Legal rights during recall (electric bike)

Grumpy_chap

ArbitraryRandom said:

Re if it's B2C or B2B - I think technically the OP bought their bike from their employer (or the employer's chosen scheme) when the payments were finished (the residual market value was assessed and a taxable payment made to transfer ownership)... so that the OP is a consumer for the purposes of the CRA and CCR, it's just a question of who it was they actually purchased the bike from. 

Has the OP purchased the bike through a cycle-to-work scheme?
That was not obvious to me.  The OP said it was a "try before you buy" promotion.  Is that the same as cycle-to-work?

FlyingSquirrel2 said:

We bought our bike nearly new via a “hire before you buy” cycling organisation 

ArbitraryRandom said:

Grumpy_chap said:

AIUI, during that process with a car, the owners have no extra consumer rights to reject / refund etc.

I could be mistaken, but I believe with a PCP arrangement, the scheme administrators are held jointly liable with the sellers for any breach of rights/contractual issues.

If the CRA is applicable - assuming the OP is a consumer with a yet to be identified trader - my logic would be, the OP has been advised not to use their bike/the recall names their make/model; that fulfils the CRA requirement to prove an inherent fault (given the burden of proof is balance of probability) - meaning you'd skip directly to either repair/replace or refund. 

As repair would require waiting for the manufacturer to confirm a fix (and the CRA requires the repair to be carried out in a timely manner which does not inconvenience the customer), replace would be with a comparable model or, if uneconomical/impossible, the final remedy is part refund. 

Not an ideal situation, but if the OP can't manage for an extended period without the bike, then at least a way to address the issue in the short term. 

Before we can consider consumer rights, we need to understand who told the OP not to use the bike.  I don't think it has been confirmed.

FlyingSquirrel2 said:

potentially have to recall ALL ages of almost all models

I wondered if anyone knows the legal position if there is a recall? We’ve been advised to stop using the bike until further notice which is a huge pain, and have no idea how long it will take to resolve. 

Is the OP's bike definitely the subject of a recall?
     "potentially"  "almost all"   So, maybe not.  And maybe not the OP's bike.
Who advised the OP to stop using the bike?
If there is a recall, what remedy (and timescale) are the manufacturer indicating?

The remedy and timescale may be appropriate. 
The manufacturer may provide a temporary solution in the meantime.

It seems to me as though the OP may be acting with excess caution having heard the news articles from Holland and taken their own decision to not use the bike in advance of any confirmation or guidance from the manufacturer.
I am not sure that such pre-emptive action is covered under consumer rights.  It may be a prudent action none-the-less.

Assuming the purchase was not from a SS cycle-to-work scheme and the purchase was direct by the OP from the "hire before you buy" company, then I would suggest the OP is in the position of a consumer and consumer rights apply.
Once the OP receives the confirmation that the bike is in the recall group, then that seems to be an inherent design / manufacturing fault so the remedy would be repair.  If repair is uneconomic, the remedy would be refund (less deduction for beneficial use).  I can see that assessing the value of beneficial use will be challenging since the OP indicates 80% of new price.



EDIT - I now see the OP said they bought the bike through cycle-to-work  scheme which had a "hire to try" first.  
This likely changes much of my earlier comments in this post about the OP being a consumer.
Bike was purchase in 2020, so that will diminish the value of any refund quite substantially - what is the average life expectancy of a bike like this? 

born_again

Certainly no S75 here.
Cycle to work also muddies the whole situation. Think this has been debated here before, with no real outcome on where any liability is. 

Can't see any compensation in reality, anything would be a good will. As retailer is doing what they need to do.