Evans/BMC Warranty

chiark

But nowhere likes giving refunds or replacements when repair is a viable option...

You can try quoting the sale of goods act, and many shops - including the one I worked in as a student - will tell you to politely get stuffed if you turn up outside of the stated 7, 14 or 28 days and want a refund. We even had someone call the police to arrest the shop manager for failing to offer a refund after 6 months, but only a repair... The police kindly told them to stop wasting their time.

Evans would argue strongly that 28 days is enough time to have proved that something was not faulty when it was sold, so the 6 months in the SOGA is irrelevant. They could probably give statistics to show that bikes, if faulty, develop 99% of faults in the first 28 days or go on for years... And that they do a full shakedown test... And other things... Expect a fight on that one if you choose to go down that line.

Evans states in their terms of sale (http://www.evanscycles.com/help/returns) that you've got 28 days for a refund, after that it's repair under manufacturer's warranty. This does not affect your statutory rights, so SOGA couldl trump that, but expect a fight given the above.

So I really don't think it's clear cut at all I'm afraid.

As said, I would not be happy in your position, but I also think that expecting the law to be fully on your side due to SOGA is not given.

I'd still be fighting to get a proper looking bike for the 1300 quid I paid, but be wary that advice saying SOGA means you're entitled to a refund up to 6 months later is not an automatic interpretation of the law... and it could be expensive to get to a legal decision that you do not like.

I hope this helps somewhat. I'm not trying to cause trouble, but I think the interpretation of SOGA really isn't as clear as it is being made out.

alfablue

chiark wrote:

But nowhere likes giving refunds or replacements when repair is a viable option...

Of course not. Though I believe good companies will do the right thing required by law, and get a great rep for service, get more returns, but also get more return customers, and be able to charge higher prices. I certainly choose to spend more where I can trust the store to treat me well.

If I was an employee in a "rogue traders" shop (and after all, I believe any company that has a tacit policy of trying to prevent customers from having their legal rights recognised is a rogue trader) I would not last long, I would have no pride in such an employer and I would whistleblow. Legal and ethical duties are more important than loyalty to a rogue employer; sadly, many workers do turn a blind eye and indeed participate in such poor conduct in all sorts of enterprises. I certainly wouldn't be writing on here with pride about such shoddy retail experience as MM seems to have.

You can try quoting the sale of goods act, and many shops - including the one I worked in as a student - will tell you to politely get stuffed if you turn up outside of the stated 7, 14 or 28 days and want a refund.

Yes, this happens all the time, doesn't make it right, and it doesn't lead to return business and satisfied customers. I recently had to "re-educate" the North Face shops about their poor staff training that meant they didn't know (or want to know) their legal duties. Invariably when I write my letter "Notice Prior to Action" they back down, apologise, promise to retrain their staff and fix my problem to my entire satisfaction. It is just such a bore to have to do this everytime! I wish retailers would get their collective act together. One thing that perpetuates this problem though is the ignorance of consumers that put up and shut up, and when the shops say "we'll send it back to the manufacturer to see if their warranty covers it" the customers just say "thank you" as if they have been done a favour. So, you dumb consumers, in a way, get the treatment you deserve! [/rant]

We even had someone call the police to arrest the shop manager for failing to offer a refund after 6 months, but only a repair... The police kindly told them to stop wasting their time.

well that's just dumb, it's a civil matter.

Evans would argue strongly that 28 days is enough time to have proved that something was not faulty when it was sold, so the 6 months in the SOGA is irrelevant. They could probably give statistics to show that bikes, if faulty, develop 99% of faults in the first 28 days or go on for years... And that they do a full shakedown test... And other things... Expect a fight on that one if you choose to go down that line.

You are just plain wrong on this one. The onus is on the seller to prove there wasn't an inherent fault if it occurs in the first six months. No court in the land would accept your rationale. If they did the law would have set the time limit as 28 days, not 6 months.

Evans states in their terms of sale (http://www.evanscycles.com/help/returns) that you've got 28 days for a refund, after that it's repair under manufacturer's warranty. This does not affect your statutory rights, so SOGA couldl trump that, but expect a fight given the above.

