Complaint Against Green Commute Initiative Escalated to Trading Standards & Court Claim Filed

CycleClaimant

Hello everyone,

I'm hoping to share my experience with Green Commute Initiative (GCI) and get some advice from the community, but mainly, I want to create a record of this to warn others.

Back in August 2022, I used my employer's scheme with GCI to get an e-bike package worth over £3,000. I chose a model from a GCI-approved supplier, WAU Bikes. Fast forward to this year, the bike was stolen. I went to claim on my home insurance and was shocked when they rejected it for a single reason: the bike wasn't road-legal in the UK. I had written proof from the insurer that this was the sole reason for the rejection.

I contacted GCI, assuming they would want to resolve this, but their response has been a nightmare. The Managing Director has been incredibly dismissive.

In his very first email, before he'd even seen my order documents, he made a baseless threat to report me to HMRC over the tax implications and claimed their system would have rejected the bike if I'd used the full model name. I immediately sent him a copy of the official Hire Agreement that GCI themselves had created, which clearly listed the full, non-compliant "Off-Road Derestricted" model name.

Instead of acknowledging this massive failure in their approval process, he has since refused to engage with the facts. He has demanded irrelevant personal info (my tax status, the locks I used, my bike mileage), and his final position is a series of absurd legal arguments, including that the multi-year scheme was just a "90-day rental" and that because GCI technically still owned the bike, I had suffered "no loss" at all, despite being over £3,000 down from my salary.

I followed the full formal process:

- Sent a Letter Before Action.

- Reported them to Citizens Advice, who have referred the case to Trading Standards.

- Offered third-party mediation, which they refused.

- Sent a final Letter Before Court Claim by recorded delivery, which they received but dismissed.

The 14-day deadline has now passed, and I have now officially filed a Small Claims Court claim against them to recover my losses.

My main goal is to stop this happening to anyone else who puts their trust in a scheme provider to get the details right. Has anyone had a similar experience or have any advice on this stage of the court process?

Thanks for reading.

Isthisforreal99

The problem you have is the bike didn't belong to you but your employer. They should be the ones pursuing this. 

How long was tbe agreement for? You were effectively renting the bike.

CycleClaimant

Isthisforreal99 said:

The problem you have is the bike didn't belong to you but your employer. They should be the ones pursuing this. 

How long was tbe agreement for? You were effectively renting the bike.

Hi, thanks for the reply.

That's a common confusion with these schemes, but it's not quite right. My direct legal Hire Agreement for the equipment is with Green Commute Initiative (GCI), not my employer. GCI is the legal owner and supplier of the goods, which is why my claim for breach of contract is with them.

You are correct that I did not own the bike. However, that does not mean I have no claim. My claim is for my direct financial loss – the over £3,000 taken from my salary. I paid for a compliant, insurable product and did not receive one. The technical ownership of the bike for tax purposes does not erase my very real financial loss.

HHarry

CycleClaimant said:

 I paid for a compliant, insurable product and did not receive one. 

 Playing Devils Advocate - you admit that the hire agreement “clearly listed the full, non-compliant "Off-Road Derestricted" model name.”

So did you order and pay for a compliant, insurable product?

paul_c123

Were you misled?

Mildly_Miffed

CycleClaimant said:

Back in August 2022, I used my employer's scheme with GCI to get an e-bike package worth over £3,000. I chose a model from a GCI-approved supplier, WAU Bikes. Fast forward to this year, the bike was stolen. I went to claim on my home insurance and was shocked when they rejected it for a single reason: the bike wasn't road-legal in the UK. I had written proof from the insurer that this was the sole reason for the rejection.

...the official Hire Agreement that GCI themselves had created ... clearly listed the full, non-compliant "Off-Road Derestricted" model name.

So it is not unreasonable to expect you to have been aware since 2022 that the bike was not road-legal.

I presume your insurer explicitly list in the policy that they only cover type-approved and road-legal e-bicycles. This would be eminently sensible on their part - for fire risk reasons, since many of the e-bike-related fires have been due to dodgy non-approved batteries and chargers, besides anything else.

One issue is whether or not GCI should have been involved in the supply of an illegal bike. WAU were sold in late 2023, and do not appear to be currently trading. Even so, you don't appear to have had an issue with the bike itself, so I'm not sure why you're blaming either of them.

Your issue now appears to be that your choice of insurance policy left your bike uninsured, which you would have reasonably foreseen with basic due diligence.

Okell

I think this needs to moved to the cycling board - it's not a motoring issue

Okell

HHarry said:

CycleClaimant said:

 I paid for a compliant, insurable product and did not receive one. 

 Playing Devils Advocate - you admit that the hire agreement “clearly listed the full, non-compliant "Off-Road Derestricted" model name.”

So did you order and pay for a compliant, insurable product?

Yeah - sounds to me like the OP chose a bike that was not road legal.

CycleClaimant said:

... he ... claimed their system would have rejected the bike if I'd used the full model name. I immediately sent him a copy of the official Hire Agreement that GCI themselves had created, which clearly listed the full, non-compliant "Off-Road Derestricted" model name...

Not clear to me if GCI should have spotted this or the OP chose the wrong bike...

CycleClaimant

HHarry said:

CycleClaimant said:

 I paid for a compliant, insurable product and did not receive one. 

 Playing Devils Advocate - you admit that the hire agreement “clearly listed the full, non-compliant "Off-Road Derestricted" model name.”

So did you order and pay for a compliant, insurable product?

That's a fair question.

​Yes, I ordered the product with that name. However, my position is that I ordered what I believed to be a compliant and insurable product because it had been formally approved by the expert scheme administrator, GCI.

​As a layman, I am not an expert in the nuances of EAPC law. When the official Hire Agreement, produced by the regulated scheme provider, includes that model name, it acts as a formal confirmation that the product is suitable for the scheme. I relied on their professional due diligence.

​My claim is based on their failure in that expert role. Their own MD has since admitted in writing that their checking process should have rejected it.

CycleClaimant

paul_c123 said:

Were you misled?

​Yes, I was misled by the formal approval process of the expert scheme provider.

​When a regulated company produces a legal Hire Agreement that specifically names a product for a commuting scheme, it creates the clear impression that the product is suitable and compliant. Their own website even states that "the final decision as to whether it's suitable for the scheme is down to Green Commute Initiative."

CycleClaimant

Mildly_Miffed said:

So it is not unreasonable to expect you to have been aware since 2022 that the bike was not road-legal.

I presume your insurer explicitly list in the policy that they only cover type-approved and road-legal e-bicycles. This would be eminently sensible on their part - for fire risk reasons, since many of the e-bike-related fires have been due to dodgy non-approved batteries and chargers, besides anything else.

One issue is whether or not GCI should have been involved in the supply of an illegal bike. WAU were sold in late 2023, and do not appear to be currently trading. Even so, you don't appear to have had an issue with the bike itself, so I'm not sure why you're blaming either of them.

Your issue now appears to be that your choice of insurance policy left your bike uninsured, which you would have reasonably foreseen with basic due diligence.

Thanks for your thoughts, but there are a few key factual errors in your comment I need to correct.

​I only discovered the bike was non-compliant after the theft this year when my insurer investigated the claim; I was not aware of the issue in 2022. My home insurance policy is standard and covers legally compliant items, so the issue isn't my choice of policy. The fault lies with the expert scheme provider, GCI, whose formal approval process failed – an error their MD has admitted in writing. My legal Hire Agreement is directly with GCI, making them the liable supplier.

​My claim is based on this professional negligence.