Decathlon sent me a faulty Bicycle and refuse to send a replacement.

cheapskate1983

Okell said:

RefluentBeans said:

... To me, this still seems like they were unsure why the bike was returned (was it a CRA return, a cancellation of contract return, a bike that was faulty). Maybe attempt to go back - apologise, and state the reasons you believe that your return is valid...

Good luck with that!  I've asked the OP twice now to tell us exactly what he said to Decathlon originally when he returned the bike and to tell us exactly what he told them was the reason for the return.  But he doesn't seem to want to say.

I think he's suggested a couple of times that Decathlon have refused to accept the return and have refused to refund him because it's "against their policy" to accept returns on goods that have been used.  So I'm wondering if he didn't make it clear that he was returning it under the CRA because when it was delivered to him it was faulty and/or damaged, and that Decathlon probably think he's just trying to return it under their own returns policy.

I agree with you though that the best bet is probably to make a sincere apology and try to start all over again, making it clear in a calm and respectful way that when the bike was delivered it didn't appear to have been packaged properly, appeared to have already been used, and one of the wheels was buckled.

Like other posters, however, I'm mystified at the sudden appearance of a second bike...

If the OP can't make it clear in this thread what happened I'm not surprised he can't persuade Decathlon to listen to him

"  I've asked the OP twice now to tell us exactly what he said to Decathlon originally when he returned the bike and to tell us exactly what he told them was the reason for the return"

I can't copy the emails directly into chat sorry. That will get me banned by admins. They already didnt allow me to link my own youtube video in.

But here is a short part of it:

The problems with this Bike existed as soon as I took it out the box! Even before the bike was outside the bike had the following problems:

1. Slack worn brakes.
2. Misaligned brake blocks.
3. A buckled rear wheel (evidence can be seen in the attached file. I realigned the brake pad and the buckle became obvious as there as huge amount of rub)..
4. Dirty dinted rims.
5. A dustcap missing on the crank.
6. A gritty singing bottom bracket.
7. Scratch marks all over the chainset and derailleur./
8. A box without any protection whatsoever for the back wheel! The box was also damage via transit.

I tried a brief ride outside AFTER the faults where discovered to see if the following problems above would effect the functionality of the bike and they did!
The bike is faulty out of the box plain and simple

"So I'm wondering if he didn't make it clear that he was returning it under the CRA because when it was delivered to him it was faulty and/or damaged, and that Decathlon probably think he's just trying to return it under their own returns policy."

I don't know what CRA is.

I agree with you though that the best bet is probably to make a sincere apology and try to start all over again, making it clear in a calm and respectful way that when the bike was delivered it didn't appear to have been packaged properly, appeared to have already been used, and one of the wheels was buckled.

Okay

Like other posters, however, I'm mystified at the sudden appearance of a second bike...

I didnt think it mattered because there was nothing wrong with the other identical bike.

cheapskate1983

I know a lot of you are getting frustrated at my lack of communication skills. Im sorry I cant do anything about that.

Im autistic / disabled. I don't like to mention it because always leads to bullying. Sorry for causing frustration.

RefluentBeans

cheapskate1983 said:

RefluentBeans said:

Oh wow - you still haven’t said if that message was your first message or why they rejected the refund. 

From what I can tell - you bought a bike (ordered from the store, and then delivered to you at home?) and asked for it to be pre-assembled. The bike was pre assembled but wheel buckled. The bike had limited packaging which you believe to have caused the damage. 

You then were unsuccessful at attempting to contacting them (you tried ringing a store but didn’t get a call back), eventually liaising through WhatsApp, before finding the returns and refunds section. 

From your perspective - what happened next? I assume they sent a returns label to you, and then said that the bikes faults were from wear and tear and that doesn’t fall in the scope of their returns policy? 

Was that letter you posted the response to this decline? If so - I can see why they’re dragging their heals. I’m guessing that front line support staff refuse to deal with abusive messages, being called scammers, and the such. I’m guessing that you’re now being dealt with by a more senior customer advisor, who probably has a number of other cases open currently too. 

