Bike Rejection

if they don't treat customers properly what do they expect ,does the sale of goods act cover this as its not fit for purpose you are entitled to a refund

 

Hi Andy,
That is crap mate, I think you need to name and shame the unhelpful dealer so the rest of us can avoid them.
I don't know what the legal situation is regarding rejecting the bike over allowing Triumph to repair it, but if it isn't sorted soon and your trip goes belly up then I would go after them for compensation for that as well.
It would be nice for Triumph and their dealer to do the decent thing, not sure that they will though.

 

The key things to remember are:

The finance company owns the bike. Your primary rights are via them.

The dealer you bought from is No 1 in the frame and then to Triumph under their warranty.

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/your-rights-if-something-is-wrong-with-your-car

Rejection rights normally lapse after 30 days and I have no idea how long you have had it and the use it has had which would inform whether it should be replaced or repaired.

This is one of those occasions when it pays to be awkward. If you are the least line of resistance it will not be resolved to your satisfaction.

Finally write IMMEDIATELY to the Finance company recorded delivery (keeping a copy) saying you are due off in 3 weeks time and that ‘time is of the essence’ I.e. you require resolution within the next 14 days or a directly comparable substitute to enable your holiday to proceed as planned.

 

Shock

Shocking bud!! Have they sorted a loan bike out for You whilst your bikes been away?

 

Can I add you have complicated things slightly because it is not in ‘the’ dealer but ‘a’ dealer. They don’t really have a dog in the fight, just the chance of some warranty work and the workshop time already expended.
Your best bet is to get the Finance company to get Triumph to authorise work where it is but they are not obliged to and may not want to appear to pitch one dealer against another....

 

Andymarksonline.
Yes as someone said the bike belongs to the finance company. My wife a few years ago purchased a rover 820 that turned out to be stolen. The finance said not to hand the keys to the police and they sorted it within a week. Get someone with legal knowledge to contact triumph to reject the bike. And I think you have the law on your side here the goods were unfit for purpose.
Good Luck
Joe

 

I'm afraid littleade is totally correct in the dealer being well within their rights to insist on being allowed to repair the bike under sale of goods legislation.

 

Stinger
The goods are also not fit for the purpose they were purchased for. And you don't buy something that has to be pulled apart and rebuilt. Rights and sale of goods may well be used if its simple maintenance. And not fit for purpose gives you the right to reject the item if its not doing what it was purchased for. I E trip and touring.
Regards
Joe.

 

"Not fit for purpose" and faulty are two entirely different things. If the bike was sold to the OP as an ideal tool for ploughing a field he'd have an excellent argument to say it's not fit for purpose.

 

Mikerj
No disagree with you totally. My bike I purchased as a tool to take me to work and back every day. And in purchasing a new bike I need it to be fit for the purpose I bought it for. Now I accept there will be things like flat tyres dodgy battery which is acceptable. But a brand new item that has to go back to be totally stripped and rebuilt. No that's not fit for purpose.
Ride Free
Joe.

 

The sale of goods act 1979 is straightforward on this issue.

The quality of the goods sold must be satisfactory (prior to 1994, this provision required 'merchantable' quality; this requirement has been retained in most Commonwealth versions of the Act). The Act provides an objective test to determine satisfactory quality; the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price, description and any other relevant factors

If the fault existed when the bike was delivered then it could be argued that it was not of merchantable quality.

 

I believe the phrase is " not fit for its intended purpose"

 

But you have to prove that the fault was there when it was sold to you.

 

Hope you get sorted mate

 

Name the dealer giving problems or have you been advised not too in case it may affect the outcome.

 

I agree with “name and shame” when the culprit is clearly guilty but not when “in dispute”. Wait for the conclusion then name the parties. Sometimes a problem gives a supplier an opportunity to shine.
There’s a dealer near me who I wont name because I have no proof, but let’s say when my bike has been serviced the oil drain plug hasn’t been disturbed and the ecu link is still taped up with my tape.
I’m sure they must have dropped the oil through the oil filter and checked and adjusted the throttle bodies by connecting directly to the ecu and not used the link eh?

 

In these situations always better to shed light rather than add heat. No point in being prematurely provocative - but not easily brushed off either.

After all, they will want you to tell your mates what great service you got......won’t they?

 

"I’m sure they must have dropped the oil through the oil filter and checked and adjusted the throttle bodies by connecting directly to the ecu and not used the link eh?"
I don't know if that's possible, would all the oil come out? and can you balance the throttles via the ECU? If I'd paid for a service I'd be asking the dealer !