We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Decathlon sent me a faulty Bicycle and refuse to send a replacement.
Options
Comments
-
Bradden said:RefluentBeans said:
- , Nevertheless - it doesn't allow retailers to ignore ton their obligations under the consumer rights act.
Slightly OT but this thread did spark a thought. Where does a retailer stands legally in the face of (worse) verbal abuse? They have the right to refuse to deal with customers (excluding some protections) but that would prevent the consumer asserting their rights.Edited to add. If a customer is abusive over
the telephone, they may be told that we will only correspond in writing (email) going forward. Did have an interesting one where a customer told me “I don’t agree to that. For the purpose of this phone call, I’m illiterate”. Although their initial contact had been a very lengthy email.1 -
BikingBud said:Okell said:BikingBud said:cheapskate1983 said:BikingBud said:cheapskate1983 said:powerful_Rogue said:Something does seem amiss here.I found Decathlon support to be very good. I ordered a treadmill which arrived last Wednesday. Built it on the Thursday and noticed they had sent a two pin plug. Emailed them a picture and on Monday a new cable with a 3 pin plugh arrived via Royal Mail.
So that may explain why 1 bike came with a buckle and the medium frame didnt. I guess it was just luck.
I know everyone has their consumer loyalty to their favourite brands.
I just wanted a bike that works. At this point I'll accept 50% of the value of the Bike. I just want to be clear of Decathlon. Whats worse is on every Bike ride I am going to have to stare at that medium frame and remember all this triggering story.
Sorry if I offend you but look at it from my side. I cant just forget negative experiences so easily. It ripples in my memories.
Autism etc.
when were they both delivered? what state were they in? what problems were evident?
If there are 2 bikes then there are 2 timelines and potentially 2 discrete problem sets.
The symptoms you stated appear to be the wheel is not in the drop outs squarely but that should be spotted and rectified easily. All said, if you are able to maintain bikes, you intimate that you are but didn't stay you are competent, then just repair them and move on.
If you cannot communicate your complaint on here effectively and have tendency for outbursts your path to resolution will be very difficult.
There was another Medium frame that had nothing wrong with it. So 2.
when were they both delivered? what state were they in? what problems were evident?
The XL Box had a massive gap at the bottom and the Medium Box had a lot of scuff marks.
I've listed all the issues with the XL frame above.
The medium frame was fine.
If there are 2 bikes then there are 2 timelines and potentially 2 discrete problem sets.
I don't see how? They both arrived on the same day by the same courier?
The symptoms you stated appear to be the wheel is not in the drop outs squarely but that should be spotted and rectified easily. All said, if you are able to maintain bikes, you intimate that you are but didn't stay you are competent, then just repair them and move on.
If you cannot communicate your complaint on here effectively and have tendency for outbursts your path to resolution will be very difficult.
Ok
2 bikes, one med and one XL, seems bizarre buying two significantly different size bikes but I am sure that is another story...
It's irrelevant anyway, but because of his disability I'm afraid the OP might have more difficulty than the rest of us in identifying what is and what isn't relevant.
I think he needs help to work through it
Given the existing confusion, I would not say anything is irrelevant especially considering the late notification of the second bike and even later notification that it is a different size and that both boxes were damaged. Although I did prompt that this is a different event and different timeline but this was reputed.
But it would be much easier if the chronology was laid out:- What was ordered and when? Together or at different times?
- What was delivered and when? Together or at different times?
- Condition of deliveries, packing and items, comment upon the bikes as Med and XL, the frame is but one component of the bike. e
- Initial observations raised with seller and when. Did they respond? - Slack brakes are different from worn brakes. If the brakes were worn and visibly dirty then taking photos eg
- Med bike packing was damaged, see images Med 1> Med8. Upon opening the box no visible damage was observed and the bike was considered safe to ride.
- XL bike the box was damaged, see images Numbered XL1> XL15 and when inspected the following faults were apparent, list each fault and link to images numbered as before eg Rear Brake dirt and wear considered to be evidence of pre use, see Image XL 16. Rear brake incorrect adjustment see image XL17.
- Repeat each observation with appropriate images that clearly show the fault. and sending these to the retailer should be the easy bit and then reject the item and DO NOT USE THE BIKE!
- Observations raised with courier and when. Did they respond?
- Advice from seller in how to address the issue(s). Return one bike or both bikes?
- Agreement to return item(s) - by courier? and when?
- Level of adherence to this advice.
- Once this has been agreed why do anything different?
- Date of collection?
- Subsequent actions are all dependent upon previous decisions.