I think your best bet is to apologise for your outburst and ask to set the slate clean and proceed from there. It may be too late. 

FWIW - going in like this is the nuclear option, and shouldn’t be your first option. I have worked customer service jobs prior, and I promise you that behaving in this manner doesn’t get the results you want in a timely manner. You may get a refund, because they don’t want to go court (as a company), but there’s a difference going in to a situation informed of your rights and not letting retailers ‘pull the wool over your eyes’ and going in screaming. Most retailers, like most consumers, are genuine and act in good faith, but sometimes communication between customers and the company are not clear, but often is just a mistake and if you clarify the position often things get resolved. Almost all the times if you tell the company what your resolution is, and why it’s what you feel you want, then they can work with you (and even bend their own rules) to try and get a resolution both parties are happy with. Going in nuclear puts everyone’s back up, and puts the brakes on flexing the rules to work for you. 

To me, this still seems like they were unsure why the bike was returned (was it a CRA return, a cancellation of contract return, a bike that was faulty). Maybe attempt to go back - apologise, and state the reasons you believe that your return is valid. Also be clear to what you want - a refund or replacement or repair. Because you initially seemed to want a replacement but now a refund. If they refuse to engage because of the prior communications then I’m afraid you’ll have to take the further action. RetailADR don’t have Decathlon as a brand that they work with so they may not involve themselves in your ADR, so it may be small claims court. But I think you’re a distance from the LBA stage yet…

"From what I can tell - you bought a bike (ordered from the store, and then delivered to you at home?) "

Yes

"and asked for it to be pre-assembled."

Thats Decathlons native store policy so Yes,

"The bike was pre assembled but wheel buckled. The bike had limited packaging which you believe to have caused the damage."

Yes

"From your perspective - what happened next? I assume they sent a returns label to you, and then said that the bikes faults were from wear and tear and that doesn’t fall in the scope of their returns policy?"

I didn't receive any returns label. They arranged for their courier partner to pick up the Bike. And then they said the bike is returned as used (instead of as new) so they cant offer any replacement, return or repair and that I would have to pay to receive the faulty bike back.

Was that letter you posted the response to this decline?

Yes

That’s what I thought - thanks for confirming. The other bike is fully functional correct? You purchased two bikes in the same transaction , and so therefore you’re concerned that if you do a chargeback that you’ll still owe money for the functional bike (that you wish to keep). 

I think the next step for you is to ask to set the reset the record, and calmly explain that the bike you received was damaged, and you feel this was due to the packaging of the bike and it got ‘dinged’ on the way to you. Don’t assume Decathlon knew they sent you a faulty bike (they almost certainly didn’t know). 

You can be firm but fair. There’s a difference between going in saying what you expect to happen and going in with the nuclear option. You can lay your argument out in bullet points, and include the story from start to finish and why you think the bike is faulty. 

Given that you appear to have contacted them the day the bike arrived, it seems unlikely you have spent a further 2 weeks riding around on the bike (which I believe is what they said the use is indicative of). So you seem to have a good case. 

This just seems that the person processing the return assumed that the bike was returned because you didn’t like it, and so rejected it because it was used. That could be for a number of reasons (them selecting the wrong reason for return; the bike ending up in the wrong return processing pile; the employee not reading the return reason properly; you selecting the wrong return reason). Either way - mistakes can happen. Just make it clear the reason for return. Then they can choose to reject the argument that it was inherently faulty and you caused the fault (meaning they know they sent you a pristine bike) or they can refund you based on the CRA. The CRA is favourable for you - within 30 days the fault is assumed to be there, and you can choose if you want a refund or replacement/repair. They have to show the fault isn’t inherent, and given you contacted them within a few days of arrival the likelihood is that the bike arrived faulty. 

