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

RefluentBeans

You said earlier it didn't matter if they raised the issues with the courier but now you are suggesting differently.

You appear to have misunderstood - there are actions Decathlon can take to get the money back from the delivery courier. This is not of concern to the consumer. Waiting for a delivery company to investigate if it was at fault and a refund does not make one iota of a difference to the consumer. The contract for the bike is with Decathlon and the OP. If the bike has been damaged in transit Decathlon should refund OP and then pursue those fees from the courier company. They can't make OP wait for the money until the courier company admits fault and pays up. 

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. 

They may well have done - but then they should cough up the report that says, definitively, they know 100%, that the bikes fault is from the wear and tear from the consumer. If that's the case then the only remedy is via the court, but I sincerely doubt that they've actually inspected the bike in enough detail. 

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?

When was the OP advised NOT to ride the bike? The wheel looked misaligned and had cosmetic damage. The OP rode the bike and confirmed that the wheel was unrideable due to it being misaligned. I'm not entirely sure what your point of this is. If you get a TV from Samsung and the bezel is damaged, and you plug it in and realise the pixels are dead, Samsung can't say 'well you've switched it on so it must be your fault'. 

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! 

Where did he say he rode it further? He rode it for 2 mins outside. Again you're assuming that the retailer took photos (which hasn't been said anywhere), and that the OP is in the wrong for riding the bike for 2 minutes to see if the issues were aesthetic or functional. This is not something you can easily do without riding a bike. You seem to be attempting to suggest that by riding the bike outside the OP has 'accepted' the faults. The OP is not a bike mechanic - he cannot simply look at the bike and know that the wheel won't spin correctly, the brakes won't brake properly. The 2-minute ride confirms that these are faulty, and doesn't prevent the consumer from exercising their rights. 

The OP has said multiple times that he struggles with communication and that this is all a bit overwhelming for him. For that reason, this is the last comment I'll be making until the OP comes back, 

Grumpy_chap

cheapskate1983 said:

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.

cheapskate1983 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

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.

I appreciate the pressure you are feeling by the situation.

If you can, it might be worth writing to advise Decathlon you do not consider the matter closed and will communicate further (when you are feeling more able to do so) and in the mean time you expect the returned bike to be retained in a good condition

cheapskate1983

RefluentBeans said:

You said earlier it didn't matter if they raised the issues with the courier but now you are suggesting differently.

You appear to have misunderstood - there are actions Decathlon can take to get the money back from the delivery courier. This is not of concern to the consumer. Waiting for a delivery company to investigate if it was at fault and a refund does not make one iota of a difference to the consumer. The contract for the bike is with Decathlon and the OP. If the bike has been damaged in transit Decathlon should refund OP and then pursue those fees from the courier company. They can't make OP wait for the money until the courier company admits fault and pays up. 

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. 

They may well have done - but then they should cough up the report that says, definitively, they know 100%, that the bikes fault is from the wear and tear from the consumer. If that's the case then the only remedy is via the court, but I sincerely doubt that they've actually inspected the bike in enough detail. 

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?

When was the OP advised NOT to ride the bike? The wheel looked misaligned and had cosmetic damage. The OP rode the bike and confirmed that the wheel was unrideable due to it being misaligned. I'm not entirely sure what your point of this is. If you get a TV from Samsung and the bezel is damaged, and you plug it in and realise the pixels are dead, Samsung can't say 'well you've switched it on so it must be your fault'. 

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! 

Where did he say he rode it further? He rode it for 2 mins outside. Again you're assuming that the retailer took photos (which hasn't been said anywhere), and that the OP is in the wrong for riding the bike for 2 minutes to see if the issues were aesthetic or functional. This is not something you can easily do without riding a bike. You seem to be attempting to suggest that by riding the bike outside the OP has 'accepted' the faults. The OP is not a bike mechanic - he cannot simply look at the bike and know that the wheel won't spin correctly, the brakes won't brake properly. The 2-minute ride confirms that these are faulty, and doesn't prevent the consumer from exercising their rights. 

The OP has said multiple times that he struggles with communication and that this is all a bit overwhelming for him. For that reason, this is the last comment I'll be making until the OP comes back, 

Ok first. The bike in question had its back brake set to about 7mm of play each side allowing a 6mm buckle each side to turn. Well turn some what. Buckles can be interpreted different ways.

I had no communication with Decathlon between opening the box and testing the bike after the handle bars and pedals where put on.

Wheel buckles can be sorted for like £12 at Halfords. The buckle stressed me out but it didn't mean I could test the crank and the best way to do that is to put weight on it. E.g. ride the bike. When I put weight on the crank there was a metallic singing sound. That is always a sign of a broken bottom bracket.

