Section 75 - Repairs

J3Math

I've purchased a motocross bike used from a shop, paid for on Credit Card.

On it's first use there were a few issues, some were rectified by the shop but an issue with the front forks leaking oil they won't repair. I have approached the shop and requested a repair which they won't complete for free and want me to pay for it

Can I:
A. Pay the shop for the repair and claim the money back through a Section 75 claim?
B. Get it repaired by an alternative shop and claim the money back through the shop?

I want to keep the bike so return and claim a full refund is not an option I want to take.

Thanks.

eskbanker

Why is the shop disputing liability for the repair? In these circumstances it's rarely cut and dried so you probably wouldn't succeed with either of the claim routes you outline without some sort of independent expert view - option B doesn't even sound like a starter if the shop has already refused and for A then you're going to need to demonstrate breach of contract or misrepresentation to your card provider.

bris

The problem you have is motocross bikes by their very nature are ridden in harsh environments so the wear and tear is also harsh.

These bikes need constant repairs through normal use, especially the parts that take the most punishment, the forks for example.

If I was you I would learn very quickly how to repair these bikes as it wont be the last time you will need them fixed.




You can of course speak to the CC and tell them you want to start a S75 claim but don't be surprised if they also deny your claim based on the nature of the sport.

J3Math

My argument is that on it's very first use the forks leaked, ie there was a defect with the bike before I bought it, there was nowhere to test this as many shops don't have MX tracks in their back yard.

They are refusing to pay for the repair (which they could do themselves because they don't believe they are liable for it.
Under the sales of goods act they are responsible to sell a product which is fit for use, leaking forks on its first ride is not fit for purchase. I have given them the chance to rectify the issue which they refuse.

My question isn't really in relation to will the CC company pay or not. It's whether I can claim under section 75 for the repair as opposed to the whole bike.

eskbanker

J3Math wrote: »

They are refusing to pay for the repair (which they could do themselves because they don't believe they are liable for it.
Under the sales of goods act they are responsible to sell a product which is fit for use, leaking forks on its first ride is not fit for purchase. I have given them the chance to rectify the issue which they refuse.

But why don't they believe they're liable for repair, in response to your assertions about SOGA? It's not directly relevant to whether or not you should claim but whatever they say to you will be what they say to the card company when the investigation starts, hence the potential need for an independent third party expert.

J3Math wrote: »

My question isn't really in relation to will the CC company pay or not. It's whether I can claim under section 75 for the repair as opposed to the whole bike.

Anyway, if it's just a simple yes/no you're looking for, then yes, you can submit a claim for the repair cost rather than full refund or replacement - should the card company agree to your claim then it'll naturally be to their advantage for the claim to be smaller anyway.

bigadaj

Probably not.

The fact you would refuse to accept a replacement would work against you.

eskbanker

bigadaj wrote: »

Probably not.

The fact you would refuse to accept a replacement would work against you.

I'm not convinced that OP is actually ruling that out if that's the only remedy they're ultimately offered, so don't see any harm in claiming for repair costs if that's the most cost-effective remedy of the alleged breach.

You may recall a previous thread to which we both contributed (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5505872) where the subject of repair versus refund or replacement came up - although I don't think that OP ever came back to advise the final outcome, there was certainly talk of the repair option, albeit clouded by the repairs being massively expensive (and already done by the time of claim).

In this case, I'd recommend this OP keeps their options open by submitting a claim suggesting that repair costs are met by the card company but without actually getting them done prior to any such agreement - if the company comes back offering only a full refund then that may be a suitable alternative to getting nothing at all!

OP - how much was the purchase and how expensive are the repairs expected to be?

bris

This is a moto cross bike we are talking about here, they can they take severe punishment through normal use. This isn't covered under any circumstances. Going over jumps and landing badly can cause the seals to leak.


There is a difference from faulty goods and self inflicted that's why by the very nature of the sport it wont be covered.

bigadaj

Yes that was quite different though as the claimant there effectively wanted to claim back more than the value of the item.

The OP hasn't detailed why the shop has refused this repair when they have made others, whether this is due to cost or extent if repair, whether they consider damage or failure is due to misuse or another reason. Given that other repairs have been made and teh shop would be happy to repair seemingly with payment by the OP then it would suggest they think it's a case of misuse or abuse that has caused the damage in the first place.

I don't think this is an open and shut case from any perspective but I think his chances of success are reduced if he says that replacement isn't an option.

It's no doubt worth a try, and there are alternatives open such as trading standards or legal action.