Faulty new motorcycle after a bit over 6 months

Manxman_in_exile

HillStreetBlues said:

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.

My view since first reading the thread is that the email from ZERO EU is an admission of an inherent fault with that model 'bike.  I may be wrong and others may disagree.

Manxman_in_exile

@aspencat2000 -  If you want to go down the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) route then, because the fault first manifested itself more than 6 months after you got the 'bike, the onus is on you to establish that - more likely than not - the fault was present when you bought the 'bike.

It seems to me that you are in the fortunate position of having an email from ZERO EU (are they the manufacturer or distributor?) alerting all owners of this model 'bike that it has an inherent potential fault with the 12-volt always-on module, and that the 'bike needs to be brought in to a dealership to have this module fixed/replaced/bypassed.

If this email refers to the same fault that appeared on your 'bike on 13th December (and which the dealer failed to fix) then I would ague that that email from ZERO EU is evidence that the fault must have been present at manufacture and therefore must also have been present when you bought the 'bike.  Other posters may disagree with that conclusion, but it seems reasonable to me.

As I understand it, the dealership you bought from has had (at least?) one attempt to fix the problem, and this attempt failed.  If that is the case, then I think you are entitled to exercise your final right to reject the 'bike and ask for a refund.

Under the legislation the dealer will be entitled to deduct from your refund an amount to take account of the use you have had of the vehicle since taking delivery of it.  See s24(8) of the legislation linked to above.

But that provision only relates to a deduction for the "use" you have had of the vehicle.  Nowhere does it say that the dealer can deduct from your refund anything to reflect depreciation or any loss of value resulting from the vehicle now being used or second-hand.  You could point out to them that the only reason the 'bike will become used or second-hand is because they failed to sell you a fault-free 'bike in the first place.  It's their fault they are getting a used 'bike back, not yours.  I'm sure they won't accept that argument but it's up to you to fight your corner as best you can.

That's my take on it, but I'm not a lawyer and can't give you legal advice.  I'm simply pointing out to you that I think the email from ZERO EU gives you evidence of an inherent manufacturing fault that was present when you bought it, and that I don't think they can deduct depreciation or loss of value from your refund.  But I could well be wrong on either or both counts.  If you end up in court you might win or you might lose... 

If you don't want to go down the "legal" route you could either take up ZERO's offer to bypass the faulty module or come to any other mutually satisfactory compromise with the dealer.

If you want to go down the legal route I think others have explained what you need to do?  ie send out a Letter Before Claim and prepare to make a diy money claim.

(Personally I might also be inclined to approach the dealer again and ask why they are so confident that they would win if you claimed under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk).  If they say you don't have any evidence that the fault was present at purchase you could refer them to the email from ZERO and point out that it's an admission of a fault with your model 'bike that the dealer has already had a failed attempt to repair.  You could then remind them that the courts don't like having their time wasted on issues that could have been settled out of court... )

Manxman_in_exile

@aspencat2000

A couple of things I'm not sure about.  Just want clarification 'cos you spent over £17k on this 'bike:

1.  Were the failed repairs done under warranty as opposed to your consumer rights?  I don't see that it makes any difference either way as the legislation doesn't say that warranty repairs can't count as an attempted repair if they fail, but I simply don't know if that is important or not.  Hopefully others will know.

2.  The dealer has had more then one attempt to fix the recharging issue?

3.  Has the dealer now told you that the 'bike has suffered further damage while in their safekeeping?

MalMonroe

Hi, do you think that this is something you can report to the Motor Ombudsman?

https://www.themotorombudsman.org/consumers/make-a-complaint

All goods sold should be 'as described, fit for purpose and last a reasonable time'.

I'd expect an expensive motorbike to last longer than six months. 

Info here from this very site, updated last month - 

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange/

If it were me I'd start reporting now, they're really messing you about and need to get their act together, with a full refund and some decent compensation paid for all the inconvenience you have suffered and continue to suffer.

That's a lot to pay for a motorbike (in my opinion since I can't stand the things - but that's just me and doesn't affect your case) and it should work. Or they should get it working. 

