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

QrizB

I'm pretty much done with this thread, but getting back to the original points:

• OP did not own the bike; they had hired it for three months and were enjoying a free loan for another 5+ years.
• Depending on the terms of that loan, OP might owe GSI for the residual value of the bike. That is potentially £1.
• Also, OP is likely to owe HMRC for the tax and NI that would have been due on the £3k, since it appears the "bike" was not eligible for the C2W scheme.

OP it seems you're still in denial about most of this, and are looking for others to blame. It's time to let it go.

CycleClaimant

QrizB said:

I'm pretty much done with this thread, but getting back to the original points:

• OP did not own the bike; they had hired it for three months and were enjoying a free loan for another 5+ years.
• Depending on the terms of that loan, OP might owe GSI for the residual value of the bike. That is potentially £1.
• Also, OP is likely to owe HMRC for the tax and NI that would have been due on the £3k, since it appears the "bike" was not eligible for the C2W scheme.

OP it seems you're still in denial about most of this, and are looking for others to blame. It's time to let it go.

​​I am not in denial about anything. I am pursuing a legitimate legal claim based on the documented facts of the case, which you have consistently ignored. To correct your final points for the record:

1. ​My claim is for my direct FINANCIAL LOSS – the over £3,000 taken from my salary. The court's goal would be to put me back in the position I would have been in if the contract had been performed correctly. If it had been, I would have a compliant and insurable bike package that I would've eventually owned. I paid for that contractual benefit and did not receive it. The technical ownership of the bike for tax purposes does not erase the very real financial loss I have suffered.
2. ​The legal and tax liability for administering a non-compliant scheme rests with the EXPERT PROVIDER aka GCI, and the employer, not the employee who was misled by a formal approval process.
3. ​This isn't about looking for "others to blame." It's about holding a company accountable for its ADMITTED PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE. Their own Managing Director has confirmed in writing that their checking process failed. Their own website confirms they make the "FINAL DECISION on suitability."

​I will not be "letting go" of a valid claim for a significant financial loss caused by a company's documented failures. The matter is now with the court.

Isthisforreal99

Your losses are not £3000 though are they? Had you not salary sacrificed you would have paid tax/NIC on the sacrificed amount.

Plus your employer is on the hook for employers NIC.

Plus everything else that has been said that you, and it seems you alone, think is incorrect. Nobody on this or the Reddit thread agrees with you.

Good luck in court - you will need it.

outtatune

I think we need to know more about the basis for the insurance, how the OP described the 'thing' being insured to the insurer, and what the policy terms were. 

OP, what happened when you challenged the insurer's decision? Have you gone to the FOS?

outtatune

Okell said:

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

Well, it is a moped!

CycleClaimant

outtatune said:

I think we need to know more about the basis for the insurance, how the OP described the 'thing' being insured to the insurer, and what the policy terms were. 

OP, what happened when you challenged the insurer's decision? Have you gone to the FOS?

Yes challenged insurance long before starting anything with GCI. Went to the FCA for advice before potentially going to the Ombudsman. The FCA advised that a case against the insurers would come down to the DVSA's official opinion on the legality of the bike. If the DVSA said it's road legal, the insurers would have no leg to stand on, if they say it's not road legal, then the opposite.

So I contacted the approvals team at the DVSA who replied with a link to a government webpage called "EAPC Standards and Legal Requirements"- on this page there is a section specifically talking about the nuance of an "off road mode" and their opinion on it. 

That states "Some electric cycles offer a temporary increase in top speed that is often advertised as ‘off road’ mode. When ‘off road’ mode is activated, the vehicle can be propelled by the motor at a speed greater than 15.5 mph.

Vehicles that have this feature do not, in our opinion, comply with the EAPC regulations and are considered motor vehicles."

So on the back of this the FCA reaffirmed that although the wording DVSA use is "in our opinion", the chances of me having any success in a case against the insurers were slim to none. They did then advise that I could have a case against those that supplied the bike as it wasn't fit for purpose - aka GCI. 

