We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

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

123578

Comments

  • QrizB
    QrizB Posts: 20,448 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 20 September at 3:50PM
    CycleClaimant said:
    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.
    Fact: you did not buy the vehicle. You do not own the vehicle.
    Fact: the vehicle was not legal to operate on the UK highways, and by doing so you risked fines, prosecution and confiction of the vehicle.
    CycleClaimant said:
     A decision to prosecute requires a case to pass the Public Interest Test, as set by the Crown Prosecution Service.
    Like this?
    And this?
    And this?

    Riders of illegal electric bikes could be prosecuted for a wide range of offences, including:

    • Illegal use of an electric bike on the road
    • Riding otherwise than in accordance with a licence
    • Driving with no Insurance
    • Driving with no MOT
    • Riding with no helmet (both rider and pillion)
    • Speeding
    • Not displaying a registration mark
    So yes, you risked prosecution. And now you don't.
    CycleClaimant said:
    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.
    Baldry v Marshall concerns "the implied condition as to the fitness or quality of goods sold to a buyer by a seller". GCI did not sell you anything; they hired a vehicle to you.
    It turns out that the vehicle was not roadworthy. If you had suffered any loss as a result of that lack of roadworthiness, you might have been able to pursue them for that. But, as has been discussed for the entirety of this thread, you haven't yet demonstrated a loss. You have completed the duration of the hire period and, at the time of the theft, the vehicle was on free loan to you.
    GCI might even expect you to compensate them for the theft of their property from your custody.
    N. Hampshire, he/him. Octopus Intelligent Go elec & Tracker gas / Vodafone BB / iD mobile. Ripple Kirk Hill Coop member.
    2.72kWp PV facing SSW installed Jan 2012. 11 x 247w panels, 3.6kw inverter. 34 MWh generated, long-term average 2.6 Os.
    Ofgem cap table, Ofgem cap explainer. Economy 7 cap explainer. Gas vs E7 vs peak elec heating costs, Best kettle!
  • outtatune
    outtatune Posts: 848 Forumite
    Fourth Anniversary 500 Posts Name Dropper
    QrizB said:
    CycleClaimant said:
    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.
    Fact: you did not buy the vehicle. You do not own the vehicle.
    Fact: the vehicle was not legal to operate on the UK highways, and by doing so you risked fines, prosecution and confiction of the vehicle.
    CycleClaimant said:
     A decision to prosecute requires a case to pass the Public Interest Test, as set by the Crown Prosecution Service.
    Like this?
    And this?
    And this?

    Riders of illegal electric bikes could be prosecuted for a wide range of offences, including:

    • Illegal use of an electric bike on the road
    • Riding otherwise than in accordance with a licence
    • Driving with no Insurance
    • Driving with no MOT
    • Riding with no helmet (both rider and pillion)
    • Speeding
    • Not displaying a registration mark
    So yes, you risked prosecution. And now you don't.
    CycleClaimant said:
    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.
    Baldry v Marshall concerns "the implied condition as to the fitness or quality of goods sold to a buyer by a seller". GCI did not sell you anything; they hired a vehicle to you.
    It turns out that the vehicle was not roadworthy. If you had suffered any loss as a result of that lack of roadworthiness, you might have been able to pursue them for that. But, as has been discussed for the entirety of this thread, you haven't yet demonstrated a loss. You have completed the duration of the hire period and, at the time of the theft, the vehicle was on free loan to you.
    GCI might even expect you to compensate them for the theft of their property from your custody.
    My bold. As I understand it GCI have already been paid in full by the employer for the 'bike' so although it is still their property their loss is zero.
  • CycleClaimant
    CycleClaimant Posts: 28 Forumite
    10 Posts
    QrizB said:

    Fact: you did not buy the vehicle. You do not own the vehicle.
    Fact: the vehicle was not legal to operate on the UK highways, and by doing so you risked fines, prosecution and confiction of the vehicle.
    CycleClaimant said:
     A decision to prosecute requires a case to pass the Public Interest Test, as set by the Crown Prosecution Service.
    Like this?

