Cycle Scheme - major fault during 'Own It Later Agreement' phase of hire

publicenemyno1

I bought an e-bike through my employer using the Bath based 'Cycle Scheme' (basically the original cycle scheme widely copied since it started 20 years ago) in January 2017, this was actually fulfilled via Evans Cycles. I'm aware they are now owned by the lovely Mr Ashley, but he appears to have bought it as a going concern so I see no issue with any Consumer Rights Act claims were it not for the cycle scheme element. Manufactuers warranty expired January 2018 FWIW.

I'm still with my then employer, but this is not that relevent as I've completed my payments and made my deposit to Cycle Scheme so I'm now in what's called the 'Own It Later Agreement' phase of hire, this means (according to my T+Cs) the owner is currently Cycle Scheme rather than my employer and this will continue until 2021 when the cycle will be assessed for fair market value - currently zero as you'll soon discover.

Although theft, wear and tear etc... are clearly not covered by any cycle scheme, they seem a bit subdued about faults...

Clause 5.0 Defective Equipment [from my new Own It Later Agreement T+Cs]

The Equipment may be covered by warranties given by the relevant manufacturers (or their importers), as well as by any additional warranties that apply under the general law and nothing in this Agreement affects the rights that you have under the general law [my highlighting].

If Equipment becomes defective as a result of your misuse or neglect you will be responsible to bring the bicycle back to good working order. If any defects or other warranty issues subsequently come to light, please contact the relevant Cyclescheme Partner Shop in the first instance.

The fault that I have suffered is due to metal fatigue, and is of a non-consumable 'for the life of the bike' part specially made for the bike for the bike manufacturer, not a generic part e.g. Shimano - I don't particularly want to make this overly identifiable - suffice to say when it failed it caused a lot of subsequent damage and I was lucky not to be seriously injured. As I didn't come off and it doesn't involve the frame it should be safely repaireable but I would estimate £200-250 cost on a £1000 bike. There is the further complication that one of the unique Raleigh-only parts (I've been doing my homework) seems to have been discontinued, so the bike could be a writeoff in any case.

I have written to Evans under the Consumer Rights Act requesting repair or refund, but do wonder where I stand as I'm not yet the legal owner, even though the Evans receipt and all dealings are in my name, and I am of course a consumer, it's just that payment was via a voucher from Cycle Scheme.

All the threads I see on this are usually within the 1st years warranty anyway. Or, they are effectively buyers remorse cases, 'wow, this new bike feels really wobbly on corners' etc... not gross failures.

No armchair lawyer guesses please - be great to hear from someone who has had this before or real life experience of the same. I wonder, is Cycle Scheme in some way jointly liable and that is why they are keeping a little quiet and herding me towards the supplier in the first instance? Be interesting to see what comes back from Evans.

[Deleted User]

If you don't want "armchair lawyers", then go and pay for legal advice rather than asking on a free, public forum.

Anyway, it's not your bike, it belongs to Cycle Scheme, so you should be asking them, not Evans. You have no consumer rights with them.

Aylesbury_Duck

Pay for proper legal advice if that’s what you want. Otherwise, you’ll get whatever responses people choose to make.

I agree with camelot1971.

Keep_pedalling

Please tell us what part you are talking about. You say it is tot the frame, and I can’t think of a single bike part that cannot be replaced.

publicenemyno1

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

Please tell us what part you are talking about. You say it is tot the frame, and I can’t think of a single bike part that cannot be replaced.

A part that is no longer manufactured is a good example of a part on a bike that cannot be replaced... As explained I don't really want this to be identifiable down to an individual case.

publicenemyno1

camelot1971 wrote: »

If you don't want "armchair lawyers", then go and pay for legal advice rather than asking on a free, public forum.

Anyway, it's not your bike, it belongs to Cycle Scheme, so you should be asking them, not Evans. You have no consumer rights with them.

I was not aware that people with actual legal qualifications were banned from forums.

Aylesbury_Duck

You don't want advice from anyone who isn't legally trained and you don't want to give information pertinent to the problem.

Perhaps you can see a problem here? You're seeking advice from clairvoyant legal experts. I'm certainly getting an insight into your choice of username.

sheramber

publicenemyno1 wrote: »

I was not aware that people with actual legal qualifications were banned from forums.

They are not but why would give legal advice for free when they could charge for it?

davidmcn

sheramber wrote: »

They are not but why would give legal advice for free when they could charge for it?

Because we might not want anybody who posts here as a client?

Some of is even sit in armchairs from time to time - are we allowed to answer the OP's question?

neilmcl

I don't see this being any different to a car PCP arrangement, in that the organisation running the scheme are equally liable with the seller to provide a remedy for any breach of contract.

I take it you have clear proof of the fault(s) in question and that they are inherent to manufacture?

unholyangel

publicenemyno1 wrote: »

I was not aware that people with actual legal qualifications were banned from forums.

Even if some of us are legally qualified, how would you know which ones are genuine?

There are plenty of people who do claim to be legally qualified on these forums. And then it becomes apparent that they're not when you read their posts.

Plus, it would be improper to be giving advice in such circumstances and their insurance wouldn't cover it. Any respectable solicitor or barrister isn't going to give professional advice on an anonymous forum. Much better for them to stay silent on their qualifications and give advice as an anonymous source.