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

QrizB

Mildly_Miffed said:

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

... and the rider fined or prosecuted for operating a motor vehicle without tax, insurance, helmet, registration and so on.
https://www.a1ebikes.com/what-is-the-penalty-for-an-illegal-ebike-in-the-uk/

QrizB

Unless it's a startling coincidence, OP has a Reddit thread where he's receiving much the same feedback:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukbike/comments/1nhsv97/warning_my_experience_with_green_commute/

Over there, they state:

A couple of years ago, I used their scheme to get a WAU X Plus (Off-Road Derestricted) package, which cost over £3k via salary sacrifice. At the time, I understood this meant it had different power modes, and as long as I kept it in the 15.5mph limited mode on the road, it was fine.

So OP has been fully aware that they were riding the non-road-legal version from day 1, but didn't do their own due diligence on what that meant.

QrizB

Apologies for the multiple posts, I keep coming back to this thread for some reason.

Regarding ownership of the bike, see https://www.greencommuteinitiative.uk/employees/ where it states:

Ownership
Cycle to Work is a government scheme and we have to abide by the rules. So technically you hire the bike from us for three months, and then we loan it to you for a period of time (currently 5 years and 9 months) at the end of which you can own it for £1.

So, as the rental began in 2022, the stolen vehicle still belongs to GCI. OP has had GCIs property stolen from his shed.

In the opening post, GC's MD is reported as stating:

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.

... which seems to be correct?

Mildly_Miffed

QrizB said:

So OP has been fully aware that they were riding the non-road-legal version from day 1, but didn't do their own due diligence on what that meant.

That seems to me that they WERE fully aware that the e-bike in their possession was not legal in the UK.

They were aware that it could be ridden within the law - by staying in the legal modes - but was not inherently legal, since it had illegal modes.

Should GCI have supplied it? Almost certainly not. But that seems to be a question for the past.

The insurer covered EAPCs. This is not an EAPC, it is an electric motorcycle.

CycleClaimant

QrizB said:

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?

The manufacturer website presented the bike as having 2 seperate modes - a 15.5mph limited mode for road use, and a mode to derestrict it to about 20mph assistance for off road use. I thought that it was legal to use on the roads if left in the limited mode - why else would they have the mode?

And if you believe it is obvious that it wasn't road legal, then why did the expert, regulated scheme administrator miss it? I think any discussion of it being "obvious" actually strengthens my case, would you not?

CycleClaimant

photome said:

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

No, I absolutely wasn't adding it for effect. It was explicitly listed in the legal agreements GCI produced. Not sure why you have jumped to that conclusion

CycleClaimant

Nobbie1967 said:

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. 

So you think it was fit for the explicit purpose of bicycle commuting? 

QrizB

CycleClaimant said:

Nobbie1967 said:

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. 

So you think it was fit for the explicit purpose of bicycle commuting? 

It's not as though GCI gave you a list of approved bikes to choose from, or specified a chain of retail stores you could purchase from. You chose the bike freely. You are responsible for is suitability.

CycleClaimant said:

QrizB said:

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?

The manufacturer website presented the bike as having 2 seperate modes - a 15.5mph limited mode for road use, and a mode to derestrict it to about 20mph assistance for off road use. I thought that it was legal to use on the roads if left in the limited mode - why else would they have the mode?

You could easily have found out that the derestricted bike was not suitable for road use. You could have asked the manufacturer / supplier that exact question. You could hae sought advice from others. You didn't (or, if you did you have yet to mention this).

CycleClaimant said:

And if you believe it is obvious that it wasn't road legal, then why did the expert, regulated scheme administrator miss it?

From what I've read, GCI do not profess to gatekeep their scheme in the way you describe. They informed you that you had to choose a road-legal bicycle, and you didn't; you didn't even take reasonable steps to confirm that your chosen vehicle was road legal, and ignored the warnings on the supplier's site that stated it was for off-road use on private land only. That's your error not theirs.

CycleClaimant

QrizB said:

From what I've read, GCI do not profess to gatekeep their scheme in the way you describe.

On GCI's employees page they explicitly state that the final decision is theirs, and therefore that they do police transactions - "Whilst you can tailor your package, the final decision as to whether it’s suitable for the scheme is down to Green Commute Initiative."

And to add another layer to that, the MD admitted as much in writing via email. Claiming that if I had included the full name of the bike in the application, it would have been rejected. I followed this by sending him the contracts that do indeed show the full name of the bike, which he then ignored.

CycleClaimant

Mildly_Miffed said:

QrizB said:

So OP has been fully aware that they were riding the non-road-legal version from day 1, but didn't do their own due diligence on what that meant.

That seems to me that they WERE fully aware that the e-bike in their possession was not legal in the UK.

They were aware that it could be ridden within the law - by staying in the legal modes - but was not inherently legal, since it had illegal modes.

Should GCI have supplied it? Almost certainly not. But that seems to be a question for the past.

The insurer covered EAPCs. This is not an EAPC, it is an electric motorcycle.

No, it cannot be ridden within the law, you are making the same mistake I did, which backs up my point of it not being so clear. Depsite having the 15.5mph limited mode, simply by having a mode allowing it to go faster means it has to be registered and taxed etc to be able to be ridden on the road - even if kept in the 15.5mph mode. I did not understand this until the insurers refused my claim.

And I'm not sure how you've come to "that seems to be a question for the past"? My claim is not that it broke down after a few years or something like that. My claim is that it was NEVER fit for purpose from the moment I received it, because it was not legal for its stated purpose of commuting. This is a latent defect that existed on day 1. The only time limit is the 6 years you have from the date of receiving the faulty goods to start a small claims court claim - which I am well within.