Exactly, this does not affect your statutory rights, they could say you can only get a refund if you let the staff s*ag your wife, it would make no difference to your legal rights. And yes, unfortunately you are correct, there is almost always a fight because of the ignorance or policy of shoddy retailers like this. However the fights can always be won if one knows what to do, which is really the point of the advice given here..Once the Evans legal dept get wind of a properly worded claim they will resolve the matter.

So I really don't think it's clear cut at all I'm afraid.

As a veteran of such fights, I am afraid to tell you, yes it is that clear cut. Every single dispute I have had as a consumer has eventually been settled entirely in my favour.

As said, I would not be happy in your position, but I also think that expecting the law to be fully on your side due to SOGA is not given.

I'd still be fighting to get a proper looking bike for the 1300 quid I paid, but be wary that advice saying SOGA means you're entitled to a refund up to 6 months later is not an automatic interpretation of the law... and it could be expensive to get to a legal decision that you do not like.

The small claims route is quite cheap, a claim of up to £5000 value attracts a court fee of £110, which goes on to the total amount you claim. You might have to pay for an expert opinion (again added to your claim, but in this case I am not sure it is needed because there has already been an acceptance the bike was faulty by virtue of the replacement of the frame, and one can consider the manufacturer to be experts), but apart from that costs are minimal, lawyers aren't involved, and you can't be lumbered with your opponents costs if you lose.

I hope this helps somewhat. I'm not trying to cause trouble, but I think the interpretation of SOGA really isn't as clear as it is being made out.

It is, try it sometime, you may be surprised. In this instance, there has been no dispute over whether the bike was damaged by the user rather than faulty, so that is not even in question (which would have made things trickier), all that is in question is whether Evans complied with their legal obligations, clearly they did not, end of.

Apart from that, I agree with everything you say

The Rookie

I'm with Erudin on this, goods not fit for purpose, have it back Evans.....

Simon

Jim Will Fixie It

Hierotochan wrote:

My point about the TDF still stands, if a bike based on the same geometry can be ridden to victory almost start to finish of the race then thats alot of proven R&D and abuse in a month. While this doesn't make then invulnerable it stands out to me that both the 'faults' are centred around one area through two heavy weight bearing components.

You realise that the OP's SR02 is made of aluminium and Cadel's Teammachine and Impec are made of carbon fibre? They also have (slighlty) different geometries :roll:

By your reckoning I should be able to make a frame to the same geometry as a BMC using papier mache and NOT expect it to fail!? Along with the majority on here, the failure sounds like a problem with the material, not with the OP's position or riding ability. (Edit: Evans claiming to BMC under warranty proves that.)

FYI, I'm only a little bit shorter than the OP but ride a 56cm frame, so I have a fair bit of seatpost showing. In five years, I haven't managed to crack my Kinesis' seattube through over-flexing.

alfablue

Jim Will Fixie It wrote:

Hierotochan wrote:

My point about the TDF still stands, if a bike based on the same geometry can be ridden to victory almost start to finish of the race then thats alot of proven R&D and abuse in a month. While this doesn't make then invulnerable it stands out to me that both the 'faults' are centred around one area through two heavy weight bearing components.

You realise that the OP's SR02 is made of aluminium and Cadel's Teammachine and Impec are made of carbon fibre? They also have (slighlty) different geometries :roll:

By your reckoning I should be able to make a frame to the same geometry as a BMC using papier mache and NOT expect it so fail!? Along with the majority on here, the failure sounds like a problem with the material, not with the OP's position or riding ability.

FYI, I'm only a little bit shorter than the OP but ride a 56cm frame, so I have a fair bit of seatpost showing. In five years, I haven't managed to crack my Kinesis' seattube through over-flexing.

Well put Jim,

but there is (has been) no dispute that the frame was faulty, Evans and BMC have accepted that, so why are people trying to unpick this when it is already agreed? Why are people so keen to have the OP not have his chosen £1300 bike as he originally thought he had purchased? Its like OP is the bad guy for actually wanting what he bought in the first place. Weird, really

chiark

Good points Alfablue, thanks. My interpretation is that a shop doesn't to give a refund or replacement up to 180 days later if there's a fault due to the Sale of Goods Act, but it appears you've got experience on your side with that one. I'd probably give up at some point because life's too short.

