omg my rear mech snapped clean off

[mrcharly-YHT]

um, I think it depends a bit.

The mech is used, it would be quite difficult to *prove* that it hadn't been mistreated.

I had a similar problem, but with a goretex jacket (it was 3 years old and delaminating). The retailer said that was a common problem, the jacket was just aging, etc. I pointed out the gore lifetime guarantee. After some argument, they phoned Gore. Gore told them to ship it to the lab for testing.

In the end, Gore honoured the guarantee and refunded the purchase cost of the jacket. But I had to wait until they'd inspected it.

I think what the shop is offering is fair.

[fred the great]

In fairness to the Retailer, I would also expect in this situation that they would want the Supplier to have an inspection.

It's inconvenient of course but one should accept that. A temporary replacement would have been a nice goodwill offer but not obligatory.

[Polar Bear]

SOGA gives upto six years given specific circumstances.   A product has to be fit for what it is supposed to do and of appropriate quality.   Retailers are unfortunately notorious for ducking their responsibilities which is why we have legislation to protect consumers, the weakest link.  

If Gore offer a lifetime warranty then it is their responsibility after any initial garment warranty runs out or SOGA no longer applies.   That is reasonable.   I would expect that if Gore had refused then you could have used SOGA to recover some moola.

ARO, having worked for Argos I can assure you that they hate refunds and put enormous pressure on their suppliers when a product proves unreliable.   Their view is that if they piss the customer off they might take their business elsewhere.  Reputation is everything.   Argos isn't the cheapest yet they survive.   Customer service is a huge, probably the most significant aspect of their customer offering.

In fairness to the Retailer, I would also expect in this situation that they would want the Supplier to have an inspection.

Don't agree.   Sorry.   What if the supplier is simply another middleman.  No expert?  You could wait months, even years in the supply chain red tape.   A very solid reason to ensure that eh retailer, the one with the contract is obliged to rectify.   

[fred the great]

No problem, but I am sure in this case the  Retailer is unlikely to have the capability of establishing whether it was not fit for the purpose.

And hence an Expert's opinion is required.

[CommuteTooFar]

hmmm... i'll take it back to the shop see what they say.
fortunately i got it from the LBS and i've still got the receipt.
bought it in jan so it's about 5 months old.

I am sure everybody knows the guarentee for faulty parts of everything is 2 years whatever the manufacturer or man in a shop may claim.

[Zoidburg]

This is an LBS

More experienced than a chain of stores.

A mech should not break like that, to abuse it badly enough to make it break like that under normal circumstances would also be enough to pringle the wheel and deform the rear triangle. Newtons law. Its a solid lump of T6 aluminium, it should stay in one piece even if you took a sledge hammer to the bike, you would bork the mech but that actual piece of alumium should not fracture like that.

The LBS knows this, we know this.

It does not require "expert" advice and they should stop ducking out.

They just don't want to pay up because Madison operate a no returns policy, there is no actual way that a customer is going to get his money back from Madison.

Illegal yes - but they have a monopoly upon Shimano distribution so the situation will remain untill they get taken to court.

Pay up feckers.

[Really Ancien]

Is that a long cage mech on a close ratio block? I can't think of any reason that would present a problem, but is the geometry different?

Damon.

[Jaded]

This is an LBS
They just don't want to pay up

Have they said that?

As has been said before, the retailer has no way of knowing what the mech has been through.

So far, I think that giving the retailer the benefit of the doubt at this stage is the right way of dealing with this.

Having said that, there could be a grander conspiracy that none of us know about, with retailers poised to take over the country and suck our brains out through straws.

[Polar Bear]

No problem, but I am sure in this case the  Retailer is unlikely to have the capability of establishing whether it was not fit for the purpose.

And hence an Expert's opinion is required.

Not under the law it isn't.

[Zoidburg]

This is an LBS
They just don't want to pay up

Have they said that?

As has been said before, the retailer has no way of knowing what the mech has been through.

So far, I think that giving the retailer the benefit of the doubt at this stage is the right way of dealing with this.

Having said that, there could be a grander conspiracy that none of us know about, with retailers poised to take over the country and suck our brains out through straws.

