ages to send out the new one.

diy

morally I agree with the sentiment here.. its a shame that companies can't be safe with the kind of warranties that Ragley have written. Unfortunately they are not safe at all. They are very, very unsafe, and open to all sorts of unlimited damages claims in the event of breach.

I don't think it would be fair for me to go in to detail about their exposure, other than to say, when I read that Warranty, I was properly shocked.

Bar Shaker

Why should they compensate the OP? Its a £150 bike frame, just about as cheap as you buy. The OP should have satisfied himself that the frame was suitable before bolting all his stuff on to it.

The principle is called consequential loss. It means you get the part replaced or repaired, but that's all. Can't do your paper round so lose £4 a day? Not their problem.

The warranty is your assurance that any manufacturing defects will be repaired or replaced. It is not something you can tap into to bleed the suppliers dry of cash because they made a mistake and you didn't spot it before building the bike.

diy

Cooldad, go and read the Sale of Goods Act 1979 then when you understand the legal concept of sale by description we can have the argument about what it means and why companies use warranties to limit their liability to damages for breach.

cooldad

diy wrote:

Cooldad, go and read the Sale of Goods Act 1979 then when you understand the legal concept of sale by description we can have the argument about what it means and why companies use warranties to limit their liability to damages for breach.

I'm not debating any legal points here, just suggesting sad people get a life.

diy

fair enough I agree morally with you then.

Bar Shaker wrote:

The principle is called consequential loss. It means you get the part replaced or repaired, but that's all. Can't do your paper round so lose £4 a day? Not their problem.

Cannot be an implied term.

cooldad

diy wrote:

fair enough I agree morally with you then.

I would expect nothing less.

paul.skibum

How much heli tape did it have on it - I bought 6 quids worth and used about a quarter of it!

I know you are taller than me so your frames have more tube but hells teeth man!

I get your problem and sympathise but I think that is just tough! CRC are nice they might do you a deal on something to compensate!

Northwind

cooldad wrote:

Small problem, they happily agree to sort it out. Still a whinge.
This 'I want compensation for everything' is getting annoying.]

So you'd be happy to be left out of pocket because someone sold you a faulty product? Really? Why? I'm not looking to profit from this you realise.

Bar Shaker wrote:

Why should they compensate the OP? Its a £150 bike frame, just about as cheap as you buy. The OP should have satisfied himself that the frame was suitable before bolting all his stuff on to it.

Eh, no, it's a £275 frame discounted. Not that price is at all relevant, since it shouldn't be faulty even if it cost 50p.

If you want to tell me exactly how I could have found the fault without building the bike, be my guest :roll: the only reason I know there's a fault is by comparing with another frame, but nobody would look it over and think there was anything wrong bar the brake mounts being squint (which is trivial, and not that uncommon either).

CRC have both been fine so far, which I agree is more than some scumbags would do but it's also so far no more than anyone should be able to expect.- not great service, not bad, just as it ought to be. If they can beat that I'll sing their praises.

paul.skibum wrote:

How much heli tape did it have on it - I bought 6 quids worth and used about a quarter of it!

I tape up right down the downtube and other places, the paint isn't great on these so a bit of protection goes a long way. I look after my stuff especially when it's good kit The Hemlock's pretty much laminated

supersonic

I think if it was a full bike that had a faulty frame then they could compensate for labour for swapping parts over ie

If the buyer requires the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must—.
(a)repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the buyer;.
(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

But as you bought just a frame, and built it yourself, not sure how this works. Generally when I have worked in shops, and frames have failed on full bikes bought from us, we have swapped the parts over at no cost.

Anonymous

hmm hock horror, cheap bike frame isnt properly made and you want compensation. dont be websters.

Northwind

supersonic wrote:

But as you bought just a frame, and built it yourself, not sure how this works.

Well, when my work contracts me out they charge £120 per hour. And i'm s**t at building bikes so it takes me ages. So I reckon they owe me about £1000 Plus let's say half a million for emotional distress.

Alternatively I'd settle for a load of haribos

sheepsteeth wrote:

hmm hock horror, cheap bike frame isnt properly made

Out of curiousity then Sheepsteeth, how much do you have to pay for a frame before you're allowed to expect it to be welded together straight? I'll make sure to spend that much next time if a £275 frame is allowed to be bent :?