So I got into contact with Decathlon via one of their stores. Store name withheld for my own privacy.
I got my time wasted so I tried something else.
I then tried Whats App, waited 2 days no response.
I then used their email service and I finally got through to someone.
I was promised a return and replacement.

In between all of that I got angry and told them via email + lefter that "If you do not offer a replacement just chuck the bike in the rubbish skip. I will not accept delivery of the 1st bike you sent me!".

I also told them in the same email that I am not waving my consumer rights.

I got an email back of them apologising and saying that its logged on the account that I was offered a return and replacement.

Then after I sent the bike back I got another email saying that they cannot offer a replacement and I would have to pay to receive the faulty bike.

Then recently I got an email saying the following:

"If you wish to have the bike fully built up and safety checked to a 'ready to ride' point then this does have to be ordered into our stores as a click and collect"

I believe they where insisting I pay them £350 again but they have the £350 I paid plus the faulty bike and I have nothing.

So i dont care what any ex customer service adviser here has to say on my entitlement. I have a right to be !!!!!! off because at the moment I have neither money or product!

The nerve of some corporations is insane.
They take your money, send you defective stock, then they play the victim and then when you return their junk they refuse to give repair/refund or replacement. Its like they dont think the law applies to them.

cheapskate1983

I think im just going to go to the Bank and do a charge back at £360 (£10 postage) because they are withholding the collected bike and demanding more money.

If they try and take me to court then all I need to do is bring up the fact that they took the Bike as a return and then stopped all correspondence.

eskbanker

cheapskate1983 said:

I think im just going to go to the Bank and do a charge back at £360 (£10 postage) because they are withholding the collected bike and demanding more money.

Haven't they said that you can have it back, just that you need to pay for its redelivery?  On the other hand, a chargeback for goods not as described ought to work....

cheapskate1983 said:

If they try and take me to court then all I need to do is bring up the fact that they took the Bike as a return and then stopped all correspondence.

But they didn't 'take it as a return', they rejected it?

Weren't you going to try Retail ADR?

Okell

cheapskate1983 said:

RefluentBeans said:

You said earlier it didn't matter if they raised the issues with the courier but now you are suggesting differently.

You appear to have misunderstood - there are actions Decathlon can take to get the money back from the delivery courier. This is not of concern to the consumer. Waiting for a delivery company to investigate if it was at fault and a refund does not make one iota of a difference to the consumer. The contract for the bike is with Decathlon and the OP. If the bike has been damaged in transit Decathlon should refund OP and then pursue those fees from the courier company. They can't make OP wait for the money until the courier company admits fault and pays up. 

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. 

They may well have done - but then they should cough up the report that says, definitively, they know 100%, that the bikes fault is from the wear and tear from the consumer. If that's the case then the only remedy is via the court, but I sincerely doubt that they've actually inspected the bike in enough detail. 

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?

When was the OP advised NOT to ride the bike? The wheel looked misaligned and had cosmetic damage. The OP rode the bike and confirmed that the wheel was unrideable due to it being misaligned. I'm not entirely sure what your point of this is. If you get a TV from Samsung and the bezel is damaged, and you plug it in and realise the pixels are dead, Samsung can't say 'well you've switched it on so it must be your fault'. 

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! 

Where did he say he rode it further? He rode it for 2 mins outside. Again you're assuming that the retailer took photos (which hasn't been said anywhere), and that the OP is in the wrong for riding the bike for 2 minutes to see if the issues were aesthetic or functional. This is not something you can easily do without riding a bike. You seem to be attempting to suggest that by riding the bike outside the OP has 'accepted' the faults. The OP is not a bike mechanic - he cannot simply look at the bike and know that the wheel won't spin correctly, the brakes won't brake properly. The 2-minute ride confirms that these are faulty, and doesn't prevent the consumer from exercising their rights. 

The OP has said multiple times that he struggles with communication and that this is all a bit overwhelming for him. For that reason, this is the last comment I'll be making until the OP comes back, 

... I got an email back of them apologising and saying that its logged on the account that I was offered a return and replacement.

Then after I sent the bike back I got another email saying that they cannot offer a replacement and I would have to pay to receive the faulty bike...

Sorry but I think you are introducing new information and it's still really confusing(?)

Why did Decathlon send you an email apologising?  Why were they apologising to you?  Sellers usually only apologise in this sort of situation if they've done something wrong.  What had they done wrong?

And in that same email they put in writing that they were offering you a return and a replacement?  Did you accept this offer?

I presume you did because you then(?) sent it back to them, but after they received it they reneged on their offer to replace it?  Did they not explain why they changed their mind about giving you the replacement they'd previously offered?