Possibly not when we're talking about 1300 quid though!

alfablue

There is potentially six years for which there is liability, however after protracted periods it would be reasonable to accept a reduced amount because of the period of "enjoyment of the goods" the buyer has had.

rolf_f

alfablue wrote:

Why are people so keen to have the OP not have his chosen £1300 bike as he originally thought he had purchased? Its like OP is the bad guy for actually wanting what he bought in the first place. Weird, really

This is what I find really funny - you can bet that the same people who want the OP to have his bike looking a mess would be making as much noise as he is if it happened to them.......

Peddle Up!

Whenever I have had run-ins with staff at stores (who really should know better) I find that asking for the manager (a real one, not the ennobled floor sweeper ) and stating, preferably in a crowded part of the store, "I am rejecting this item as not being of merchantable quality" works like a Harry Potter spell! 8)

merak

I think it is interesting the difference in reception here to chiark with his reasonably worded and polite posts (even though they were not following the consensus view and did contin some misunderstandings about the law) and MM. I think MM got flamed because of the extremely rude and arrogant tone of his posts along with the fact that he made a string of dogmatic statements about warranties and the sale of goods act which all turned out to be utterly wrong. Not to mention the pride with which he described his career of cynically screwing his customers.

By the way, there are now three people on this thread who have explicitly said that they will not buy anything from Evans in the future, and heavens knows how many others who are thinking it, so I don't think Evans are doing themselves any favours at all.

chiark

I completely and utterly support mjl getting full satisfaction on this, whether that's the right colour stuff, a different bike or even a refund. It's good to hear that people have really used SOGA to get satisfaction, too...

I'd not be accepting the situation as-is, that's for sure: irrespective of law, it's simply not right and I would hope that Evans recognise that quickly.

I'm still not quite sure how a retailer of anything could ever prove that something wasn't faulty when it was sold when something works fine for 4 months then fails, but then that's the point that alfablue is making .

I think you can see why I am not a solicitor

alfablue

chiark wrote:

I'm still not quite sure how a retailer of anything could ever prove that something wasn't faulty when it was sold when something works fine for 4 months then fails, but then that's the point that alfablue is making .

I think you can see why I am not a solicitor

I think it is only possible by proving a breakage was due to something else other than a pre-existing fault (the shop might be able to pint to evidence of misuse for example), you can't really prove there wasn't a fault without some other factor to point to.

This was a fairly recent change in the law and I think it redresses the balance between the retailer and the customer, where the individual had an almost impossible task to prove a pre-existing fault. It will surely lead (albeit slowly) to better quality products and better service, if customers actually take up these rights.

MountainMonster

I still find it funny you say i cynically screw customers, when I use refunds as a last resort. Refusing to give a refund would be screwing the customer, but if it comes down to a refund, I happily issued them, but only if all other avenues that were cheaper were exhausted.

As far as my "wrong" statements, none of them have been wrong. As said, the SOGA does not cover a different color, only when that different color has quality defects in appearance and finish. But hey, i'll let you continue on, it's giving me a right laugh.

No-oneknows

Been reading with interest this thread. Firstly think it's making a mountain out of a molehill. Aesthetically I like the look of the new frame, white calipers picking up on the white graphics. Perhaps add some white bar tape to pimp it up some more. End of the day, if the bike rides nicely, performs well I'd tend to err more on that as a consideration over aesthetics. I do place stock on looking good but I really think the bike doesn't seem to be as bad as some would be suggesting. My advise get out and ride and enjoy yourself!! (Nice pair of bling cycling slippers in white would finish the deal!!!:-)

mjl1982

^

I've told you Evans have been reading...

No-oneknows

mjl1982 Do you mean me?;) Nope not Evans. Just a cyclist of 20 years offering a fellow cyclist my opinion. Just feel you need to weigh up whether you feel the aesthetics are that awful that it outweighs the performance and enjoyment you derive from riding the bike you have. You may get a refund (perfectly acceptable), buy a new bike to your aesthetic liking but rides like a dog compared to the BMC. Just felt other posts were a getting a bit too involved in the legalise of the situation rather than offer some sort of pragmatic perspective.

alfablue

No-oneknows wrote:

mjl1982 Do you mean me?;) Nope not Evans. Just a cyclist of 20 years offering a fellow cyclist my opinion. Just feel you need to weigh up whether you feel the aesthetics are that awful that it outweighs the performance and enjoyment you derive from riding the bike you have. You may get a refund (perfectly acceptable), buy a new bike to your aesthetic liking but rides like a dog compared to the BMC. Just felt other posts were a getting a bit too involved in the legalise of the situation rather than offer some sort of pragmatic perspective.

