Ribble Gran Fondo - Am I Being Unreasonable?

Serious discussion of cycling issues
alford111
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 18:48 pm

Ribble Gran Fondo - Am I Being Unreasonable?

Postby alford111 » Sun Jul 04, 2010 19:10 pm

Hi All,

Have just purchased a new Ribble Gran Fondo as I love the looks of the bike,only to find that when delivered there is a small defect (see pic) Image

I contacted Ribble who have been, in my opinion, unreasonable to this issue basically saying that the defect is acceptable. What do you think to this, am I being unreasonable to complain about this? Let me know what you think.

WraithWarrior23
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 01:09 am
Contact:

Postby WraithWarrior23 » Sun Jul 04, 2010 23:04 pm

It looks like a paint defect rather than the frame itself, so I doubt it will give you any problems riding it, but for the money you pay for the bikes, you would expect them to do something for you even if it is to give you the money to pay to have it repaired/resprayed/whatever

rake
Posts: 3270
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 21:44 pm

.

Postby rake » Sun Jul 04, 2010 23:16 pm

looks like you caused it turning the sqewer

alford111
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 18:48 pm

Postby alford111 » Mon Jul 05, 2010 06:15 am

WraithWarrior23 - Thanks, thats exactly what I was thinking.

Rake - I haven`t touched the skewer. The bike came with both wheels in place and Ribble were aware of the problem as they have touched in the damage with white paint.

acidstrato
Posts: 930
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 18:07 pm
Contact:

Postby acidstrato » Mon Jul 05, 2010 16:44 pm

sure thats not just an undercoat?

the chip bit is a bit annoying but once you've removed and replaced the back wheel a few times the paint will wear around that area anyway because the inside of the skewer has teeth like bits that'll rub the paint away once its done up tight.

its a personal call, its easy for someone else to say its shoot quality complain when they ain't the one trying to complain. if it were me, knowing what ribble can be like at times, and knowing that its an area prone to wear and tear, I don't think I'd be too bothered
Crafted in Italy apparantly

alford111
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 18:48 pm

Postby alford111 » Mon Jul 05, 2010 19:11 pm

acidstrato - I know what you`re saying with regards to removing/replacing the wheel but I guess I am just comparing it to a Planet X SL Pro Carbon bike that I had for 3 years and did alot of mileage on. I am fussy with maintaining and cleaning my bikes so the wheels in my PX were in and out after virtually every ride and that area never looked like the Ribble. All in all the Ribble is fantastic and is a real thing of beauty looking far more expensive than it was. Its just a real shame for this finishing touch and also the attitude of Ribble after sales. I just have to hope that I don`t have any problems in the future as I will be on my own sorting it out!

User avatar
TLW1
Posts: 12276
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 06:40 am
Contact:

Postby TLW1 » Mon Jul 05, 2010 19:16 pm

I wouldn't be happy, esp as they knew about it

acidstrato
Posts: 930
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 18:07 pm
Contact:

Postby acidstrato » Mon Jul 05, 2010 19:38 pm

alford111 wrote:acidstrato - I know what you`re saying with regards to removing/replacing the wheel but I guess I am just comparing it to a Planet X SL Pro Carbon bike that I had for 3 years and did alot of mileage on. I am fussy with maintaining and cleaning my bikes so the wheels in my PX were in and out after virtually every ride and that area never looked like the Ribble. All in all the Ribble is fantastic and is a real thing of beauty looking far more expensive than it was. Its just a real shame for this finishing touch and also the attitude of Ribble after sales. I just have to hope that I don`t have any problems in the future as I will be on my own sorting it out!


like i said its a personal call really, keep on for it, all i can say is good luck
Crafted in Italy apparantly

EX DH
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 22:16 pm

Postby EX DH » Wed Jul 07, 2010 13:37 pm

Mine has just cracked at the area where the seat stay meets the dropout, it sounds bad but its just because the paint is so thick. Ithought you were complaining about the seat stay not having a drain hole. There a bit crafty at ribble, one of my rims has been touched up with what looks like black marker pen! Appart from that ive no complaints(other than the seat tube kept slipping and the saddle creaks like an old door). :D :D

User avatar
bazbadger
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 18:34 pm

Re: Ribble Gran Fondo - Am I Being Unreasonable?

Postby bazbadger » Wed Jul 07, 2010 13:53 pm

alford111 wrote:Hi All,

Have just purchased a new Ribble Gran Fondo as I love the looks of the bike,only to find that when delivered there is a small defect (see pic) Image

I contacted Ribble who have been, in my opinion, unreasonable to this issue basically saying that the defect is acceptable. What do you think to this, am I being unreasonable to complain about this? Let me know what you think.


If RIbble say it's acceptable, then why do they bother shipping the bike to you in a box? They might as just chuck it in a van - as it sounds like visual defects are acceptable on a brand new bike...