This is why I've asked you before exactly what it was that you told Decathlon when you originally complianed about the bike, what did Decathlon then tell you, and how did they explain their subsequent change of mind.

Telling us what you think has happened or why you think it happened isn't helpful.  We need to know what was actually said by both you and Decathlon

cheapskate1983

Okell said:

cheapskate1983 said:

RefluentBeans said:

You said earlier it didn't matter if they raised the issues with the courier but now you are suggesting differently.

You appear to have misunderstood - there are actions Decathlon can take to get the money back from the delivery courier. This is not of concern to the consumer. Waiting for a delivery company to investigate if it was at fault and a refund does not make one iota of a difference to the consumer. The contract for the bike is with Decathlon and the OP. If the bike has been damaged in transit Decathlon should refund OP and then pursue those fees from the courier company. They can't make OP wait for the money until the courier company admits fault and pays up. 

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. 

They may well have done - but then they should cough up the report that says, definitively, they know 100%, that the bikes fault is from the wear and tear from the consumer. If that's the case then the only remedy is via the court, but I sincerely doubt that they've actually inspected the bike in enough detail. 

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?

When was the OP advised NOT to ride the bike? The wheel looked misaligned and had cosmetic damage. The OP rode the bike and confirmed that the wheel was unrideable due to it being misaligned. I'm not entirely sure what your point of this is. If you get a TV from Samsung and the bezel is damaged, and you plug it in and realise the pixels are dead, Samsung can't say 'well you've switched it on so it must be your fault'. 

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! 

Where did he say he rode it further? He rode it for 2 mins outside. Again you're assuming that the retailer took photos (which hasn't been said anywhere), and that the OP is in the wrong for riding the bike for 2 minutes to see if the issues were aesthetic or functional. This is not something you can easily do without riding a bike. You seem to be attempting to suggest that by riding the bike outside the OP has 'accepted' the faults. The OP is not a bike mechanic - he cannot simply look at the bike and know that the wheel won't spin correctly, the brakes won't brake properly. The 2-minute ride confirms that these are faulty, and doesn't prevent the consumer from exercising their rights. 

The OP has said multiple times that he struggles with communication and that this is all a bit overwhelming for him. For that reason, this is the last comment I'll be making until the OP comes back, 

... I got an email back of them apologising and saying that its logged on the account that I was offered a return and replacement.

Then after I sent the bike back I got another email saying that they cannot offer a replacement and I would have to pay to receive the faulty bike...

Sorry but I think you are introducing new information and it's still really confusing(?)

Why did Decathlon send you an email apologising?  Why were they apologising to you?  Sellers usually only apologise in this sort of situation if they've done something wrong.  What had they done wrong?

And in that same email they put in writing that they were offering you a return and a replacement?  Did you accept this offer?

I presume you did because you then(?) sent it back to them, but after they received it they reneged on their offer to replace it?  Did they not explain why they changed their mind about giving you the replacement they'd previously offered?

This is why I've asked you before exactly what it was that you told Decathlon when you originally complianed about the bike, what did Decathlon then tell you, and how did they explain their subsequent change of mind.

Telling us what you think has happened or why you think it happened isn't helpful.  We need to know what was actually said by both you and Decathlon

It doesn't matter now. I am just going to play dirty and rug pull their payment. I'll let them file a court summons to me.

cheapskate1983

eskbanker said:

cheapskate1983 said:

I think im just going to go to the Bank and do a charge back at £360 (£10 postage) because they are withholding the collected bike and demanding more money.

Haven't they said that you can have it back, just that you need to pay for its redelivery?  On the other hand, a chargeback for goods not as described ought to work....

cheapskate1983 said:

If they try and take me to court then all I need to do is bring up the fact that they took the Bike as a return and then stopped all correspondence.

But they didn't 'take it as a return', they rejected it?

Weren't you going to try Retail ADR?

Yes I am just going to charge back them from next week.

On one of their 1st emails they said as soon as the bike is within their warehouse they will send a refund.
I have that in writing.

Then when they got the bike in their warehouse they changed their mind. And as you are aware started to ask for more money.

I only got hostile after they started going back on their own words and trying to change my own to suit their narrative. 

So Monday morning I am going to issue a Chargeback.

cheapskate1983

This forum thread may as well be closed now.

Okell

If you are talking about a chargeback, all Decathlon need to do is challenge it and you won't get it back.

It's a pity I have to keep on repeating myself, but you still haven't explained exactly what Decathlon said when they reneged on their offer to replace the bike..............

Why did they say that they would no longer replace it?

If you told us we might be able to help you resolve this.