Can the images, that were taken upon receipt and opening the box to discover the faults be attached here?Regarding the use of the bike - it was 2 minutes outside. I think the DONT USE THE BIKE is pointless when he’s claiming it’s faulty. Decathlon have said it’s consistent with a couple of weeks of use - given the bike was delivered 10 days ago, and many of those days it’s been sat with Decathlon, it seems implausible that the OP did 2 weeks of damage in just a few days, or even a few minutes.Decathlon have to prove the bike wasn’t faulty when it left them. There’s no grey area here, they can send off for an independent technical inspection and inform OP that they will sue him for the cost if it’s in their favour, but they have to prove that it wasn’t faulty, and that this is damaged by the OP. The 2 minute ride outside doesn’t invalidate your rights.Regarding the rest, OP says the bikes were delivered together. OP has already commented on the condition of both boxes. Why would you raise with courier - they don’t have a contract with you. OP could’ve refused delivery but bit late now. Even if damaged as a result of the courier it’s the shipper who can claim, not recipient (generally, unless the recipient organised the postage). Decathlon organised collection of one bike themselves (shortly after 7/Aug as that’s when he heard back from decathlon).There’s a few unanswered questions, but before asking questions the least we can do is check to see if our questions have been asked and answered before. The thread is already confusing enough!0 -
Bradden said:RefluentBeans said:
- , Nevertheless - it doesn't allow retailers to ignore ton their obligations under the consumer rights act.
Slightly OT but this thread did spark a thought. Where does a retailer stands legally in the face of (worse) verbal abuse? They have the right to refuse to deal with customers (excluding some protections) but that would prevent the consumer asserting their rights.I think the line is difficult to draw and I don’t really think s court will ever weigh in and draw it for us. Rather they’ll say when somethings clearly right and clearly wrong. But the actual line will be fuzzy. Of course companies can limit the way they deal with customers issues. We’ve seen the shift from phone lines to online solutions, and seen that many Twitter help lines are being abandoned. Partly because of the abuse. If someone gets blocked for abusive language from a company on Twitter after asking for help on a consumer rights issue, that’s not going to amount to them abiding their responsibilities. So it’s what counts as avoiding your responsibilities as a seller.1 -
RefluentBeans said:BikingBud said:Okell said:BikingBud said:cheapskate1983 said:BikingBud said:cheapskate1983 said:powerful_Rogue said:Something does seem amiss here.I found Decathlon support to be very good. I ordered a treadmill which arrived last Wednesday. Built it on the Thursday and noticed they had sent a two pin plug. Emailed them a picture and on Monday a new cable with a 3 pin plugh arrived via Royal Mail.
So that may explain why 1 bike came with a buckle and the medium frame didnt. I guess it was just luck.
I know everyone has their consumer loyalty to their favourite brands.
I just wanted a bike that works. At this point I'll accept 50% of the value of the Bike. I just want to be clear of Decathlon. Whats worse is on every Bike ride I am going to have to stare at that medium frame and remember all this triggering story.
Sorry if I offend you but look at it from my side. I cant just forget negative experiences so easily. It ripples in my memories.
Autism etc.
when were they both delivered? what state were they in? what problems were evident?
If there are 2 bikes then there are 2 timelines and potentially 2 discrete problem sets.
The symptoms you stated appear to be the wheel is not in the drop outs squarely but that should be spotted and rectified easily. All said, if you are able to maintain bikes, you intimate that you are but didn't stay you are competent, then just repair them and move on.
If you cannot communicate your complaint on here effectively and have tendency for outbursts your path to resolution will be very difficult.
There was another Medium frame that had nothing wrong with it. So 2.
when were they both delivered? what state were they in? what problems were evident?
The XL Box had a massive gap at the bottom and the Medium Box had a lot of scuff marks.
I've listed all the issues with the XL frame above.
The medium frame was fine.
If there are 2 bikes then there are 2 timelines and potentially 2 discrete problem sets.
I don't see how? They both arrived on the same day by the same courier?
The symptoms you stated appear to be the wheel is not in the drop outs squarely but that should be spotted and rectified easily. All said, if you are able to maintain bikes, you intimate that you are but didn't stay you are competent, then just repair them and move on.
If you cannot communicate your complaint on here effectively and have tendency for outbursts your path to resolution will be very difficult.
Ok
2 bikes, one med and one XL, seems bizarre buying two significantly different size bikes but I am sure that is another story...
It's irrelevant anyway, but because of his disability I'm afraid the OP might have more difficulty than the rest of us in identifying what is and what isn't relevant.
I think he needs help to work through it
Given the existing confusion, I would not say anything is irrelevant especially considering the late notification of the second bike and even later notification that it is a different size and that both boxes were damaged. Although I did prompt that this is a different event and different timeline but this was reputed.
