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

CycleClaimant

Okell said:

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

​To clarify my position, my claim is based on the professional negligence of the expert scheme provider, Green Commute Initiative.

​As a layman, I relied in good faith on their formal approval process to ensure the product was compliant for the scheme. My legal Hire Agreement is directly with GCI, making them the legal supplier.

​Crucially, their own Managing Director has admitted to me in writing that their internal checking process is designed to reject non-compliant models, but that it failed in my case. Their own website also publicly states that the "final decision as to whether it's suitable for the scheme is down to Green Commute Initiative."

paul_c123

Are you their customer? I suspect not.

If so, you have a grievance against your employer; and your employer possibly has a claim against GCI.

CycleClaimant

paul_c123 said:

Are you their customer? I suspect not.

If so, you have a grievance against your employer; and your employer possibly has a claim against GCI.

Yes I am their direct customer. All my employer did was facilitate the salary sacrifice payments. The hire agreement is with GCI making them the legal supplier

paul_c123

Your complaint might be with trading standards then. They are the ones who 'police' the illegal supply of e-bikes and e-scooters etc. Except, you will find its not in itself illegal to supply them - just to use them. I don't know if they need to provide a clear warning or not - worth some Googling?

QrizB

CycleClaimant said:

​As a layman, I am not an expert in the nuances of EAPC law. 

However, as the operator of a vehicle on the public highway, you are personally responsible for complying with road traffic law. This is equally true if you are a bicyclist, the operator of an EAPC, or are riding an unregistered, uninsured and non-approved electric motorcycle.

What exactly did you think was meant by the description "Off-Road Derestricted" that applied to your motorcycle? And what led you to your belief that it was suitable to ride on the highway?

paul_c123

An analogy might be, buying a 5 ton Iveco Daily van, driving it home, then phoning your insurance to find out it needs a C1 licence to drive it (and an operator's licence, etc if business use). At the end of the day, the driver is 100% the one who needs to comply with the law. If its illegal for road use, presumably you've been using it on the roads unaware of this?

Best of luck in the claim but I'm not sure how successful it will be. It sounds like your employer has washed their hands of it too, or made sure they're not stitched up by anything.

photome

QrizB said:

CycleClaimant said:

​As a layman, I am not an expert in the nuances of EAPC law. 

However, as the operator of a vehicle on the public highway, you are personally responsible for complying with road traffic law. This is equally true if you are a bicyclist, the operator of an EAPC, or are riding an unregistered, uninsured and non-approved electric motorcycle.

What exactly did you think was meant by the description "Off-Road Derestricted" that applied to your motorcycle? And what led you to your belief that it was suitable to ride on the highway?

I don’t think the order form mentioned it was off road and deristricted, I think the OP was adding that for effect when in reality it just listed the bike model

Nobbie1967

I don’t think you have a case. You paid £3k to hire a bike and received a bike which you used quite happily until it was stolen. I can’t see a judge awarding you £3k because with hindsight it wasn’t what you thought it was, despite performing the function required. 

HHarry

CycleClaimant said:

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.

I understand your point, but I think all parties, including yourself, bear some responsibility for the mess.  Having seen that description of the bike you could have done a google search - currently the very first search result is a review which states

“ (It’s also possible to get Derestricted version of the WAU X Plus, which will let you travel at speeds of up to 20mph/32kmph on battery assisted power, and is available with a throttle for improved acceleration, but this rig can only be ridden on private roads and it’s not street legal in the UK, so is not the focus of this review.)”

You were relying on their professional due dilligence, but could have done some of your own.  That said, I hope you get some sort of resolution.

Mildly_Miffed

CycleClaimant said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

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

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

I explicitly said "not unreasonable to expect".

You are now relying on the same paperwork you have had in your possession since 2022 to show that the bike was illegal all along, despite being fully conformant to the specification you ordered.

What outcome do you want from this? GCI to let you off the debt you owe them for the depreciated value of a 3yo illegal bike? Because that's the amount the insurer are refusing to pay.

Bear in mind that, at any time you have been riding the bike, it could have been confiscated and crushed by the police.