    • Riders of illegal electric bikes could be prosecuted for a wide range of offences, including:
    • Illegal use of an electric bike on the road
    • Riding otherwise than in accordance with a licence
    • Driving with no Insurance
    • Driving with no MOT
    • Riding with no helmet (both rider and pillion)
    • Speeding
    • Not displaying a registration mark
    So yes, you risked prosecution. And now you don't.

    Baldry v Marshall concerns "the implied condition as to the fitness or quality of goods sold to a buyer by a seller". GCI did not sell you anything; they hired a vehicle to you.
    It turns out that the vehicle was not roadworthy. If you had suffered any loss as a result of that lack of roadworthiness, you might have been able to pursue them for that. But, as has been discussed for the entirety of this thread, you haven't yet demonstrated a loss. You have completed the duration of the hire period and, at the time of the theft, the vehicle was on free loan to you.
    GCI might even expect you to compensate them for the theft of their property from your custody.
    It seems you're now just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, so let me correct your latest batch of flawed points.

    In response to your "Facts":

    My claim is not for the loss of an asset I owned; it is for the FINANCIAL LOSS I suffered – the money taken from my salary. This was paid as consideration for a compliant, insurable product, which I did not receive. The technical ownership is a distraction.

    Furthermore, my "risk of prosecution" was created entirely by the professional negligence of the expert provider who approved the non-compliant vehicle. The liability for that situation rests with them.

    In response to your news links:

    The articles you have linked are completely irrelevant. They are all examples of police taking action against people who are DELIBERATELY AND KNOWINGLY riding illegal or dangerous machines, often in an anti-social manner.

    They are NOT examples of police prosecuting a consumer who was misled into acquiring a non-compliant vehicle in good faith through a formal, regulated, government-backed scheme, after it was approved by an expert administrator. A prosecutor would never deem such a case to be in the public interest, a key test for any prosecution in the UK.

    In response to your legal argument:

    - Your understanding of consumer law is incorrect.
    The principles of Baldry v Marshall and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 absolutely apply to hire agreements. The Act makes it clear that goods supplied under a hire contract must be "fit for purpose."

    - MY LOSS HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED REPEATEDLY: OVER £3,000 WAS TAKEN FROM MY SALARY. In return, I received a faulty product whose defect (its illegality) directly led to a total financial loss when my insurance was invalidated. The fact that the bike was on "free loan" at the time of theft is irrelevant; the breach of contract occurred at the point of supply.

    - Finally, the suggestion that I should compensate GCI for the loss of their asset, which was only uninsurable because of their own admitted negligence, is without a doubt the most legally absurd argument I've heard in this entire process.

    If this is the level of legal "advice" you've given anywhere else, I really hope people haven't listened to you. The matter is now with the court, where it will be decided based on the documented evidence, not on these flawed and circular arguments.
  • QrizB
    QrizB Posts: 20,448 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    edited 20 September at 5:30PM
    CycleClaimant said:
    In response to your "Facts":
    My claim is not for the loss of an asset I owned; it is for the FINANCIAL LOSS I suffered – the money taken from my salary. This was paid as consideration for a compliant, insurable product, which I did not receive. The technical ownership is a distraction.
    You've suffered no loss. The money that you sacrificed from you salary was paid to GCI for a three-month hire of a vehicle, and they provided a vehicle for those three months.
    You personally chose the vehicle, in the knowledge that it was not road-legal. They supplied the vehicle you chose.
    CycleClaimant said:
    Furthermore, my "risk of prosecution" was created entirely by the professional negligence of the expert provider who approved the non-compliant vehicle. The liability for that situation rests with them.
    Road traffic law is quite clear that it is the operator - the driver or rider of a mechanically-propelled vehicle - who is liable for complying with their legal obligations. Not the supplier.
    See Rule 89 of the Highway Code:

    Rule 89

    Vehicle condition. You MUST ensure your vehicle and trailer comply with the full requirements of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations and Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations (see ‘The road user and the law’).

    I do hope you learn from this and recognise your responsibilities as a road user.