But it would be much easier if the chronology was laid out:- What was ordered and when? Together or at different times?
- What was delivered and when? Together or at different times?
- Condition of deliveries, packing and items, comment upon the bikes as Med and XL, the frame is but one component of the bike. e
- Initial observations raised with seller and when. Did they respond? - Slack brakes are different from worn brakes. If the brakes were worn and visibly dirty then taking photos eg
- Med bike packing was damaged, see images Med 1> Med8. Upon opening the box no visible damage was observed and the bike was considered safe to ride.
- XL bike the box was damaged, see images Numbered XL1> XL15 and when inspected the following faults were apparent, list each fault and link to images numbered as before eg Rear Brake dirt and wear considered to be evidence of pre use, see Image XL 16. Rear brake incorrect adjustment see image XL17.
- Repeat each observation with appropriate images that clearly show the fault. and sending these to the retailer should be the easy bit and then reject the item and DO NOT USE THE BIKE!
- Observations raised with courier and when. Did they respond?
- Advice from seller in how to address the issue(s). Return one bike or both bikes?
- Agreement to return item(s) - by courier? and when?
- Level of adherence to this advice.
- Once this has been agreed why do anything different?
- Date of collection?
- Subsequent actions are all dependent upon previous decisions.
Can the images, that were taken upon receipt and opening the box to discover the faults be attached here?Regarding the use of the bike - it was 2 minutes outside. I think the DONT USE THE BIKE is pointless when he’s claiming it’s faulty. Decathlon have said it’s consistent with a couple of weeks of use - given the bike was delivered 10 days ago, and many of those days it’s been sat with Decathlon, it seems implausible that the OP did 2 weeks of damage in just a few days, or even a few minutes.Decathlon have to prove the bike wasn’t faulty when it left them. There’s no grey area here, they can send off for an independent technical inspection and inform OP that they will sue him for the cost if it’s in their favour, but they have to prove that it wasn’t faulty, and that this is damaged by the OP. The 2 minute ride outside doesn’t invalidate your rights.Regarding the rest, OP says the bikes were delivered together. OP has already commented on the condition of both boxes. Why would you raise with courier - they don’t have a contract with you. OP could’ve refused delivery but bit late now. Even if damaged as a result of the courier it’s the shipper who can claim, not recipient (generally, unless the recipient organised the postage). Decathlon organised collection of one bike themselves (shortly after 7/Aug as that’s when he heard back from decathlon).There’s a few unanswered questions, but before asking questions the least we can do is check to see if our questions have been asked and answered before. The thread is already confusing enough!
Therefore if they understand how to construct the complaint, supporting it with compelling, clear date stamped images of the damage and supplemented with evidence that they protested about the condition of the boxes to the courier, which generates additional evidence that damage occurred before receipt, supported by the complaint being listed on the courier's system that all adds value.
The retailer may well have picture of the bikes when it was packed and dispatched, we do not know. Asking for an independent technical evaluation would tell you the condition know, not when dispatched. You are assuming a usage level based upon what facts, some people ride bikes and easily cover over 150km per day but you are also assuming based upon what you think the OP has said.
I would also offer that being faulty is entirely different from not assembled or set up correctly. But we do not really know what those "faults" are. Hence I asked about competence to diagnose or fix those issues but we still do not know if the OP is competent. His comment about:"1 bike came with a buckle and the medium frame didnt"would lead me to deduce they are not. It is not an accurate description of a fault.
On a recent sportive ride someone had fallen off their bike, they got back on but complained that their back wheel was buckled! They diagnosed based upon the fact that the wheel was rubbing on the brakes. As a trained cycle mechanic I was able to rapidly diagnose the broken chain stay and advised that he needed collecting and his bike was for the skip as to continue to ride the bike with a broken frame was a safety risk.
If trying to work on balance of probabilities, the presence of a credible and coherent, well documented and supported discussion is likely to be compelling. The OP cannot ask the retailer to review this thread for the "facts", the OP needs to construct their own argument. Yet given the apparent status of the current relationship with the retailer the OP needs many things to go in their favour to get this moving forward.
0 -
cheapskate1983 said: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.
He's obviously struggled to explain to Decathlon exactly what the problem was (as he perceived it) and he's also struggled to explain it here. I suspect he has had difficulty in putting his argument to Decathlon together in a cogent and well-organised way. That's not his fault - it's the way he is.