CycleClaimant

Isthisforreal99 said:

Your losses are not £3000 though are they? Had you not salary sacrificed you would have paid tax/NIC on the sacrificed amount.

Plus your employer is on the hook for employers NIC.

Plus everything else that has been said that you, and it seems you alone, think is incorrect. Nobody on this or the Reddit thread agrees with you.

Good luck in court - you will need it.

I don't expect you to have scrolled through every single reply on Reddit, but not everyone disagreed with me. 

I have a hard time believing the advice of you and those like you who are struggling to grasp the basic facts of the case: like how fit for purpose works, how the cycle to work scheme works and each parties role in it, and what my losses are. 

So let's talk about that £3k+ you assert I haven't lost:

1. My Claim is for Breach of Contract

The purpose of damages in a breach of contract case is to put me back in the position I would have been in if the contract had been performed correctly.

- Had the contract been performed correctly, I would be in possession of a compliant, insurable bicycle package with a value of over £3k.

- The tax saving is a separate, secondary benefit of the government scheme. It is not part of my contract with the defendant (GCI).

- By awarding me only the net-of-tax amount, the court would not restoring me to the position I should have been in. I would still have lost the value of the tax benefit I was legally entitled to.

2. The Tax Benefit Belongs to Me, Not the Defendant

The tax relief is an incentive provided by HMRC to employees to encourage cycling. It is not a discount for the supplier.

- By reducing my compensation, the court would effectively be allowing the defendant - the party that breached the contract - to keep my tax benefit.

- This would be a case of "unjust enrichment," where the party at fault profits from their own mistake.

3. The Loss is the Value of the Goods

My financial loss is the value of the goods I paid for but did not truly receive in a compliant form. The contract, and the salary sacrifice I paid, was for a £3k+ package. That is the figure that should be made whole. My personal tax arrangements are a separate matter between me, my employer, and HMRC.

In summary: My claim is for the full value of the faulty goods, and the defendant who breached the contract should not be allowed to profit from my personal tax arrangements.

Okell

outtatune said:

Okell said:

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

Well, it is a moped!

            

QrizB

CycleClaimant said:

3. The Loss is the Value of the Goods
My financial loss is the value of the goods I paid for but did not truly receive in a compliant form.

You have not paid for any goods.

The vehicle is the property of GCI.

One upside off this is that you're not longer operating an unregistered, unapproved moped on public roads, and are not risking a £2500 fine (& points on your driving licence plus having to declare the offence to your motor vehicle insurers, if you have any) on top of having the bike crushed by the police.

CycleClaimant

QrizB said:

You have not paid for any goods.

The vehicle is the property of GCI.

One upside off this is that you're not longer operating an unregistered, unapproved moped on public roads, and are not risking a £2500 fine (& points on your driving licence plus having to declare the offence to your motor vehicle insurers, if you have any) on top of having the bike crushed by the police.

It's clear you're either unwilling or unable to grasp the basic facts of this case. My salary was reduced by over £3,000 as direct consideration for the supply of a specific package of goods under a Hire Agreement with GCI. Had they supplied a compliant bike, I would now either have an insurance payout for that value, or in a few years, I would have paid the final £1 to own the bike outright. The fact that the bike was non-compliant has directly deprived me of that contractual benefit.

Your scaremongering about "strict liability" ignores how the UK justice system actually works. A decision to prosecute requires a case to pass the Public Interest Test, as set by the Crown Prosecution Service. A key part of that test is assessing the culpability of the suspect. It is not in the public interest to prosecute a consumer who was misled by an expert provider's formal approval process. The regulatory liability rests with the company whose professional negligence created the situation.

The actual legal question here has nothing to do with the irrelevant points you keep raising. The entire case rests on whether the "solely responsible" clause in their contract holds any weight when set against their contradictory public statements and their written admission of a failed checking process. Established case law, such as Baldry v Marshall and Ashington Piggeries, strongly suggests it does not. If you have a specific, evidence-based opinion on that key legal point, I'd be interested to hear it.