If you have ever had to buy products in to sell you soon learn the tricks and some suppliers do indeed act like gits - and yes they do indeed conspire to shaft both the customer and the retailer. So you get a situation where a retailer will twist and turn like buggery to avoid having to cover the cost of faulty product.

Like Woolly I have worked in the retail side as well.

"not knowing what it has been through" does not hold any water, even in a smash that actual part that has broken should not break like that.

You would have to put it in a vice and take a hammer to it to make it do that.

[Zoidburg]

No problem, but I am sure in this case the  Retailer is unlikely to have the capability of establishing whether it was not fit for the purpose.

And hence an Expert's opinion is required.

Not under the law it isn't.

If they can't tell then they should not be selling Shimano kit - let alone bikes.

[Jaded]

You would have to put it in a vice and take a hammer to it to make it do that.

Maybe they think that's what he did.

 

 

[Polar Bear]

I've just been out to do some research on this topic.  First I went to my LBS.  

Me:  What do you do about breakages and faulty goods on returns?  

LBS:  We ask the customer what happened.  We generally accept their word and replace or refund.

Me:  Do you not refer to your suppliers?

LBS:  They're not really interested unless we start getting a lot of returns.   They just agree an adjustment on the next invoice.

Me:  What do you do with the broken components?

LBS:  We put them in a box for teh supplier rep to see and decide if he wants to take away.  He never even looks at them.   After that, if we can strip them for usable parts like jockey wheels, hub bodies etc., we'll get one of the apprentices to do that if he's got five minutes, otherwise in the bin.    

I then went to another independent retailer.  This guy sells ethical products and organic food.   The responses were similar enough to be the same.

Both establishments know that they have the relationship with the customer, that they hold responsibility.   They also know that their suppliers don't really give a toss.   The guy at the second place then told me a story about a large retail chain who have for each store a returns quota to meet.   It has got them into a bit of bother.

[Zoidburg]

You would have to put it in a vice and take a hammer to it to make it do that.

Maybe they think that's what he did.

 

 

This isn't about Nutty.

[Jaded]

OP is effectively saying:
"I'm going to be reasonable, I'd like to give the retailer a chance"

I can't see anything wrong with that.

He still has the force of the law to bring down on these unscrupulous, thieving bastards.

[Euan Uzami]

    Sorry ARO, my rantiness is not aimed at you.   

I'm so fucking pissed off with shitty retailers who still behave as if the law does not apply to them.  I get so many issues to deal with of this type.

 

I empathise with your annoyance.
Part of me thinks that maybe I should insist that they replace it under sale of goods act.
Part of me feels that no, I don't have a right to a replacement any more than if I bought a plank of wood from B&Q and took it back snapped in two, having run through a narrow doorway while carrying it horizontally In other words, is it that "IT broke" or that "I'VE broken it" ?
Another part of me feels that I should just sue them (this would be fairly elementary) but then be nice as pie when I go in there, and pretend that I'm not the person that's suing them

But I do want to keep a reasonable relationship with them - not because they treat me particularly well, or because they do me any favours, but just because some of the staff are nice folk and have given me good service, and I'm not sure I prioritise standing up for my consumer rights above keeping a non-hostile relationship with them, even if they aren't necessarily my favourite bike shop any more.

However, it is one in a series of events that have made me prefer going to other bike shops instead and as a business, they are only doing themselves a disservice.

[Euan Uzami]

Is that a long cage mech on a close ratio block? I can't think of any reason that would present a problem, but is the geometry different?

Damon.

it's a 12-25 but i've got a triple on the front so a long cage mech is appropriate isn't it?

OP is effectively saying:
"I'm going to be reasonable, I'd like to give the retailer a chance"

I can't see anything wrong with that.

He still has the force of the law to bring down on these unscrupulous, thieving bastards.

pretty much, yes.

[Biggsy]

Any really decent shop or retailer would just instantly replace or refund this item for you (that clearly looks like it was designed or manufactured incorrectly).

If they don't do that then it's not a shop that you want to have a relationship with in future anyway.  What if the same thing happened to a more expensive item that you couldn't afford to replace yourself?  The staff being "nice" doesn't make that risk worth taking.