    Edit to add:
    And let's not overlook that, under the terms of the salary sacrifice scheme, it's your employer who is providing you with the vehicle, not GCI. GCI are providing it to your employer, not to you.
    If you want to complain to anyone about being provided with an illegal moped rather than a bicycle, it's to your employer. Your employer can then take it up with GCI.
    CycleClaimant said:
    The matter is now with the court, where it will be decided based on the documented evidence, not on these flawed and circular arguments.
    You are suing your employer?
    N. Hampshire, he/him. Octopus Intelligent Go elec & Tracker gas / Vodafone BB / iD mobile. Ripple Kirk Hill Coop member.
    2.72kWp PV facing SSW installed Jan 2012. 11 x 247w panels, 3.6kw inverter. 34 MWh generated, long-term average 2.6 Os.
    Ofgem cap table, Ofgem cap explainer. Economy 7 cap explainer. Gas vs E7 vs peak elec heating costs, Best kettle!
  • CycleClaimant
    CycleClaimant Posts: 28 Forumite
    10 Posts
    I can't tell if you're just intentionally trolling or are one of those people who's contrarian for the sake of being contrarian on online forums.

    QrizB said:
    You've suffered no loss. The money that you sacrificed from you salary was paid to GCI for a three-month hire of a vehicle, and they provided a vehicle for those three months.
    You personally chose the vehicle, in the knowledge that it was not road-legal. They supplied the vehicle you chose.

    Your bizarre assertion that I have "suffered no loss" is the most absurd of all. I must have imagined the over £3,000 that was deducted from my salary... Why are you so stuck on this point despite having it explained to you repeatedly?

    Your assertion that I chose the vehicle "in the knowledge that it was not road-legal" is a complete fabrication and a baseless accusation. I relied in good faith on the expert provider's formal approval process.

    And the idea that they simply supplied what I chose, and therefore did nothing wrong, does not hold up to the case law I mentioned earlier. Especially Ashington Piggeries v Christopher Hill.

    QrizB said:

    Road traffic law is quite clear that it is the operator - the driver or rider of a mechanically-propelled vehicle - who is liable for complying with their legal obligations. Not the supplier.
    See Rule 89 of the Highway Code:

    I do hope you learn from this and recognise your responsibilities as a road user.

    You are confusing basic road traffic rules with consumer law. My claim is about the professional negligence of the expert supplier.

    QrizB said:

    And let's not overlook that, under the terms of the salary sacrifice scheme, it's your employer who is providing you with the vehicle, not GCI. GCI are providing it to your employer, not to you.
    If you want to complain to anyone about being provided with an illegal moped rather than a bicycle, it's to your employer. Your employer can then take it up with GCI.

    You are suing your employer?
    My direct, legally binding Hire Agreement is with GCI, not my employer. This makes GCI the legal supplier. My claim is correctly against them. Why are you replying to a thread about the cycle to work scheme when you don't even understand the basics of how the scheme works? 

    You have added absolutely nothing of value here. I'll reply if you're willing to engage in the actual argument the case is based around as mentioned in my previous reply. Outside that I will be ignoring any replies where you confidently repeat your incorrect assertions. I will update my original post as and when an outcome is reached in the coming weeks/months. 

  • QrizB
    QrizB Posts: 20,448 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    I look forward to hearing the outcome.
    N. Hampshire, he/him. Octopus Intelligent Go elec & Tracker gas / Vodafone BB / iD mobile. Ripple Kirk Hill Coop member.
    2.72kWp PV facing SSW installed Jan 2012. 11 x 247w panels, 3.6kw inverter. 34 MWh generated, long-term average 2.6 Os.
    Ofgem cap table, Ofgem cap explainer. Economy 7 cap explainer. Gas vs E7 vs peak elec heating costs, Best kettle!
  • Herzlos
    Herzlos Posts: 16,170 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    CycleClaimant said:
    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 salary, pre-tax, was reduced by £3000, but depending on how much tax you pay it may have only cost you as little as £1500. 

    Your insurance payout would also be either to clear the outstanding finance on the bike (the final payment you'd make to buy the 5 year old bike) or the current value of the bike before it was lost. Unless you had a new-for-old policy you'd only be entitled to maybe half of what you paid but the important factor here is that you didn't own the bike so unlikely to see any money anyway. 