If that doesn’t work, and they don’t engage or refuse the CRA claim (not just a ‘standard’ return claim like they currently appear to be refusing) then you can pursue chargeback (but they can reject chargeback claims), assistance via S75 (if you paid with credit), or with small claims court if it comes to it. I, personally would give them a couple of days to respond, as like I said prior, it may be that your request is being dealt with a more senior person now (who hopefully at least knows the CRA) and so if you claim based on that they may be of more assistance than a first line support agent who has a script to follow. 

I hope that helps! 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

cheapskate1983 said:

So how many bikes are involved? You appear to be introducing another now.

There was another Medium frame that had nothing wrong with it. So 2.

You should be able to a chargeback for part of the order value rather than the whole amount (i.e get back the value of the returned bike and the retailer keeps the payment value for the 2nd frame you mention).

@born_again may hopefully clarify  

Regarding the rest, most of it is unnecessary. 

Either the goods conform to the contract or they don't.

*If the issue is raised within 30 days and a refund demanded it is not taken there was a problem and the purchaser may be required to show there was an issue with the goods that they didn't cause.

*If within 6 months with no demand for a refund it is taken there was a problem not caused by the purchaser and the retailer would have to show otherwise, which I think they'd really struggle to do in this case.

Being nice and keeping frustration at bay is always sensible but there's nothing in the regs that says the customer loses their consumer rights because they got the hump and directed a bit of frustration at the retailer.  

Any company with decent customer service should be able to deescalate a situation where a customer has a valid issue and is overly upset about it, usually it only takes the word sorry to deflate someone.

Two paragraphs with a * are the only focus of this matter really. 

screech_78

You’ve received some good advice on how to
move forward. 

I don’t think the email you sent to them is that bad and I can’t see that being the reason they’ve stopped communication with you. I’m possibly jaded as I deal with this on a daily basis, but there’s nothing in the email that comes across as aggressive or threatening. Just frustration. 

eskbanker

cheapskate1983 said:
I don't know what CRA is.

Consumer Rights Act 2015, i.e. the legislation that governs your legal rights when purchasing goods or services, so any claim against Decathlon should be expressed in terms of your rights under this Act.

The legislation itself is at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents

More user-friendly guides to your CRA rights are at sites such as this one and others:
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange/
https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act-aKJYx8n5KiSl

Jonboy_1984

Having been following this, the other thing to remember is Decathlon are a large European chain. There is a good chance the customer service person dealing with your issue is not in the same building as your bike and very possibly not even the same country. 

They are likely dealing with this based on a fixed process of information from their warehouse and will not have personal sight of the bike or it’s condition. Being rude, threatening or aggressive will not help this process, or any other complaint with any company.

 When I get annoyed with these things I write the communication in word or another program, leave it for a couple of hours, and then go back and rewrite it with the plain facts and no emotion.

Grumpy_chap

Well this does seem to be a complex situation of the Devil's own making.  If I read the thread correctly:

1. The OP purchased a bike by mail-order (internet) and it was a fully remote purchase delivered to the OP.  No part of the transaction or collection in store.
2. Is that correct, because the OP also mentioned at one point that the bike was assembled at Decathlon store?
3. The bike was delivered to the OP on 1st August.
4. On receipt the OP noticed that the bike appeared to be used and had some faults.  
5. The OP assembled the bike
6. It is not clear which of the condition issues with the bike were evident prior to assembly and which were confirmed after assembly (buckled wheel)
7. The OP rejected the bike as faulty and the bike was collected by Decathlon.  This gives Decathlon the opportunity to repair or replace.
8. The alternative for the OP would have been to reject under CCR as a totally remote purchase return for "any reason or none" within 14 days of receipt.  (Change of mind.)
9. In fact it is possibly irrelevant whether the OP returned the bike as "faulty", 14-day change of mind refund, or even under "not as described" (the OP ordered a new bike but received one that appeared to be pre-loved).  
10. Once the bike was received back at Decathlon, they assessed that the bike was returned in a used condition.  For the return as "faulty" which the OP did, Decathlon are expressing a view that the bike was used (and damaged) by the OP, not as shipped.
11. Had the OP returned the bike under the 14-day change of mind, Decathlon may well have also assessed the bike as used (and damaged) by the OP rather than as shipped.  Under change of mind, the consumer is only allowed to test the product to the extent they could test in store.  If the OP used the bike, that may be considered more testing than can be tested in store.
12. There then followed some communication in which the OP said "you delivered a used / damaged bike" and Decathlon said "we supplied a new bike, you have used it causing the damage".  On this basis Decathlon declined the refund but offered to ship the bike back to the OP (at the OP's cost for shipping).
13. The OP expressed their position in an angry tone and included the comments about scrapping the bike and not requiring a refund.  In e-mail.
14. Decathlon seem to have taken those comments by the OP literally and closed the case.