The mech cage length is irrelevant once it's long enough.

[Really Ancien]

I just had a look at the tech docs, http://techdocs.shimano.com/media/techdocs/content/cycle/SI/Ultegra/RD6500/SI-53Z0C_En_v1_m56577569830611842.pdf
The Ultegra is a medium length mech with a maximum rear sprocket of 27 and a maximum difference of 22 teeth on the front. So no problem as the geometry will be the same.

Damon.

[Euan Uzami]

Any really decent shop or retailer would just instantly replace or refund this item for you (that clearly looks like it was designed or manufactured incorrectly).

That may very very well be the case, and like I say - it does mark them down in my eyes.
I'm not sure I'm militant enough to go ranting and raving about my consumer rights in the first instance, though: they might still refuse to do anything there and then - the methods available to me of forcing them to replace the mech don't afford me the immediacy I want, and I'm no better a position - so I might as well be nice about it.

If they don't do that then it's not a shop that you want to have a relationship with in future anyway.  What if the same thing happened to a more expensive item that you couldn't afford to replace yourself?  The staff being "nice" doesn't make that risk worth taking.

Again, if it was a high value item that I couldn't afford to replace them I would not hesitate in insisting that they replace it, and then by bringing consumer law down on them if they didn't - first that government helpline and/or trading standards, then small claims court.
However, I consider myself lucky in that I have 'tested out' their 'policy' on a low-value item, in that I now know to avoid buying a high value item from  there.   Again, like I say - their loss. Although it wasn't necessary - their other problems that I mentioned actually drove me away from them into the arms of CRC when I recently DID buy a high value item ( an MTB frame).

To be fair, it may very well be the case that they know full well that I could insist they replace it, and are grateful that I haven't - and that if madison then come back and say yes it IS a manufacturing fault, then they might overcompensate me 'for my inconvenience', but reading between the lines, thanks for being patient.
Then again, they probably won't. But they are a growing business - they probably don't NEED my custom, therefore it's possibly time to take it to somewhere that does.

[fred the great]

If a rear mech breaks like the picture shows one must give the Retailer a chance to investigate it properly.

To say the LBS is trying to screw the Owner is quite unfair. None of us know him and he appears to be approaching this quite sensibly.

My experience of them in the UK and Bangkok is that they are very reasonable and would never profess or are expected to know  mechanical designs. Is it a design weakness or manufacturing weakness or damage that caused the failure nobody knows? However I am sure the Manufacturer will recheck his design and manufacturing standards once he hears about this failure.

The Japanese, for example, take these problems very seriously. I have worked for one large Company and have had dealings with many others. They always want the Customer to be satisfied.

[Zoidburg]

That is true about Shimano, that doesn't always apply to it's distrubutors...

The fault is obvious, the aluminium was not strong enough.

A 15 year old doing GCSE design and technology could point that out, the exact vectors involved will be worked out by design boffins at Shimano no doubt but the imediate situation has not changed.

The retailer owes him one new rear mech.

Now.

Not later.

[fred the great]

Up to you ZB.

I just cannot agree'

Amen.

[Polar Bear]

You are a very generous person LJ but I cannot agree with your perspective.   Why does the retailer need an opportunity?  He's not the manufacturer, and I suspect he's no expert either or he wouldn't even suggest that the supplier needs to look at it.   And, will the supplier be an expert?  I doubt it.   How long does this process take?  When does the OP finally get his money back?   I'd be surprised if that mech ever leaves the shop except in the trash.

I'm sorry but I have more than enough examples of how unscrupulous retailers use such tactics to try and avoid their legal obligations.  

Call me cynical if you like but this is plain bad.   If retailers wanted a chance they should have behaved better so that laws such as The Sale Of Goods Act 1979 had not been necessary.

I have no doubt that the manufacturer would take it seriously:  I do not believe in this case that the retailer is.

[Biggsy]

If a rear mech breaks like the picture shows one must give the Retailer a chance to investigate it properly.

Adequate investigation in this case just requires a glance at the product by an experienced mechanic.  They might be entitled in law to do more investigation, but the question is whether you want to deal with someone who is going to waste your time by doing that.