Raymondavalon

sheepsteeth wrote:

hmm hock horror, cheap bike frame isnt properly made and you want compensation. dont be websters.

This ^

paul.skibum

Raymondavalon wrote:

sheepsteeth wrote:

hmm hock horror, cheap bike frame isnt properly made and you want compensation. dont be websters.

This ^

Sorry that's bullshit - I'd expect, as Northwind says, that its welded together straight not least because Shedfire uses the same factory as half the mtb industry - Marin maybe? Trek I think.

So if they can build it straight for a fire mountain or whatever the cheap marin HT is then they can do it for a mmmBop (much as I hate the name and idea of the bike).

As NW asks at what point is a straight weld an acceptable expectation? Let it slide ona 300 quid frame, 400, 500? Maybe we should set a standard now so the manufacturers know when they need to bother QAing their products.

diy

Purchase price is important as it sets the basis of quality expectations. a £100 frame cannot be expected to be as good quality as a £1000 frame - a judge will find this.

A general concept of contract law is that unless a party restricts their liability for damages due to breach, then that party must pay for the damages, no matter if they are direct, or consequential. The only significant obligation on the other party is to mitigate their losses. This is why contracts have limitation of liability and liquidated damages clauses.

The former protects a party from unlimited costs for a breach and the other pre-agrees damages that are payable in the event of a breach. Otherwise its up to a judge to decide what are reasonable damages.

brant@shedfire

Email me your address and I'll send you some helicopter tape.

him@shedfire.com

peter413

brant@shedfire wrote:

Email me your address and I'll send you some helicopter tape.

him@shedfire.com

Doesn't get much better than that

Northwind

No it does not. Thanks Brant, a gent as ever. (while I've got your attention though- do you have a street date yet for the Pig X? If I acn't get this one replaced (CRC seem to be out of mediums) I might just hold fire and get one of those instead when it's out.

diy wrote:

Purchase price is important as it sets the basis of quality expectations. a £100 frame cannot be expected to be as good quality as a £1000 frame - a judge will find this.

But both must be free of defects, low price doesn't discharge the seller of that responsibility.

I think some people are misunderstanding the issue here, maybe didn't read the original post properly before jumping to conclusions? I'm not returning it because it's not a good frame, it's been great- I'm replacing it because it has an odd manufacturing defect, and I'm getting another one to replace it not looking for a refund. I'm replacing a £470 Soul frame with this because it's so damn good and suits my riding better, not because I'm cheap :roll:

Riddle me this... if I'd bought it full price, like my mate did, would it be better quality than when I got it with 40% off? Would he be within his rights to want a perfect one whereas I'm being unreasonable?

Anonymous

you got a 150 quid frame with a defect, im not suprised as its cheap. it should be perfectly serviceable regardless of cost but i tend to find cheap stuff is cheaply made.

Northwind

sheepsteeth wrote:

you got a 150 quid frame with a defect, im not suprised as its cheap. it should be perfectly serviceable regardless of cost but i tend to find cheap stuff is cheaply made.

OK then so, if I'd got it at RRP would it be less cheaply made If you've seen one of these in the metal they're very nicely put together, nothing amazing but nothing less than good. Unless they're bent of course, but there's no lack of quality here in general.

Anonymous

i reckon the RRP was an experiment to see how many fools would buy one when they were only worth the 150 quid they ended up selling them for.

i understand that a single bent frame doesnt make a bike all bad but by ragley's own admission, they have seen this a few times.

also, i appreciate you are ordering a new one but by your own admission, you'd get an alternative if it was available soon enough.

Will Snow

sheepsteeth wrote:

but i tend to find cheap stuff is cheaply made.

and that is why you are a salesmans dream

Northwind

sheepsteeth wrote:

also, i appreciate you are ordering a new one but by your own admission, you'd get an alternative if it was available soon enough.

Eh, I said I'd consider an alternative if I can't get a replacement in the right size :? What else would you suggest? The Pig X looks like the next best alternative but I'd sooner get another Mmmbop.

TBH I was considering one before the discounts so that was a stroke of luck but I'd be happy enough if the discount had never come along, I'd probably still have got one eventually. What's the competition, a Stiffee or a Chameleon?

But I have a feeling I'm being gently trolled