I think he might be best served by being walked through the questions that need answering one by one. I don't think he's going to answer them all in one go...2 -
BikingBud said:RefluentBeans said:BikingBud said:Okell said:BikingBud said:cheapskate1983 said:BikingBud said:cheapskate1983 said:powerful_Rogue said:Something does seem amiss here.I found Decathlon support to be very good. I ordered a treadmill which arrived last Wednesday. Built it on the Thursday and noticed they had sent a two pin plug. Emailed them a picture and on Monday a new cable with a 3 pin plugh arrived via Royal Mail.
So that may explain why 1 bike came with a buckle and the medium frame didnt. I guess it was just luck.
I know everyone has their consumer loyalty to their favourite brands.
I just wanted a bike that works. At this point I'll accept 50% of the value of the Bike. I just want to be clear of Decathlon. Whats worse is on every Bike ride I am going to have to stare at that medium frame and remember all this triggering story.
Sorry if I offend you but look at it from my side. I cant just forget negative experiences so easily. It ripples in my memories.
Autism etc.
when were they both delivered? what state were they in? what problems were evident?
If there are 2 bikes then there are 2 timelines and potentially 2 discrete problem sets.
The symptoms you stated appear to be the wheel is not in the drop outs squarely but that should be spotted and rectified easily. All said, if you are able to maintain bikes, you intimate that you are but didn't stay you are competent, then just repair them and move on.
If you cannot communicate your complaint on here effectively and have tendency for outbursts your path to resolution will be very difficult.
There was another Medium frame that had nothing wrong with it. So 2.
when were they both delivered? what state were they in? what problems were evident?
The XL Box had a massive gap at the bottom and the Medium Box had a lot of scuff marks.
I've listed all the issues with the XL frame above.
The medium frame was fine.
If there are 2 bikes then there are 2 timelines and potentially 2 discrete problem sets.
I don't see how? They both arrived on the same day by the same courier?
The symptoms you stated appear to be the wheel is not in the drop outs squarely but that should be spotted and rectified easily. All said, if you are able to maintain bikes, you intimate that you are but didn't stay you are competent, then just repair them and move on.
If you cannot communicate your complaint on here effectively and have tendency for outbursts your path to resolution will be very difficult.
Ok
2 bikes, one med and one XL, seems bizarre buying two significantly different size bikes but I am sure that is another story...
It's irrelevant anyway, but because of his disability I'm afraid the OP might have more difficulty than the rest of us in identifying what is and what isn't relevant.
I think he needs help to work through it
Given the existing confusion, I would not say anything is irrelevant especially considering the late notification of the second bike and even later notification that it is a different size and that both boxes were damaged. Although I did prompt that this is a different event and different timeline but this was reputed.
But it would be much easier if the chronology was laid out:- What was ordered and when? Together or at different times?
- What was delivered and when? Together or at different times?
- Condition of deliveries, packing and items, comment upon the bikes as Med and XL, the frame is but one component of the bike. e
- Initial observations raised with seller and when. Did they respond? - Slack brakes are different from worn brakes. If the brakes were worn and visibly dirty then taking photos eg
- Med bike packing was damaged, see images Med 1> Med8. Upon opening the box no visible damage was observed and the bike was considered safe to ride.
- XL bike the box was damaged, see images Numbered XL1> XL15 and when inspected the following faults were apparent, list each fault and link to images numbered as before eg Rear Brake dirt and wear considered to be evidence of pre use, see Image XL 16. Rear brake incorrect adjustment see image XL17.
- Repeat each observation with appropriate images that clearly show the fault. and sending these to the retailer should be the easy bit and then reject the item and DO NOT USE THE BIKE!
- Observations raised with courier and when. Did they respond?
- Advice from seller in how to address the issue(s). Return one bike or both bikes?
- Agreement to return item(s) - by courier? and when?
- Level of adherence to this advice.
- Once this has been agreed why do anything different?
- Date of collection?
- Subsequent actions are all dependent upon previous decisions.
Can the images, that were taken upon receipt and opening the box to discover the faults be attached here?Regarding the use of the bike - it was 2 minutes outside. I think the DONT USE THE BIKE is pointless when he’s claiming it’s faulty. Decathlon have said it’s consistent with a couple of weeks of use - given the bike was delivered 10 days ago, and many of those days it’s been sat with Decathlon, it seems implausible that the OP did 2 weeks of damage in just a few days, or even a few minutes.Decathlon have to prove the bike wasn’t faulty when it left them. There’s no grey area here, they can send off for an independent technical inspection and inform OP that they will sue him for the cost if it’s in their favour, but they have to prove that it wasn’t faulty, and that this is damaged by the OP. The 2 minute ride outside doesn’t invalidate your rights.Regarding the rest, OP says the bikes were delivered together. OP has already commented on the condition of both boxes. Why would you raise with courier - they don’t have a contract with you. OP could’ve refused delivery but bit late now. Even if damaged as a result of the courier it’s the shipper who can claim, not recipient (generally, unless the recipient organised the postage). Decathlon organised collection of one bike themselves (shortly after 7/Aug as that’s when he heard back from decathlon).There’s a few unanswered questions, but before asking questions the least we can do is check to see if our questions have been asked and answered before. The thread is already confusing enough!
