Equipment delivered is a 2018 model.

powerful_Rogue

Alderbank said:

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.

Don't quite understand what you are getting at? The 2018 version of the bike could have been sold for 2019,2020,2021,2021......

Alderbank

powerful_Rogue, I agree with everything you have said. 
The OP said he was misled into believing that the bike described was released in 2021 because the page did not say otherwise.
I should have said that in addition to your observation about the handbook, the reviews for the bike he bought are dated 2019, 2020, 2021...
Thanks for pointing this out.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Phantom151 said:

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.

The returns policy appears to be their "company policy".

The exceptions go down the hygiene route but appear to rule them out completely rather than only when they were delivered sealed and became unsealed after delivery.

They also state goods must be kept in "as new" condition possibly implying that should they not be a refund will not be forthcoming. The right to cancel the contract isn't linked to the condition of the goods and whilst deductions maybe permitted (assuming correct information is supplied) that isn't mentioned. 

You could perhaps forgive some of this as simply not wording themselves particularly well but by stating you only have 10 days to return faulty goods implies they aren't well versed in consumer rights. To state the consumer only has 10 days to return goods that " were delivered as substitutes without your explicit consent" implies a disregard for the consumer's rights. 

Of course we don't know what information the OP received via durable means which may be clearer and better worded.

MalMonroe

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 trumps anything the company may have to say. 

BUT - when you buy online you have the right to return goods for a full refund within 14 days.

However - the customer has to pay return delivery. And in this case, it won't be cheap and the company doesn't want to pay it.

SO, given everything - I'd definitely accept the £150 because it really is the best deal in this situation. 

BUT I'd also write to the manufacturer to let them know how this retailer is operating and that you are not impressed.

Money_Grabber13579

powerful_Rogue said:

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. 

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

Fortunately they don’t need to be. The judge will know exactly what the legislation says and what was intended. And it is the legislation which is key, not what some person spouting off on the internet says.

Very broadly, the purpose of the legislation is to prevent consumers having the wool pulled over their eyes by traders and so all material facts have to be disclosed. That is different when dealing with a private individual, when it is up to the consumer to do their own homework. So in this particular case, it will ultimately come down to whether any material facts were hidden and if they were, then the consumer has been misled and they have statutory rights to a remedy. 

I think we ultimately need the OP to tell us what the difference is between a 2018 model and a 2021 model though. If the difference is that the 2018 model had features A, B and C and the 2021 model had X, Y and Z, the consumer will only have been misled if it disclosed none of those facts. It it disclosed that it had features A, B and C, but not that it was a 2018 model, I think there would still be enough there to indicate what exactly was being purchased. After all, there is no law against selling old stock, but the goods much still be accurately and completely described in all material respects i.e. they can’t be made to appear to be something they aren’t, whether that is through omission or otherwise.

Manxman_in_exile

We buy quite a bit of relatively expensive fitness equipment (last really expensive item was a Concept 2 rower for £800+ a couple of years ago) and I would not consider it unreasonable for a consumer to expect to be buying the latest version of a piece of equipment if the website does not say otherwise.  (I'm surprised so many posters think differently and that the business can rely on the consumer having to ask exactly what they are selling!)

I think that's especially true of (1) technical, mechanical and/or electronic equipment which gets upgraded, (2) is advertised at the same price as the latest model, and (3) costs a couple of grand.  (These last two according to previous posts - whether true or not I don't know... )

Also their returns policy is surely questionable - as already mentioned by @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head.  They state that faulty goods must be returned within 10 days (what?) and there's no mention of stautory rights not being affected by this "policy".

I'd say all of that is pretty much bound to mislead the consumer - whether deliberately or not.

What the OP does is up to them.  They can accept the partial refund offered (if it reflects a reasonable price for a three or four year old model), or they can try to hold out for more by pointing the above out to the seller, and then decide whether to take it further or not.

Some people would consider a bird in the hand worth two in the bush.  Some would not...

Sandtree

cx6 said:

true, but what would a reasonable consumer expect ?

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

To be honest, there needs to be a fair amount of stick pointed at the manufacturer for releasing a new version each year under the same model name... most companies will progress the model number to make it clear for everyone (hence iPhone 13 this year, iPhone 12 last year etc). The main exception to this is cars but 99% of the time then you have a registration plate which makes it clear its age for working out which year it is.

I guess there are secondary considerations.... what are the changes over the years? Are any of these visible changes? If they are which picture did they use, the 2018 variant or another? Was the item described correctly? Did it list any of the 2019-2022 changes as being applicable?

I'd personally ask why the OP chose this retailer? Based on the comments its because it was the cheapest place and so the lower price could already reflect the fact its an older variant 

Hindsight is always great but I think that if I knew the same model number actually covered a wide range of devices and I saw a place much cheaper than others I would probably ask for confirmation of the exact variant/year before ordering exactly because of the stupid approach by the manufacturer