Faulty new motorcycle after a bit over 6 months

aspencat2000

Dear all,

I thought I would create a new post following my previous post. 

I bought a bike, it became faulty and I claimed a refund after the dealer tried twice to fix it with no success. 

I took it home after their first try fixing it and the faulty came back overnight. The dealer took back the motorcycle to their workshop, told me again it was fixed and when I came to collect it, it wouldn't turn on. 

Now the dealer says that bike "performed satisfactorily" after the first service. Due to water ingress (it's a ZERO electric bike), developed a further nonrelated fault in the main battery due to this ingress. This new fault developed while the bike was in their workshop, as I didn't have it. 
 
Dealer offered 2 options:

- ZERO offers a loan while the bike is fixed under warranty
- Dealer offers a repurchase 

I answered that what they claim is inaccurate (didn't perform satisfactorily, and the further issue was created by them), so I again asked for a refund under consumer act 2015 (I think the bike was sold faulty). 

The dealer said: "I would recommend you re-apprise yourself of the terms of the consumer rights act 2015."

I answered that after consulting Citizen advice (which I did), they recommend to send them a Letter Before Court Action. Told them that I want to solve this amicably, so asked for a satisfactory refund amount proposal by Monday.

Also asked for their ADR in case we have to bring the proceedings further. 

It seems to me that the dealer is trying to undermine mi rights, and also delaying everything as I should have received a final answer on Wednesday, 2 days ago. 

Any input would be much appreciated. 

Kind regards,
Alex

Aylesbury_Duck

You're much better off directing people to your original post.  Lots of helpful contextual information arose from your interaction with posters there.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6416481/faulty-new-motorcycle-after-a-bit-over-6-months#latest

aspencat2000

Dear all,

I thought I update the post. 

I bought a bike, it became faulty and I claimed a refund after the dealer tried twice to fix it with no success. 

I took it home after their first try fixing it and the faulty came back overnight. The dealer took back the motorcycle to their workshop, told me again it was fixed and when I came to collect it, it wouldn't turn on. 

Now the dealer says that bike "performed satisfactorily" after the first service. Due to water ingress (it's a ZERO electric bike), developed a further nonrelated fault in the main battery due to this ingress. This new fault developed while the bike was in their workshop, as I didn't have it. 
 
Dealer offered 2 options:

- ZERO offers a loan while the bike is fixed under warranty
- Dealer offers a repurchase 

I answered that what they claim is inaccurate (didn't perform satisfactorily, and the further issue was created by them), so I again asked for a refund under consumer act 2015 (I think the bike was sold faulty). 

The dealer said: "I would recommend you re-apprise yourself of the terms of the consumer rights act 2015."

I answered that after consulting Citizen advice (which I did), they recommend to send them a Letter Before Court Action. Told them that I want to solve this amicably, so asked for a satisfactory refund amount proposal by Monday.

Also asked for their ADR in case we have to bring the proceedings further. 

It seems to me that the dealer is trying to undermine mi rights, and also delaying everything as I should have received a final answer on Wednesday, 2 days ago. 

Any input would be much appreciated. 

Kind regards,
Alex

sheramber

You need to follow thorugh on your notice that you will take legal action otherwise it was a waste of time.

Aylesbury_Duck

I agree.  Having threatened the legal process, you need to see it through.  If you extend the deadline or keep talking to them, there's little incentive for them to resolve it to your satisfaction.

It looks like you haven't yet sent them a letter before action, and that you've only told them you might.  They haven't provided what you want, so send them that letter today, giving them 14 days to respond or you'll start legal action.  No need to send the letter by recorded delivery (they could simply refuse to accept it).  Just send it with proof of postage.  Legally, it will be deemed to have arrived so they can't wriggle out and claim they haven't had it.

HillStreetBlues

aspencat2000 said:

I answered that what they claim is inaccurate (didn't perform satisfactorily, and the further issue was created by them), so I again asked for a refund under consumer act 2015 (I think the bike was sold faulty).

This could be where the problem might lay. (Why I asked for dates)
If you first took the bike back before 6 months then the retailer has to prove that fault developed after it was sold.
As it's after 6 months  it's up to you to prove that fault was there  when sold.
So it's not what you think, it's what you can prove.

aspencat2000 said:

The dealer said: "I would recommend you re-apprise yourself of the terms of the consumer rights act 2015."

The dealer might know the CCR2015
If you take action against the dealer,  their defence would be "the purchaser hasn't show the fault was inherent at time of sale required under CCR2015"

Manxman_in_exile

HillStreetBlues said:

aspencat2000 said:

I answered that what they claim is inaccurate (didn't perform satisfactorily, and the further issue was created by them), so I again asked for a refund under consumer act 2015 (I think the bike was sold faulty).

This could be where the problem might lay. (Why I asked for dates)
If you first took the bike back before 6 months then the retailer has to prove that fault developed after it was sold.
As it's after 6 months  it's up to you to prove that fault was there  when sold.
So it's not what you think, it's what you can prove.

aspencat2000 said:

The dealer said: "I would recommend you re-apprise yourself of the terms of the consumer rights act 2015."

The dealer might know the CCR2015
If you take action against the dealer,  their defence would be "the purchaser hasn't show the fault was inherent at time of sale required under CCR2015"

I understand the point you are making, but don't you think the manufacturer has admitted that the 'bike is inherently faulty by informing owners of a potential fault with the way the battery charges, and proposing a remedy?  I'm thinking of this from the opening post:

aspencat2000 said:

... On 5th January, ZERO EU sent an email to all Zero owners, with the text below:

"We have determined your specific model has a 12-volt always-on module supplying power to the OBDII port that can potentially fail. Zero Motorcycles has elected to initiate a voluntary service campaign to remedy this issue.

The remedy is to have Zero Motorcycles dealers inspect and remove the 12-volt always-on module on all affected motorcycles and replace the always-on module with a bypass kit provided by Zero Motorcycles.

Please contact your preferred Zero Motorcycles dealership to schedule an appointment to have the service campaign completed. To find the dealer closest to you, please use the dealer locator button below."

Why would ZERO send out an email to all owners warning them of a potential problem with the "12-volt always-on module" and offering to replace it for free if they (the manufacturer) didn't think it was inherently faulty?

I'm not disagreeing with your point, I'm just suggeting that this email is the evidence of an inherent fault that the OP needs.  Don't you think?

(Although I note @aspencat2000 hasn't referred to this email from ZERO EU in their later posts...)

Alderbank

In the opening post above, aspencat said:
'On 4th June I bought a top of the range electric motorcycle, ZERO SR/F Premium. I paid £17104 to Wheels Peterborough.

The bike failed on 13th December, just over six months after I bought it.'

Presumably he said the same to the dealer?

Manxman_in_exile

Alderbank said:

In the opening post above, aspencat said:
'On 4th June I bought a top of the range electric motorcycle, ZERO SR/F Premium. I paid £17104 to Wheels Peterborough.

The bike failed on 13th December, just over six months after I bought it.'

Presumably he said the same to the dealer?

But hasn't the manufacturer admitted an inherent fault in their email of 05 January?  They are alerting owners to a problem with the 12-volt always-on module, and isn't it that that is causing the OP's problem with his 'bike?

HillStreetBlues

Manxman_in_exile said:

I'm not disagreeing with your point, I'm just suggeting that this email is the evidence of an inherent fault that the OP needs.  Don't you think?

Good point

With that e-mail the OP can claim he knows that there was an inherent fault.