Therefore if they understand how to construct the complaint, supporting it with compelling, clear date stamped images of the damage and supplemented with evidence that they protested about the condition of the boxes to the courier, which generates additional evidence that damage occurred before receipt, supported by the complaint being listed on the courier's system that all adds value.
The retailer may well have picture of the bikes when it was packed and dispatched, we do not know. Asking for an independent technical evaluation would tell you the condition know, not when dispatched. You are assuming a usage level based upon what facts, some people ride bikes and easily cover over 150km per day but you are also assuming based upon what you think the OP has said.
I would also offer that being faulty is entirely different from not assembled or set up correctly. But we do not really know what those "faults" are. Hence I asked about competence to diagnose or fix those issues but we still do not know if the OP is competent. His comment about:"1 bike came with a buckle and the medium frame didnt"would lead me to deduce they are not. It is not an accurate description of a fault.
On a recent sportive ride someone had fallen off their bike, they got back on but complained that their back wheel was buckled! They diagnosed based upon the fact that the wheel was rubbing on the brakes. As a trained cycle mechanic I was able to rapidly diagnose the broken chain stay and advised that he needed collecting and his bike was for the skip as to continue to ride the bike with a broken frame was a safety risk.
If trying to work on balance of probabilities, the presence of a credible and coherent, well documented and supported discussion is likely to be compelling. The OP cannot ask the retailer to review this thread for the "facts", the OP needs to construct their own argument. Yet given the apparent status of the current relationship with the retailer the OP needs many things to go in their favour to get this moving forward.The technical evaluation does indeed look at the bike now, that’s the only important part. If Decathlon are stating that it’s wear and tear, and the consumer says it arrived like that (admitting to a 2 minute bike ride), then the technical evaluation is to consider if the warehouse operatives are in the right or if the consumer is in the right. They’d look at the bike usage as a whole. I’m not a technical expert in bikes so can’t say how’d they do that, but neither are the warehouse operatives! They can’t just decline a return if s faulty bike they’ve delivered because of ‘wear and tear’ without proving it.The law assumes that the fault is present at purchase. You may not like that, and think it could be exploited but the reason it’s there is to stop practices like this. Why should the consumer have to go out and get a technical evaluation to show a bike that they’ve had for 2 days is faulty and always has been faulty. It’s fair to assume that if a fault develops that it was probably there when purchasing, and unless the retailer shows it’s not, and that it was caused by the consumer, then they should be entitled to a repair, replacement or refund. The onus moves to the consumer to price the fault was always there after 6 months, which would require a technical assessment but paid for by the consumer this time.Consumers inherently are not experts in many fields and require additional protection. That’s why these laws exist. I can see that you are seeing it from the eyes of a retailer, which is good as a lot of the arguments you are using are arguments that Decathlon will use, so good for the OP to get a coherent answer to them. But the law is clear here - Decathlon has to prove that the bike was damaged by the consumer and not a fault. If they cannot do that, they have no choice but to refund (as it’s less than 30 days).If they want to recoup the cost of the bike they can attempt to, but they can’t make the customer wait for that. There’s a risk to doing business, and the customer shouldn’t take that risk for the business whilst allowing the business to profit off the customer who has taken all the risk.0 -
RefluentBeans said: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…
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?
YesI 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!
I appreciate the help but due to being triggered a lot Im going to wait a few weeks until I get back in touch with decathlon.
I need to calm down,
Thank you for the help.
I thank everyone else for their help too. I'll be back in a week or so but just need to get level headed and get my emotions under control.
TY.
3 -
Grumpy_chap said:Well this does seem to be a complex situation of the Devil's own making. If I read the thread correctly:
- 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.
- Is that correct, because the OP also mentioned at one point that the bike was assembled at Decathlon store?
- The bike was delivered to the OP on 1st August.
- On receipt the OP noticed that the bike appeared to be used and had some faults.
- The OP assembled the bike
- 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)
- The OP rejected the bike as faulty and the bike was collected by Decathlon. This gives Decathlon the opportunity to repair or replace.
- 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.)
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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?
Far as I know its with Decathlon but they are ignoring my emails so could end up being scrapped.