    So whilst I fully empathise that it's a crap situtation to be in, and that GCI should have rejected the sale if they'd noticed that the bike you were buying wasn't legal. 
    They'd have *some* liability but it also sounds like you knew at the time it wasn't fully road legal and didn't query it. But I don't think it'd be reasonable for GCI to be giving you the retail value for the bike because (a) you didn't actually pay retail for it and (b) you still got 2 years of rental of it, as per the agreement. I'm not sure what you could reasonably expect from them in terms of a good will gesture - possibly clearing the outstanding finance and/or a discount on a new, compliant e-bike? 

  • Herzlos
    Herzlos Posts: 16,170 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    outtatune said:
    QrizB said:
    CycleClaimant said:
    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.
    Fact: you did not buy the vehicle. You do not own the vehicle.
    Fact: the vehicle was not legal to operate on the UK highways, and by doing so you risked fines, prosecution and confiction of the vehicle.
    CycleClaimant said:
     A decision to prosecute requires a case to pass the Public Interest Test, as set by the Crown Prosecution Service.
    Like this?
    And this?
    And this?

    Riders of illegal electric bikes could be prosecuted for a wide range of offences, including:

    • Illegal use of an electric bike on the road
    • Riding otherwise than in accordance with a licence
    • Driving with no Insurance
    • Driving with no MOT
    • Riding with no helmet (both rider and pillion)
    • Speeding
    • Not displaying a registration mark
    So yes, you risked prosecution. And now you don't.
    CycleClaimant said:
    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.
    Baldry v Marshall concerns "the implied condition as to the fitness or quality of goods sold to a buyer by a seller". GCI did not sell you anything; they hired a vehicle to you.
    It turns out that the vehicle was not roadworthy. If you had suffered any loss as a result of that lack of roadworthiness, you might have been able to pursue them for that. But, as has been discussed for the entirety of this thread, you haven't yet demonstrated a loss. You have completed the duration of the hire period and, at the time of the theft, the vehicle was on free loan to you.
    GCI might even expect you to compensate them for the theft of their property from your custody.
    My bold. As I understand it GCI have already been paid in full by the employer for the 'bike' so although it is still their property their loss is zero.

    There will still be a token payment required to GCI at the end of the term to transfer ownership of the bike to OP. It looks like that'd be 2% of the original value (assuming a 5 year rental), so £60.
  • QrizB
    QrizB Posts: 20,448 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    Herzlos said:
    There will still be a token payment required to GCI at the end of the term to transfer ownership of the bike to OP. It looks like that'd be 2% of the original value (assuming a 5 year rental), so £60.
    Per GCIs website, the final payment is £1.
    See para on "ownership" here:
    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.


    N. Hampshire, he/him. Octopus Intelligent Go elec & Tracker gas / Vodafone BB / iD mobile. Ripple Kirk Hill Coop member.
    2.72kWp PV facing SSW installed Jan 2012. 11 x 247w panels, 3.6kw inverter. 34 MWh generated, long-term average 2.6 Os.
    Ofgem cap table, Ofgem cap explainer. Economy 7 cap explainer. Gas vs E7 vs peak elec heating costs, Best kettle!
  • Okell
    Okell Posts: 3,190 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    On reflection I'm inclined to agree with the OP that the hire contract between GCI and the OP is covered under s6(1) of the CRA, but I'm not necessarily persuaded that the supply of an illegal bike is a breach of the CRA, as the OP selected the bike himself knowing that it had 2 power modes, but was under the mistaken understanding that if he only used the "legal" power mode the bike was not illegal.

    He misunderstood the legal position and was wrong.

    It could be argued that the bike was not of satisfactory quality under s9(3)(a), but again I'm not sure if GCI would argue that the OP had enough knowledge about the bike (ie two power modes - one legal and the other illegal) that he should have understood that it was only fit for the purpose of riding on private land.

    Having said that, it does seem odd that GCI apparently authorised the supply of an illegal bike - even if the OP selected it himself...

    I'd be interested to know (1) how much of the £3k salary sacrifice the OP is trying to reclaim via court, and (2) whether GCI are suing him for the loss of their bike.

★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.8K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 601.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.7K Life & Family
  • 259.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture