Equipment delivered is a 2018 model.

Aylesbury_Duck

cx6 said:

true, but what would a reasonable consumer expect ?

suppose it was a 1996 model ? a 1970 model ? where is the line drawn ?

Well firstly I doubt they have models that old, but secondly, a reasonable consumer would be presumptuous to just assume anything they buy is the latest model or version, without a basic check.  I don't think it's unreasonable for a retailer to be selling a four year old version of something, particularly because the updates are most probably software/interface/aesthetic based, rather than changes to the fundamental performance of what is primarily a mechanical device.

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

cx6 said:

In the end, you can go to small claims court, where a judge will make a decision based upon what a reasonable purchaser would expect.

Can't see that working out in the OP's favour.

Retailer advertised a bike for sale, never specified which version it was. OP got said bike, just not the version they thought it was.

Not as simple as that, omissions can be classed as misleading actions as per below.

OP which website did you buy from? 


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/regulation/6

6.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—

(a)the commercial practice omits material information,

(3) In paragraph (1) “material information” means—

(a)the information which the average consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informed transactional decision

(4) Where a commercial practice is an invitation to purchase, the following information will be material if not already apparent from the context in addition to any other information which is material information under paragraph (3)—

(a)the main characteristics of the product, 

Nonsense. The OP presumed instead of asking.

A sound argument as usual. The idea that traders can simply omit information pertaining to the purchase and it be down to the consumer to ask is nonsense (to use your term).

What you fail to recognise is that consumer rights are designed to protect the consumer by giving them a favourable position over the trader. This creates confidence, which creates spending, which keeps the world turning. 

Again you quote these laws, giving OP's a false hope - But it's them which have to goto the Small claims court and fight the case.

Not specifying which year the bike was  is not in my option a misleading action.

As previously stated, did the OP compare the specs? Relying on price is no good, we live in a free world where retailers can set the prices.

pompoochie

It's from Sweatband.com. 

Any negative reviews I had seen were due to faulty goods or dodgy delivery. Not that they sell 4-year-old equipment at the same price as a brand new upgraded model.

powerful_Rogue

pompoochie said:

It's from Sweatband.com. 

Any negative reviews I had seen were due to faulty goods or dodgy delivery. Not that they sell 4-year-old equipment at the same price as a brand new upgraded model.

No mention of the year version, however the linked manual relates to the 2018 version and does not include the adjustments made over the years.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Well no mention of your right to cancel the contract and 10 days to return faulty goods so not a good start down the consumer rights path.

OP what are you losing with a 2014 model vs the 2021 model?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

cx6 said:

In the end, you can go to small claims court, where a judge will make a decision based upon what a reasonable purchaser would expect.

Can't see that working out in the OP's favour.

Retailer advertised a bike for sale, never specified which version it was. OP got said bike, just not the version they thought it was.

Not as simple as that, omissions can be classed as misleading actions as per below.

OP which website did you buy from? 


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/regulation/6

6.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—

(a)the commercial practice omits material information,

(3) In paragraph (1) “material information” means—

(a)the information which the average consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informed transactional decision

(4) Where a commercial practice is an invitation to purchase, the following information will be material if not already apparent from the context in addition to any other information which is material information under paragraph (3)—

(a)the main characteristics of the product, 

Nonsense. The OP presumed instead of asking.

A sound argument as usual. The idea that traders can simply omit information pertaining to the purchase and it be down to the consumer to ask is nonsense (to use your term).

What you fail to recognise is that consumer rights are designed to protect the consumer by giving them a favourable position over the trader. This creates confidence, which creates spending, which keeps the world turning. 

Again you quote these laws, giving OP's a false hope - But it's them which have to goto the Small claims court and fight the case.

Not specifying which year the bike was  is not in my option a misleading action.

As previously stated, did the OP compare the specs? Relying on price is no good, we live in a free world where retailers can set the prices.

First replies said the retailer can send any bike they like if they advertise a bike and buyer should ask questions if they wanted to know details so they have no rights.

It was Phantom who alluded to whether the specs were stated and what model they related to, the first words to the thread simply said the OP had no rights at all. 

I'm giving the the legislation that covers their situation of omissions for balance, such decisions won't be decided by us, but on the balance of probability on the day of the claim. It is for the OP to decide whether their position is correct, the more information that is given in the thread as it continues the better a conclusion that can be made. 

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

powerful_Rogue said:

cx6 said:

In the end, you can go to small claims court, where a judge will make a decision based upon what a reasonable purchaser would expect.

Can't see that working out in the OP's favour.

Retailer advertised a bike for sale, never specified which version it was. OP got said bike, just not the version they thought it was.

Not as simple as that, omissions can be classed as misleading actions as per below.

OP which website did you buy from? 


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/regulation/6

6.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—

(a)the commercial practice omits material information,

(3) In paragraph (1) “material information” means—

(a)the information which the average consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informed transactional decision

(4) Where a commercial practice is an invitation to purchase, the following information will be material if not already apparent from the context in addition to any other information which is material information under paragraph (3)—

(a)the main characteristics of the product, 

Nonsense. The OP presumed instead of asking.

A sound argument as usual. The idea that traders can simply omit information pertaining to the purchase and it be down to the consumer to ask is nonsense (to use your term).

What you fail to recognise is that consumer rights are designed to protect the consumer by giving them a favourable position over the trader. This creates confidence, which creates spending, which keeps the world turning. 

Again you quote these laws, giving OP's a false hope - But it's them which have to goto the Small claims court and fight the case.

Not specifying which year the bike was  is not in my option a misleading action.

As previously stated, did the OP compare the specs? Relying on price is no good, we live in a free world where retailers can set the prices.

First replies said the retailer can send any bike they like if they advertise a bike and buyer should ask questions if they wanted to know details so they have no rights.

It was Phantom who alluded to whether the specs were stated and what model they related to, the first words to the thread simply said the OP had no rights at all. 

I'm giving the the legislation that covers their situation of omissions for balance, such decisions won't be decided by us, but on the balance of probability on the day of the claim. It is for the OP to decide whether their position is correct, the more information that is given in the thread as it continues the better a conclusion that can be made. 

I'm presumung you've seen the link posted? Nothing in the description describes it as the latest bike, either by year or features. The manual linked directly under the description relates to the 2018 version.

It's all well and good giving the legislation, but I doubt you're around to hold their hand when in the court.

The OP read the description, presumed it was the latest model with nothing to back that up, so can either accept the very generous £150 refund or return the bike.

Phantom151

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Well no mention of your right to cancel the contract and 10 days to return faulty goods so not a good start down the consumer rights path.

Bottom of the page, click returns. 14 day policy. Exactly where I would expect it to be.

shiraz99

At the end of the day @pompoochie this is covered by distance selling regulations and therefore you should be able to return it. If the retailer hasn't given you the necessary information regarding your right to cancel prior to the contract then not only will you have longer than the standard 14 days to return the item but the retailer should also cover the cost of the return. Even if they have given you the this information they must also state the cost of returning the item, given that it can't normally be delivered via the post.

Alderbank

powerful_Rogue said:

pompoochie said:

It's from Sweatband.com. 

Any negative reviews I had seen were due to faulty goods or dodgy delivery. Not that they sell 4-year-old equipment at the same price as a brand new upgraded model.

No mention of the year version, however the linked manual relates to the 2018 version and does not include the adjustments made over the years.

The OP says he read reviews. The reviews on the Sweatband page (very positive) for this bike are in date order and go back to July 2019.