At the end of the day, it's their attitude that's wrong. If you're buying a brand new bike, then you can expect it to look brand new, otherwise what's the point in buying brand new?

User avatar
cooldad
Posts: 28204
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 22:01 pm

Postby cooldad » Wed Jul 07, 2010 20:42 pm

Worthy of a mutter maybe, but a campaign?
I don't do smileys.

There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda

London Calling on Facebook

Parktools

User avatar
rdt
Posts: 971
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 19:22 pm

Postby rdt » Wed Jul 07, 2010 22:14 pm

cooldad wrote:Worthy of a mutter maybe, but a campaign?


Indeed. alford111, your post is in the wrong forum.

Different people have different standards of what they're prepared to accept when they find that the new item they've purchased isn't quite as advertised. Is it a tiny flaw that you're really not bothered about, and which wouldn't affect it's resale value, or do you want the perfect item you thought you were buying? You're entitled to the latter and have the full weight of consumer law on your side if you pursue it.

It's how companies behave in situations like this that sort out those you want to be buying big ticket items from and those you don't.

When this sort of thing happens to me, I decide what I'd like the outcome to be. Do I want a perfect brand-new replacement product, or would I accept the flawed one, but at a lesser price than I paid - if so, how much less? Then I inform the company of the problem, and see how they respond. If they get @rsey and attempt to fob me off, stay cool,but get straight onto someone there with clout/responsibility, and make sure they realise you know the relevant consumer law and your rights, and that you'll pursue things until you prevail.

Although a different situation, have a look at alfablue's posts on this thread:
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/forums/vi ... t=12710258

I've had two examples recently where new goods (domestic appliances) have not been right, and I decided I wanted something done:-
(i) The first had some small scratches on one side; this was in an area which wouldn't be visible when in position, but could be visible if I was to move the appliance to another house in the future. The retailer offered to replace with a perfect appliance or offered me a settlement of 17% off - which I accepted.
(ii) The second appliance had some faulty hinges from new, which were replaced, then a few weeks later the whole appliance stopped working. I gave them reasonable time to fix it, then when they failed to do this within a few weeks, I requested a replacement, advising them I was to commence legal action in 7 days. They fixed it the next day and strangely the manufacturer are now also going to replace the appliance with a new one.

At the same time as those examples, I'd ordered some stuff to be custom made for a kitchen refurb, which on arrival had some flaws plus slight damage from transit. After weighing things up, I decided to sort the problems out myself as best I could, rather than getting involved with the fabricator and delays for making the stuff again etc, as this just seemed more pragmatic in my circumstances.

Good luck, whatever you decide to do.

User avatar
giant man
Posts: 10961
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 16:34 pm
Contact:

Postby giant man » Tue Jul 27, 2010 17:52 pm

Imo it's worth a return, why should you put up with that? I wouldn't. You have paid good money and the bike should be in perfect condition, and it's not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finding the right saddle is the holy grail for the cyclist, good luck, it may take some time .....

beverick
Posts: 3436
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 13:28 pm
Contact:

Postby beverick » Mon Aug 09, 2010 09:38 am

I'm glad I've seen this post as I was looking at the Ribble GF. In fact, I was planning to call in on Saturday on the way back from Blackpool to have a look (as they're advertising a "last chance to buy at these prices" promotion at the moment).

But If they're likely to turn their back on quality issues such as the one above, I think my £1750 would be better spent somewhere else.

At least it's now narrowed the selection to either a Specialized Rubaix or Cannondale synapse.

Sorry for your problems "Alford" but it's certainly helped me.

Bob

plowmar
Posts: 891
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 17:10 pm

Postby plowmar » Mon Aug 09, 2010 09:51 am

Alford you sound just like me, wether that's good or bad it isn't for me to say, but that blemish will always be on your mind just like the one I have on my Bianchi where thetre is a stone chip in the paint on the chain guard stay.

I couldn't complain as it was just a riding event but my god does it leap out at me whenever I look at it.

Therefore I think you should take matters further as has been said by others as a brand new bike should be perfect. You should perhaps reject it on the sale goods act - distance selling then if you still like the bike rebuy it as there seems still to be some available and obviously trust you don't get it back or push for a reduction to compensate.

Have you had an opinion from the frame manufacturers? that you could use.

spen666
Posts: 17444
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 20:03 pm
Contact:

Postby spen666 » Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:58 pm

plowmar wrote:Alford you sound just like me, wether that's good or bad it isn't for me to say, but that blemish will always be on your mind just like the one I have on my Bianchi where thetre is a stone chip in the paint on the chain guard stay.

I couldn't complain as it was just a riding event but my god does it leap out at me whenever I look at it.

Therefore I think you should take matters further as has been said by others as a brand new bike should be perfect.

The law would not support you on this point. They goods should be reasonably fit for purpose, not perfect!
You should perhaps reject it on the sale goods act - distance selling then if you still like the bike rebuy it as there seems still to be some available and obviously trust you don't get it back or push for a reduction to compensate.