This is indeed a pragmatic approach, but if you wanted the bike of a certain colour and spent the best part of a months earnings on it you would naturally be peeved if you got something that was not what you wanted. Evans can easily put things right, they would do better in terms of their image if they did the right thing by customers without customers having to go to such lenths to get justice.

Some people care about aesthetics, some don't. Personally, I wouldn't tolerate those white components on that bike, just wouldn't ride it. Call me funny, thats the way I feel about it and why shouldn't I? I'm a bit fussy about my clothing, also. . .

No-oneknows

But is the OP happy with the frame colour? the bone of contention seems to be the idea that somehow the calipers don't match the frame? Whereas I personally (and it is just my opinion) think they do and the overall aesthetic of the bike works. Believe me I am am very very keen on colour co-ordination, and that's why I personally think the bike looks good, as I say some white bar tape would finish it off nicely.

mjl1982

No-oneknows wrote:

But is the OP happy with the frame colour? the bone of contention seems to be the idea that somehow the calipers don't match the frame? Whereas I personally (and it is just my opinion) think they do and the overall aesthetic of the bike works. Believe me I am am very very keen on colour co-ordination, and that's why I personally think the bike looks good, as I say some white bar tape would finish it off nicely.

But this isnt a matter of preference... except my own.
Why do people find this hard to understand??

Now if I originally went in to Evans and asked for that exact colour cordination, would they allow that? No they wont b'cos this would spoil the aesthetics of 2 bikes.

No-oneknows

mjl1982 I do know it's your preference but I was just offering a personal point (of course aesthetics being quite personal) that the co-ordination for me works with the dark frame, white graphics and white calipers. Even the red, white saddle works for me as it matches the swiss flag (BMC being swiss of course;) So aesthetically the whole bike doesn't work for you I presume so go for a refund. I do hope your replacement bike you choose rides as well as the BMC and is a suitably pretty bike. If it doesn't ride as well as least it'll look good to you:)

mjl1982

Thank you.

Horton

Ask for a refund and then buy one of these in the sales:

http://www.evanscycles.com/products/bmc/street-racer-sr02-2011-road-bike-ec024693

200 quid off now

merak

The correct thing for Evans to do is to offer a replacement 02, or change the components on the kludge so it's no longer a kludge. In spite of what others have said the bike as it stands looks like a dog to me and I wouldn't have it under me. Then the bike would ride exactly the same. If he gets a refund he can, if he chooses, buy another BMC. But at £1300 he's not going get a bike that rides poorly is he?

No-oneknows

So the red version is a Kludge too? Mismatched white calipers against a red frame!? (calipers match the white graphics and white bar tape though). Think it'd look quite good in ooh maybe a dark grey colour too with the white cailpers!;)
http://www.bmc-racing.com/int-en/bikes/ ... ndard.html

merak

It looks like a kludge in dark grey with light grey accents and white calipers. The predominantly red frame has white accents and the grey frame does not. Why do you think BMC put grey calipers on the SR01?

Anyway the point isn't what you or I think but what the OP thinks.

Plus it violates rule #8 so there is no more to be said

No-oneknows

True. So the Grey model should really have blue calipers to match the blue accents;) Ok we'll agree to disagree on this one, just hope the original OP gets a satisfactory outcome and is out riding again soon. I'm off to clean my white bike (with black calipers) Lol

SLX01

If it helps I have a BLACK unused Scor saddle and grey ultegra brakes 50km use off my BMC I would let go for a reasonable sum. I have upgraded to Dura Ace

MountainMonster

Any word on what is happening with this?

mjl1982

Sent a letter to Evans... waiting for a reply.
Will keep you all updated with the outcome.

MJL.

mjl1982

SLX01 wrote:

If it helps I have a BLACK unused Scor saddle and grey ultegra brakes 50km use off my BMC I would let go for a reasonable sum. I have upgraded to Dura Ace

Thank you! Might have to take you up on that offer... just seeing how this pans out over the next week or so.