Consumer Rights

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Ned Logan, Feb 19, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ned Logan

    Ned Logan Guest

    Hi,

    Can anyone help:

    I had my rear wheel fully re-spoked (under the advice from my local shop).

    When I got the wheel back it collapsed after only 13 miles, the hub broke.

    I had previously done about 12000 miles on the wheel before this, with no problems except breaking a
    spoke 3 times.

    Teh shop claims that as it was an old wheel it was not their fault, they will not replace it with a
    like-for-like, they want to offer me a much cheaper alternative.

    What are my options?

    Regards,

    Ned
     
    Tags:


  2. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Ned Logan wrote:

    > Teh shop claims that as it was an old wheel it was not their fault, they will not replace it with
    > a like-for-like, they want to offer me a much cheaper alternative.
    >
    > What are my options?

    Step 1, I'd think, is your local Citizen's Advice Bureau, who should be able to outline
    possible steps.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  3. Andrew B

    Andrew B Guest

    I would always recommend using the Trading Standards in situations like this. The CAB do not always
    have a full grasp of the law and what a retailer *has* to do, they often give strange advice.

    You can find their address in your local yellow pages. If they deny that they caused the fault, get
    a second opinion.

    Regards,

    Andrew
     
  4. Paul Ayck

    Paul Ayck Guest

    I think the problem is not the 13 miles but the 12,000. Restressing the hub may well have caused the
    failure, but it was the hub not the spokes that failed. Sad as it is I don't think you have a leg to
    stand on (or wheel to sit on.) Talk to shop and discuss investing in a new wheel. Agreement always
    preoduces a better result than conflict.

    "Ned Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Hi,
    >
    > Can anyone help:
    >
    > I had my rear wheel fully re-spoked (under the advice from my local shop).
    >
    > When I got the wheel back it collapsed after only 13 miles, the hub broke.
    >
    > I had previously done about 12000 miles on the wheel before this, with no problems except breaking
    > a spoke 3 times.
    >
    > Teh shop claims that as it was an old wheel it was not their fault, they will not replace it with
    > a like-for-like, they want to offer me a much cheaper alternative.
    >
    > What are my options?
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Ned
     
  5. Raptorman

    Raptorman Guest

    I'd tend to agree with this - it was your old hub that failed, not really their fault. Maybe they
    should have advised that there might be a problem but it looks like you've just been unlucky. I'd
    like to think that the shop would offer you a discount on a new hub or possibly offer to do the
    second build for free as a gesture of goodwill - the implication of your post is that they're
    prepared to do something, just not give you a brand new hub to replace one that's done 12,000miles
    which seems entirely reasonable.

    Unless you can somehow prove (on the balance of probability) that it was a faulty build that caused
    the hub to fail you're going to get nowhere adopting a confrontational approach.

    Russ

    "Paul Ayck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > I think the problem is not the 13 miles but the 12,000. Restressing the
    hub
    > may well have caused the failure, but it was the hub not the spokes that failed. Sad as it is I
    > don't think you have a leg to stand on (or wheel to sit on.) Talk to shop and discuss investing in
    > a new wheel. Agreement
    always
    > preoduces a better result than conflict.
    >
    > "Ned Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > Can anyone help:
    > >
    > > I had my rear wheel fully re-spoked (under the advice from my local
    shop).
    > >
    > > When I got the wheel back it collapsed after only 13 miles, the hub
    broke.
    > >
    > > I had previously done about 12000 miles on the wheel before this, with
    no
    > > problems except breaking a spoke 3 times.
    > >
    > > Teh shop claims that as it was an old wheel it was not their fault, they will not replace it
    > > with a like-for-like, they want to offer me a much cheaper alternative.
    > >
    > > What are my options?
    > >
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Ned
    > >
    >
     
  6. Andymorris

    Andymorris Guest

    raptorman wrote:
    > I'd tend to agree with this - it was your old hub that failed, not really their fault. Maybe they
    > should have advised that there might be a problem but it looks like you've just been unlucky. I'd
    > like to think that the shop would offer you a discount on a new hub or possibly offer to do the
    > second build for free as a gesture of goodwill - the implication of your post is that they're
    > prepared to do something, just not give you a brand new hub to replace one that's done 12,000miles
    > which seems entirely reasonable.
    >
    > Unless you can somehow prove (on the balance of probability) that it was a faulty build that
    > caused the hub to fail you're going to get nowhere adopting a confrontational approach.
    >

    If the hub was rebuilt so that the spokes do _not_ lie in the indentaions made by the previous
    spokes then the shop has bogged up. If the spokes lie in the indentations that it is probably the
    higher tension of the newly built wheel that caused the break. Hub strength is not normally a limit
    on spoke tension so it suggest the hub was on the way out.

    --
    Andy Morris

    AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

    Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
    http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
     
  7. James Annan

    James Annan Guest

    "AndyMorris" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    >
    > If the hub was rebuilt so that the spokes do _not_ lie in the indentaions made by the previous
    > spokes then the shop has bogged up. If the spokes lie in the indentations that it is probably the
    > higher tension of the newly built wheel that caused the break. Hub strength is not normally a
    > limit on spoke tension so it suggest the hub was on the way out.

    I'll second that. Have a close-up look at the hub. OTOH if the shop did respoke the wheel the wrong
    way, they are unlikely to accept the word of a mere customer that they shouldn't have done!

    James
     
  8. If the bike shop let something out of the shop - that was dangerous - you may be entitled to a lot
    more than your money back.

    Get on claims direct unless they play ball

    Pete.