The op has no chance of using the distance selling regulations to reject the goods as they are way out of time now. They could have done so if they had rejected them immediately or withing 7 days of delivery. No reason is needed to reject the goods.

I suspect that under the sale of goods & services act the OP would struggle to argue they were entitled to reject the goods as this is a minor paint blemish rather than a fundamental part of the bike.

However, if the OP could convince a court that the look of the bike was significant and that a minor blemish affected this, then they may succeed. The fact that in use the bike will get other chips and maks imho means the op would not succeed in a claim under the Sale of goods and services act.

Have you had an opinion from the frame manufacturers? that you could use.
Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

Twittering @spen_666

beverick
Posts: 3436
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 13:28 pm
Contact:

Postby beverick » Mon Aug 09, 2010 16:26 pm

spen666 wrote:
plowmar wrote:Alford you sound just like me, wether that's good or bad it isn't for me to say, but that blemish will always be on your mind just like the one I have on my Bianchi where thetre is a stone chip in the paint on the chain guard stay.

I couldn't complain as it was just a riding event but my god does it leap out at me whenever I look at it.

Therefore I think you should take matters further as has been said by others as a brand new bike should be perfect.

The law would not support you on this point. They goods should be reasonably fit for purpose, not perfect!
[quote]

A good must be "fit for purpose". Reasonably doesn't enter into it, it's a straight forward pass/fail. In this case the bike is claerly fit for purpose as the damage doesn't stop it from being ridden.

However, it must also be "of satisfactory quality" which I'd say that it wasn't with damage like that. On a £75 H@lfords (sorry for swearing) special I don't think could expect damage like that but not on something costing upwards of £1500 and sold as a premium product.

Basically, they're taking the p*ss.

Bob

spen666
Posts: 17444
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 20:03 pm
Contact:

Postby spen666 » Mon Aug 09, 2010 22:15 pm

Bob,

I am sorry to say that your interpreation of the law is unlikelybin my opinion to be supported by a court of law.

We are agreed the bike is fit for purpose, so this point does not need to be taken further.


With regard to satisfactory quality, the relevant legislation is the sale and supply of goods act 1994. Section 1 is as set out below. (Any highlighting is mine)
1
Implied term about quality .(1)
In section 14 of the [1979 c. 54.] Sale of Goods Act 1979 (implied terms about quality or fitness) for subsection (2) there is substituted— .
“(2)
Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality. .
(2A)
For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances. .
(2B)
For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods— .
(a)
fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied, .
(b)
appearance and finish, .
(c)
freedom from minor defects, .
(d)
safety, and .
(e)
durability. .

(2C)
The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory— .
(a)
which is specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention before the contract is made, .
(b)
where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or .
(c)
in the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample.” .
(2)
In section 15 of that Act (sale by sample) in subsection (2)(c) for “rendering them unmerchantable” there is substituted “making their quality unsatisfactory”.


As you say the standard expected of a bike at this price is higher than the standard expected from a supermarket £69.99 bike.

The issue is I think relating to S.1(2B)(b) and S.1(2B)(c) ie appearance and finish and free from minor defects.

I do not think the damage in the location shown to a road bike is going to be sufficient to allow a court to come to the conclusion there has been a breach of contract.

The nature of the defect is minimal
The nature of the bike is that it would be expected to get marked through normal use.

It may appear harsh, especially when one is paying £1500+, but the increased cost of a road bike is in relation to the groupset & wheels, not the quality of the paint job

I think a manufacturer would be able to defend a breach of contract claim for this damage.

The op should have rejected under the Distance Selling rules and would have been able to reject the bike
Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

Twittering @spen_666

reutercrooks
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 16:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Ribble Gran Fondo - Am I Being Unreasonable?

Postby reutercrooks » Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:42 am

alford111 wrote:Hi All,

Have just purchased a new Ribble Gran Fondo as I love the looks of the bike,only to find that when delivered there is a small defect (see pic) Image

I contacted Ribble who have been, in my opinion, unreasonable to this issue basically saying that the defect is acceptable. What do you think to this, am I being unreasonable to complain about this? Let me know what you think.



it looks like paint bubble that has popped after drying and the skewer has scratched it.
A quick wipe with emery paper should sort it out unless its structural.
You sound like a person who books a flight on easyjet and expects the red carpet first class service.

You bought the bike from Ribble, probably looking for a bargain, low internet price. What did you expect???? especially after being on this forum you would certainly be familiar with Ribbles outstanding customer service and the devoted threads that regulaurly pop up on this issue. Instead of supporting this cowboy company( I also have first hand experience of this) why not spend your hardearned with a reputable UK framebuilder.????

reutercrooks
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 16:16 pm
Contact:

Postby reutercrooks » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:37 pm

I also dont work for Ribble or dave Hinde nor any other bicycle retailer.


Return to “Campaign”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest