Retailer facing administration has my bike for warranty repair - can I make sec 75 claim

Merred

I bought a new mountain bike from Evans on my credit card three months ago. A couple of weeks ago the front forks developed a fault, and the shop took it back to repair under warranty. The current situation is that the forks have been returned to the manufacturer for repair and they've estimated they'll be back by the end of next week.



I read in the news today that Evans are apparently in trouble and could be facing administration.


My question is, if Evans does go bust and I'm unable to get my bike back, can I claim under Section 75 or similar for the refund of the money paid for it? Would it be a good idea to try and get the bike back as-is, without the forks, before the worst happens? Or if I do collect the bike without the forks, would it cause problems trying to claim for replacement of the forks later on?

antrobus

Evans Cycles seeks new owner amid cash crunch
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45595144

Not sure about a s75 claim. Evans merely have possession of your bike. in the event of insolvency it remains your bike. The manufacturer is not effected by any insolvency.

[Deleted User]

You should be fine with section 75 if the worst comes to the worst.

Keep holding of your receipts and paperwork.

Terry_Towelling

Administration means the company will be run as a going concern by whoever is appointed to be the administrator. So, in theory, your bike should still get repaired and returned to you - fingers crossed.

If the worst came to the worst, however, you could possibly be eligible for protection in some way. The good news is that a warranty repair has been agreed which must mean the fault was inherent, or caused by something connected with its manufacture.

Subject to time limits (not sure what they are these days) you may be able to ask your card issuer to process a dispute for defective merchandise although it is possible that this would only apply if the goods were 'mailed' to you in the first place and there may be question marks over the value of the dispute - should it be for the value of the defective portion (just the forks) of the whole bike?

I'll not comment on what may happen if you retake possession of an unfinished bike because that could get messy.

One fly in the potential S75 ointment (if it came to it) could be establishing a breach of contract. The contract being breached if you don't get your bike back repaired would be the warranty contract. The value of that warranty contract is nil, so not sure how you could value your claim - and I'm not a lawyer so my interpretation could be out.

Leaving S75 and Chargeback protection aside, the fact that the goods were not properly fit for purpose (which is seemingly undisputed) should give you rights in law under the Sale of Goods Act - but that is another matter.

All in all not completely straightforward but this is only if the worst comes to the worst.

I would talk to your card issuer now so that they have a record of your issue and know exactly what's happening. They can advise you of the time limits to get a dispute done and also tell you whether you have met the dispute criteria. You can also float the issue of S75 to see what they say.

agrinnall

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

...the fact that the goods were not properly fit for purpose (which is seemingly undisputed) should give you rights in law under the Sale of Goods Act - but that is another matter.

Just for clarity the OP's claim would be under the Consumer Rights Act (2015) which superceded SOGA 3 years ago.

Terry_Towelling

agrinnall wrote: »

Just for clarity the OP's claim would be under the Consumer Rights Act (2015) which superceded SOGA 3 years ago.

See what happens? You take your eye of the ball for five minutes and everything changes! Hopefully the rights bestowed are comparable.

agrinnall

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

See what happens? You take your eye of the ball for five minutes and everything changes! Hopefully the rights bestowed are comparable.

Five minutes, three years, who's counting? :rotfl:

Terry_Towelling

agrinnall wrote: »

Five minutes, three years, who's counting? :rotfl:

All a question of age. 3 years seems like 5 minutes ago - but then, I am living in limbo so time has absolutely no meaning to me anymore. Roll on the next 5 minutes!:)

eco_warrior

If Evans doesn't get the part corrected as promised and you have had possession of the bike for less than 120 days then you'd be set up for a chargeback. Sounds like this date is approaching fast though, so S75 would be the fall back after this.

As others have said though, just let things play out and see what happens.

Terry_Towelling

eco_warrior wrote: »

If Evans doesn't get the part corrected as promised and you have had possession of the bike for less than 120 days then you'd be set up for a chargeback. Sounds like this date is approaching fast though, so S75 would be the fall back after this.

As others have said though, just let things play out and see what happens.

Can we confirm then that the Chargeback in question (defective merchandise) applies to items taken from the store at the time of purchase and not just to items mailed out to the customer? This Chargeback used to only cover items delivered by post/courier etc. Clearly things may have changed in the 14 years (or 23 mins & 20secs in my timescale) since I was in cards.

I'd still be inclined to consult with my card issuer about this to check the lie of the land with disputes and how S75 might apply to a warranty claim.

eco_warrior

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Can we confirm then that the Chargeback in question (defective merchandise) applies to items taken from the store at the time of purchase and not just to items mailed out to the customer? This Chargeback used to only cover items delivered by post/courier etc. Clearly things may have changed in the 14 years (or 23 mins & 20secs in my timescale) since I was in cards.

I'd still be inclined to consult with my card issuer about this to check the lie of the land with disputes and how S75 might apply to a warranty claim.

In store purchases can still be disputed as faulty, just not damaged or as having missing parts, as the customer can check this prior to leaving the store.


That said, the best chargeback would probably be to dispute the merchant's repair policy rather than the goods themselves:


"19. Please note that in the event of a damaged or defective product claim, you shall be required to return such Goods to us for inspection and report (without any obligation on us to replace the said Goods prior to such inspection) and you confirm that it shall be reasonable for us to inspect such defective Goods and allow manufacturers to undertake inspections so as to allow production methods to be modified. You further accept that it is reasonable to inform us of any damage, defect or other failure prior to contacting independent third parties or incurring expense and to allow us to remedy the damage, defect or failure."


So if the bike isn't fixed and returned they have breached this particular term. This would allow the chargeback timeframe to be extended to up to 120 days from the return of the bike, so plenty of time.

To be fair, if the bike is at the manufacturer and the merchant goes bust the OP may still get his bike back anyway.