0 -
BikingBud said:Okell said:BikingBud said:cheapskate1983 said:BikingBud said:cheapskate1983 said:powerful_Rogue said:Something does seem amiss here.I found Decathlon support to be very good. I ordered a treadmill which arrived last Wednesday. Built it on the Thursday and noticed they had sent a two pin plug. Emailed them a picture and on Monday a new cable with a 3 pin plugh arrived via Royal Mail.
So that may explain why 1 bike came with a buckle and the medium frame didnt. I guess it was just luck.
I know everyone has their consumer loyalty to their favourite brands.
I just wanted a bike that works. At this point I'll accept 50% of the value of the Bike. I just want to be clear of Decathlon. Whats worse is on every Bike ride I am going to have to stare at that medium frame and remember all this triggering story.
Sorry if I offend you but look at it from my side. I cant just forget negative experiences so easily. It ripples in my memories.
Autism etc.
when were they both delivered? what state were they in? what problems were evident?
If there are 2 bikes then there are 2 timelines and potentially 2 discrete problem sets.
The symptoms you stated appear to be the wheel is not in the drop outs squarely but that should be spotted and rectified easily. All said, if you are able to maintain bikes, you intimate that you are but didn't stay you are competent, then just repair them and move on.
If you cannot communicate your complaint on here effectively and have tendency for outbursts your path to resolution will be very difficult.
There was another Medium frame that had nothing wrong with it. So 2.
when were they both delivered? what state were they in? what problems were evident?
The XL Box had a massive gap at the bottom and the Medium Box had a lot of scuff marks.
I've listed all the issues with the XL frame above.
The medium frame was fine.
If there are 2 bikes then there are 2 timelines and potentially 2 discrete problem sets.
I don't see how? They both arrived on the same day by the same courier?
The symptoms you stated appear to be the wheel is not in the drop outs squarely but that should be spotted and rectified easily. All said, if you are able to maintain bikes, you intimate that you are but didn't stay you are competent, then just repair them and move on.
If you cannot communicate your complaint on here effectively and have tendency for outbursts your path to resolution will be very difficult.
Ok
2 bikes, one med and one XL, seems bizarre buying two significantly different size bikes but I am sure that is another story...
It's irrelevant anyway, but because of his disability I'm afraid the OP might have more difficulty than the rest of us in identifying what is and what isn't relevant.
I think he needs help to work through it
Given the existing confusion, I would not say anything is irrelevant especially considering the late notification of the second bike and even later notification that it is a different size and that both boxes were damaged. Although I did prompt that this is a different event and different timeline but this was reputed.
But it would be much easier if the chronology was laid out:- What was ordered and when? Together or at different times?
- What was delivered and when? Together or at different times?
- Condition of deliveries, packing and items, comment upon the bikes as Med and XL, the frame is but one component of the bike. e
- Initial observations raised with seller and when. Did they respond? - Slack brakes are different from worn brakes. If the brakes were worn and visibly dirty then taking photos eg
- Med bike packing was damaged, see images Med 1> Med8. Upon opening the box no visible damage was observed and the bike was considered safe to ride.
- XL bike the box was damaged, see images Numbered XL1> XL15 and when inspected the following faults were apparent, list each fault and link to images numbered as before eg Rear Brake dirt and wear considered to be evidence of pre use, see Image XL 16. Rear brake incorrect adjustment see image XL17.
- Repeat each observation with appropriate images that clearly show the fault. and sending these to the retailer should be the easy bit and then reject the item and DO NOT USE THE BIKE!
- Observations raised with courier and when. Did they respond?
- Advice from seller in how to address the issue(s). Return one bike or both bikes?
- Agreement to return item(s) - by courier? and when?
- Level of adherence to this advice.
- Once this has been agreed why do anything different?
- Date of collection?
- Subsequent actions are all dependent upon previous decisions.
Can the images, that were taken upon receipt and opening the box to discover the faults be attached here?
0 -
RefluentBeans said:BikingBud said:RefluentBeans said:BikingBud said:Okell said:BikingBud said:cheapskate1983 said:BikingBud said:cheapskate1983 said:powerful_Rogue said:Something does seem amiss here.I found Decathlon support to be very good. I ordered a treadmill which arrived last Wednesday. Built it on the Thursday and noticed they had sent a two pin plug. Emailed them a picture and on Monday a new cable with a 3 pin plugh arrived via Royal Mail.
So that may explain why 1 bike came with a buckle and the medium frame didnt. I guess it was just luck.
I know everyone has their consumer loyalty to their favourite brands.
I just wanted a bike that works. At this point I'll accept 50% of the value of the Bike. I just want to be clear of Decathlon. Whats worse is on every Bike ride I am going to have to stare at that medium frame and remember all this triggering story.
Sorry if I offend you but look at it from my side. I cant just forget negative experiences so easily. It ripples in my memories.