The first thing the OP needs to do here is establish where the bike is now.  It probably does make a difference if the bike has already been disposed of by Decathlon as it reduces the future options.

If the bike is still available at Decathlon, there may be more options if dialogue can be re-established with Decathlon.  It was a £350 bike - at the very least the OP might be able to recover the bike and sell second hand for £150.

I suspect that a charge back would be challenged by Decathlon who would then pursue the recovery of the debt.

I suspect that any S75 claim would fail as the credit card company would cite the comments about scrapping the bike and forfeiting refund as a resolution.

The option that is most likely to yield some success is the route of establishing constructive and very polite dialogue with Decathlon and pursuing some goodwill.  This is going to need some humble pie on the part of the OP.

Can the OP advise where the bike actually is now?  With Decathlon or scrapped?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

1. The alternative for the OP would have been to reject under CCR as a totally remote purchase return for "any reason or none" within 14 days of receipt.  (Change of mind.)

Reject under the CRA, cancel under the CCRs  

Grumpy_chap said:

I suspect that any S75 claim would fail as the credit card company would cite the comments about scrapping the bike and forfeiting refund as a resolution.

OP can't give up his rights by saying something a bit silly in a moment of frustration. 

The question is what did OP say.

Did they say

1) I'm cancelling my contract
2) I'm rejecting the bike for a full refund
3) There's a problem with the bike please fix it

Obviously the OP probably didn't say that directly but the company should be in a position to understand their obligations based on what the consumer implies. 

The answer to all 3 options are very simple, we just need to know which one it is!  

born_again

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

cheapskate1983 said:

So how many bikes are involved? You appear to be introducing another now.

There was another Medium frame that had nothing wrong with it. So 2.

You should be able to a chargeback for part of the order value rather than the whole amount (i.e get back the value of the returned bike and the retailer keeps the payment value for the 2nd frame you mention).

@born_again may hopefully clarify  

Regarding the rest, most of it is unnecessary. 

Either the goods conform to the contract or they don't.

*If the issue is raised within 30 days and a refund demanded it is not taken there was a problem and the purchaser may be required to show there was an issue with the goods that they didn't cause.

*If within 6 months with no demand for a refund it is taken there was a problem not caused by the purchaser and the retailer would have to show otherwise, which I think they'd really struggle to do in this case.

Being nice and keeping frustration at bay is always sensible but there's nothing in the regs that says the customer loses their consumer rights because they got the hump and directed a bit of frustration at the retailer.  

Any company with decent customer service should be able to deescalate a situation where a customer has a valid issue and is overly upset about it, usually it only takes the word sorry to deflate someone.

Two paragraphs with a * are the only focus of this matter really. 

TBH. I would fully expect them to reject any chargeback, on the same basis as they have already rejected the refund. But they may not & as OP has said end up chasing them via legal means.

I get where the OP is coming from, but given they have a wheel trueing device. It may have just been easier to mention to retailer that wheel was not true & that they have trued up. Would they be willing to offer something due to this.

But as OP had ordered 2 different size frames, was the intention to return one anyway, once they had worked out which was the best size?