    "Ned Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Hi,
    >
    > Can anyone help:
    >
    > I had my rear wheel fully re-spoked (under the advice from my local shop).
    >
    > When I got the wheel back it collapsed after only 13 miles, the hub broke.
    >
    > I had previously done about 12000 miles on the wheel before this, with no problems except breaking
    > a spoke 3 times.
    >
    > Teh shop claims that as it was an old wheel it was not their fault, they will not replace it with
    > a like-for-like, they want to offer me a much cheaper alternative.
    >
    > What are my options?
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Ned
     
  9. Peter Fox

    Peter Fox Guest

    Following on from Peter Rollason's message. . .
    >If the bike shop let something out of the shop - that was dangerous - you may be entitled to a lot
    >more than your money back.
    >
    >Get on claims direct unless they play ball
    This is utter rubbish.
    --
    PETER FOX Not the same since the e-commerce business came to a . 2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex.
    [email protected] Gravity beer in Essex <http://www.eminent.demon.co.uk
     
  10. Peter Fox wrote:
    > Following on from Peter Rollason's message. . .
    >> If the bike shop let something out of the shop - that was dangerous
    >> - you may be entitled to a lot more than your money back.
    >>
    >> Get on claims direct unless they play ball
    > This is utter rubbish.

    Why?
    --
    Michael MacClancy
     
  11. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:05:52 -0000, "Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>> Get on claims direct unless they play ball
    >> This is utter rubbish.
    >Why?

    Because they are ambulance-chasing crooks. Their fees are disproportionately high, which is why they
    can afford to pay for saturation TV advertising. And I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole anyway
    simply because their adverts are sooooo bad :)

    Far better to get a fixed-fee consultation with a real solicitor, have a realistic appraisal of the
    case, and then proceed probably through the small claims court.

    Actually in this case it's almost certainly the case that you would be better off negotiating with
    the shop to rebuild the wheel if you buy a new hub, unless injury has resulted. They should have
    advised a new hub at the time, if it was looking ropey. If in doubt talk to the owner. And if he
    won't play, then and only then consult a solictor or the CAB.

    Just my £0.02

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  12. Peter Fox

    Peter Fox Guest

    Following on from Michael MacClancy's message. . .
    >Peter Fox wrote:
    >> Following on from Peter Rollason's message. . .
    >>> If the bike shop let something out of the shop - that was dangerous
    >>> - you may be entitled to a lot more than your money back.
    >>>
    >>> Get on claims direct unless they play ball
    >> This is utter rubbish.
    >
    >Why?
    Because you can only sue for damage. Actual damage.

    The dangerousness may be a tort and entitle you to have nothing more to do with them, get a fix
    and charge the cost as damages but this is the UK where hypothetical injury isn't countenanced in
    civil matters.

    [Tort isn't my strong point so I may have got that bit wrong.]
    --
    PETER FOX Not the same since the bottom fell out of the bucket business
     
  13. >[Tort isn't my strong point so I may have got that bit wrong.]

    Tort - duty of care to others. Donahue v. Stebenson .... 1947??? Snail in a bottle case ... what
    every law student has to remember :)

    Cheers, helen s

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

    Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
    ~~~~~~~~~~
     
  14. John

    John Guest

    On 23 Feb 2003 18:38:58 GMT, [email protected] (wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) wrote:

    >Tort - Snail in a bottle case ...

    That's got to be worth a bit of elaboration.

    Regards,

    John
     
  15. R Porter

    R Porter Guest

    > Tort - duty of care to others. Donahue v. Stebenson .... 1947??? Snail in a bottle case ... what
    > every law student has to remember :)
    >
    > Cheers, helen s
    >

    Torts are lighter than paving slabs :)
     
  16. Nick Kew

    Nick Kew Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, one of infinite monkeys at the keyboard of
    [email protected] (wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) wrote:
    >
    > Tort - duty of care to others. Donahue v. Stebenson .... 1947??? Snail in a bottle case ... what
    > every law student has to remember :)

    Ugh. Who tort you that?

    --
    Wear your paunch with pride!
     
  17. Andymorris

    Andymorris Guest

    wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter wrote:
    >> [Tort isn't my strong point so I may have got that bit wrong.]
    >
    > Tort - duty of care to others. Donahue v. Stebenson .... 1947??? Snail in a bottle case ... what
    > every law student has to remember :)
    >

    Sainsburys do a rather nice lemon one, but the chocolate one is a bit heavy.

    --
    Andy Morris

    AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

    Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
    http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
     
  18. Terry

    Terry Guest

    "wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >[Tort isn't my strong point so I may have got that bit wrong.]
    >
    > Tort - duty of care to others. Donahue v. Stebenson .... 1947??? Snail in
    a
    > bottle case ... what every law student has to remember :)
    >
    > Cheers, helen s
    >
    >
    > ~~~~~~~~~~
    > Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending
    a
    > reply!
    >
    > Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the
    keyboaRRRDdd
    > ~~~~~~~~~~

    Donoghue V Stevenson (1932) A.C. 562.
     
  19. Terry

    Terry Guest

    "Peter Fox" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Following on from Michael MacClancy's message. . .
    > >Peter Fox wrote:
    > >> Following on from Peter Rollason's message. . .
    > >>> If the bike shop let something out of the shop - that was dangerous
    > >>> - you may be entitled to a lot more than your money back.
    > >>>
    > >>> Get on claims direct unless they play ball
    > >> This is utter rubbish.
    > >
    > >Why?
    > Because you can only sue for damage. Actual damage.
    >
    > The dangerousness may be a tort and entitle you to have nothing more to do with them, get a fix
    > and charge the cost as damages but this is the UK where hypothetical injury isn't countenanced in
    > civil matters.
    >
    > [Tort isn't my strong point so I may have got that bit wrong.]
    > --
    > PETER FOX Not the same since the bottom fell out of the bucket business

    No, you are correct. There is no tort action available where a product is defective and doesn't
    cause physical harm, however contract law provides remedies for this.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...