Autism etc.
when were they both delivered? what state were they in? what problems were evident?
If there are 2 bikes then there are 2 timelines and potentially 2 discrete problem sets.
The symptoms you stated appear to be the wheel is not in the drop outs squarely but that should be spotted and rectified easily. All said, if you are able to maintain bikes, you intimate that you are but didn't stay you are competent, then just repair them and move on.
If you cannot communicate your complaint on here effectively and have tendency for outbursts your path to resolution will be very difficult.
There was another Medium frame that had nothing wrong with it. So 2.
when were they both delivered? what state were they in? what problems were evident?
The XL Box had a massive gap at the bottom and the Medium Box had a lot of scuff marks.
I've listed all the issues with the XL frame above.
The medium frame was fine.
If there are 2 bikes then there are 2 timelines and potentially 2 discrete problem sets.
I don't see how? They both arrived on the same day by the same courier?
The symptoms you stated appear to be the wheel is not in the drop outs squarely but that should be spotted and rectified easily. All said, if you are able to maintain bikes, you intimate that you are but didn't stay you are competent, then just repair them and move on.
If you cannot communicate your complaint on here effectively and have tendency for outbursts your path to resolution will be very difficult.
Ok
2 bikes, one med and one XL, seems bizarre buying two significantly different size bikes but I am sure that is another story...
It's irrelevant anyway, but because of his disability I'm afraid the OP might have more difficulty than the rest of us in identifying what is and what isn't relevant.
I think he needs help to work through it
Given the existing confusion, I would not say anything is irrelevant especially considering the late notification of the second bike and even later notification that it is a different size and that both boxes were damaged. Although I did prompt that this is a different event and different timeline but this was reputed.
But it would be much easier if the chronology was laid out:- What was ordered and when? Together or at different times?
- What was delivered and when? Together or at different times?
- Condition of deliveries, packing and items, comment upon the bikes as Med and XL, the frame is but one component of the bike. e
- Initial observations raised with seller and when. Did they respond? - Slack brakes are different from worn brakes. If the brakes were worn and visibly dirty then taking photos eg
- Med bike packing was damaged, see images Med 1> Med8. Upon opening the box no visible damage was observed and the bike was considered safe to ride.
- XL bike the box was damaged, see images Numbered XL1> XL15 and when inspected the following faults were apparent, list each fault and link to images numbered as before eg Rear Brake dirt and wear considered to be evidence of pre use, see Image XL 16. Rear brake incorrect adjustment see image XL17.
- Repeat each observation with appropriate images that clearly show the fault. and sending these to the retailer should be the easy bit and then reject the item and DO NOT USE THE BIKE!
- Observations raised with courier and when. Did they respond?
- Advice from seller in how to address the issue(s). Return one bike or both bikes?
- Agreement to return item(s) - by courier? and when?
- Level of adherence to this advice.
- Once this has been agreed why do anything different?
- Date of collection?
- Subsequent actions are all dependent upon previous decisions.
Can the images, that were taken upon receipt and opening the box to discover the faults be attached here?Regarding the use of the bike - it was 2 minutes outside. I think the DONT USE THE BIKE is pointless when he’s claiming it’s faulty. Decathlon have said it’s consistent with a couple of weeks of use - given the bike was delivered 10 days ago, and many of those days it’s been sat with Decathlon, it seems implausible that the OP did 2 weeks of damage in just a few days, or even a few minutes.Decathlon have to prove the bike wasn’t faulty when it left them. There’s no grey area here, they can send off for an independent technical inspection and inform OP that they will sue him for the cost if it’s in their favour, but they have to prove that it wasn’t faulty, and that this is damaged by the OP. The 2 minute ride outside doesn’t invalidate your rights.Regarding the rest, OP says the bikes were delivered together. OP has already commented on the condition of both boxes. Why would you raise with courier - they don’t have a contract with you. OP could’ve refused delivery but bit late now. Even if damaged as a result of the courier it’s the shipper who can claim, not recipient (generally, unless the recipient organised the postage). Decathlon organised collection of one bike themselves (shortly after 7/Aug as that’s when he heard back from decathlon).There’s a few unanswered questions, but before asking questions the least we can do is check to see if our questions have been asked and answered before. The thread is already confusing enough!
Therefore if they understand how to construct the complaint, supporting it with compelling, clear date stamped images of the damage and supplemented with evidence that they protested about the condition of the boxes to the courier, which generates additional evidence that damage occurred before receipt, supported by the complaint being listed on the courier's system that all adds value.