It's a shame you didn't pay something on credit or debit card or you could have claimed from the card issuer. 

But you still have your consumer rights and you really should start using them. You've been very patient and amenable for long enough and it seems to me now they're just taking the mickey.

Just my own opinion obviously - but you've given them many opportunities to help you and they haven't. Time for you to act now.

powerful_Rogue

MalMonroe said:

Hi, do you think that this is something you can report to the Motor Ombudsman?

https://www.themotorombudsman.org/consumers/make-a-complaint

All goods sold should be 'as described, fit for purpose and last a reasonable time'.

I'd expect an expensive motorbike to last longer than six months. 

Info here from this very site, updated last month - 

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange/

If it were me I'd start reporting now, they're really messing you about and need to get their act together, with a full refund and some decent compensation paid for all the inconvenience you have suffered and continue to suffer.

That's a lot to pay for a motorbike (in my opinion since I can't stand the things - but that's just me and doesn't affect your case) and it should work. Or they should get it working. 

It's a shame you didn't pay something on credit or debit card or you could have claimed from the card issuer. 

But you still have your consumer rights and you really should start using them. You've been very patient and amenable for long enough and it seems to me now they're just taking the mickey.

Just my own opinion obviously - but you've given them many opportunities to help you and they haven't. Time for you to act now.

The company in question isn't part of the Motor Ombudsman.

The OP won't be entitiled to a full refund. An amount can be deducted due to the use it's had over the past 6 months.

Grumpy_chap

aspencat2000 said:

 
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). 

What outcome do you actually want now?

Do you want the bike fixed and to keep it, in which case the loan bike while it is fixed seems fair.

OR, do you want to have the refund?
What repurchase price has been offered to you?
You may be quibbling over nothing more than terminology if the repurchase price is a refund less a charge for use to date.  If the "repurchase" is offered as any trade in price, then that will not be equivalent to the refund, but without a value you can't make a decision.

Norman_Castle

Grumpy_chap said:

aspencat2000 said:

 
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). 

You may be quibbling over nothing more than terminology if the repurchase price is a refund less a charge for use to date.  If the "repurchase" is offered as any trade in price, then that will not be equivalent to the refund, but without a value you can't make a decision.

As above, the repurchase and the refund minus use might be the same amount. Would it make a difference to the dealer? Presumably a repurchased bike can be sold as a customer buy back but a refunded bike may be harder to sell.

Grumpy_chap

Norman_Castle said:

As above, the repurchase and the refund minus use might be the same amount. Would it make a difference to the dealer? Presumably a repurchased bike can be sold as a customer buy back but a refunded bike may be harder to sell.

It is symantics, but there is some "pride" in it for the Dealer / manufacturer.  A repurchase does not have the admission of anything being wrong.

HillStreetBlues

Grumpy_chap said:

Norman_Castle said:

As above, the repurchase and the refund minus use might be the same amount. Would it make a difference to the dealer? Presumably a repurchased bike can be sold as a customer buy back but a refunded bike may be harder to sell.

It is symantics, but there is some "pride" in it for the Dealer / manufacturer.  A repurchase does not have the admission of anything being wrong.

Is it semantics? (don't know, so asking)
If the dealer buy it from the OP, then is the OP liable for any other  faults the dealer finds in the next 6 months?

Alderbank

HillStreetBlues said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Norman_Castle said:

As above, the repurchase and the refund minus use might be the same amount. Would it make a difference to the dealer? Presumably a repurchased bike can be sold as a customer buy back but a refunded bike may be harder to sell.

It is symantics, but there is some "pride" in it for the Dealer / manufacturer.  A repurchase does not have the admission of anything being wrong.

If the dealer buy it from the OP, then is the OP liable for any other  faults the dealer finds in the next 6 months?

Possibly, it would depend on the exact wording of the contract of sale.

Remember that consumer rights under CRA and CCR are limited to consumer purchases from a trader, both defined in the regs. They don't apply the other way round.