The retailer may well have picture of the bikes when it was packed and dispatched, we do not know. Asking for an independent technical evaluation would tell you the condition know, not when dispatched. You are assuming a usage level based upon what facts, some people ride bikes and easily cover over 150km per day but you are also assuming based upon what you think the OP has said.
I would also offer that being faulty is entirely different from not assembled or set up correctly. But we do not really know what those "faults" are. Hence I asked about competence to diagnose or fix those issues but we still do not know if the OP is competent. His comment about:"1 bike came with a buckle and the medium frame didnt"would lead me to deduce they are not. It is not an accurate description of a fault.
On a recent sportive ride someone had fallen off their bike, they got back on but complained that their back wheel was buckled! They diagnosed based upon the fact that the wheel was rubbing on the brakes. As a trained cycle mechanic I was able to rapidly diagnose the broken chain stay and advised that he needed collecting and his bike was for the skip as to continue to ride the bike with a broken frame was a safety risk.
If trying to work on balance of probabilities, the presence of a credible and coherent, well documented and supported discussion is likely to be compelling. The OP cannot ask the retailer to review this thread for the "facts", the OP needs to construct their own argument. Yet given the apparent status of the current relationship with the retailer the OP needs many things to go in their favour to get this moving forward.The technical evaluation does indeed look at the bike now, that’s the only important part. If Decathlon are stating that it’s wear and tear, and the consumer says it arrived like that (admitting to a 2 minute bike ride), then the technical evaluation is to consider if the warehouse operatives are in the right or if the consumer is in the right. They’d look at the bike usage as a whole. I’m not a technical expert in bikes so can’t say how’d they do that, but neither are the warehouse operatives! They can’t just decline a return if s faulty bike they’ve delivered because of ‘wear and tear’ without proving it.The law assumes that the fault is present at purchase. You may not like that, and think it could be exploited but the reason it’s there is to stop practices like this. Why should the consumer have to go out and get a technical evaluation to show a bike that they’ve had for 2 days is faulty and always has been faulty. It’s fair to assume that if a fault develops that it was probably there when purchasing, and unless the retailer shows it’s not, and that it was caused by the consumer, then they should be entitled to a repair, replacement or refund. The onus moves to the consumer to price the fault was always there after 6 months, which would require a technical assessment but paid for by the consumer this time.Consumers inherently are not experts in many fields and require additional protection. That’s why these laws exist. I can see that you are seeing it from the eyes of a retailer, which is good as a lot of the arguments you are using are arguments that Decathlon will use, so good for the OP to get a coherent answer to them. But the law is clear here - Decathlon has to prove that the bike was damaged by the consumer and not a fault. If they cannot do that, they have no choice but to refund (as it’s less than 30 days).If they want to recoup the cost of the bike they can attempt to, but they can’t make the customer wait for that. There’s a risk to doing business, and the customer shouldn’t take that risk for the business whilst allowing the business to profit off the customer who has taken all the risk.
But you are still introducing things the OP has not stated and cannot currently be determined as facts. You mention warehouse staff being incompetent to assess the bike but how do you know that the retailer hasn't had the bike inspected by one of their mechanics? As well as the technical evaluation whatever that might be, we do not know and we do not know if it is independent.
If the law assumes, then having a well documented and compelling case makes that bang to rights but if in the balance of probabilities, or the presented evidence, the OP rode the bike even after being advised not to then that will undermine their case. How have you mitigated your losses if you take action that undermines the evidence?
The OP claims the bike wasn't working but what does that mean? Was it safe or unsafe? If unsafe why did he ride it? If they are not an expert then how did they determine it was safe even to ride for "2 mins". Further some of the claimed faults would not occur in transit but we haven't really seen the evidence of any of the faults, evidence such as images taken upon unpacking the bike, showing dirty and worn brakes, nor evidence of the issues even after it has been ridden. However, as the recipient of a damaged package with further faults discovered when you have unpacked it surely you discuss the issues with the retailer, at that point, to ensure the status is clearly established and to mitigate your losses. If the retailer has images of a clean and well packed bike then what? Perhaps the OP's 2 min cycle was more than that? We have the OPs partial perspective in dribs and drabs of disclosure, not facts!
Practices like this can be and frequently are evident from both parties. You should try and read the comments upon the eBay forum.
To ensure a full and accurate understanding, all these aspects need to be captured and addressed as a chronology of the events, discounting emotion and superfluous information.
I understand that customers are not experts, I have been trying to establish the level of competence but still not getting any indication. I am a qualified bike mechanic and that is why I have offered these points for review.
Finally, I am entirely impartial and do not really care either way but my comments were to assist the OP in constructing an effective and compelling argument to support their case. They have indicated they may come back to that and I will now bow out.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 257K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards