50 cycles - misleading advertising

[Wander]

For the sake of balance it's probably fair also to post what has been posted against that youtube clip as it gives a response that 50 cycles have already made:-

Published on 14 May 2015
This bike cost over £2000 from 50Cycles, UK - so I didn't expect that the (£800) battery would fall out the first time I rode it, nor that it would have this horrendous creak. Solution? I was told to start stripping the bike down to tighten the cranks & the motor bolts (neither fixed it), then told to take it to a bike shop to get it repaired!
This German bike is generally of quality build, but on the basis of 50Cycles' snail-inspired after-sales service (the bike has been returned, but after daily phone calls, I'm still waiting for a refund) I would have to recommend DON'T BUY.

ALL COMMENTS (2)
Share your thoughts


Garry Wiseman 2 weeks ago
Quote from 50 Cycles web site: 'No quibble guarantee ..100% money back guarantee' 50 Cycles have repeatedly rejected our request for refund They have also threatened legal action over this honest review.
·



Scott Snaith 2 weeks ago
Dear Garry, Even though you did not lock the battery in place correctly we still replaced your battery free of charge. With regards to the creeks it was just a matter of bedding in the bike and adjusting the saddle. Again we picked up the bike free of charge which was not packaged correctly and resulted in the console getting damaged. We have replaced this free of charge and gave a full free service when both problem were actually caused by yourself. Again we want you to have the best experience possible and ensured that these minor inconveniences have been at no cost to yourself. We pride ourselves on the best service and find your comments most unfair. Kind regards Scott

 

[trex]

sorry KMG440, I did not find their advertising misleading.

 

[KMG440]

Hi KMG440. I've checked and I can't find any 100% money back guarantee or anything like it on 50cycles' website, although cached you'll notice they've removed their "No Quibble Guarantee" claim and replaced it with "First Class Service" (I've pasted cached and current screenprints). What did your money back guarantee say? If it was as you say, then I think you have two easy options available to you. One is to speak to your credit or debit card provider and ask for a chargeback: the service paid for (a money back guarantee) did not materialise. However you would probably need to be able to say convincingly that such a guarantee existed. It is more difficult if no records exist online any more, however, the card provider will ask 50cycles and they must not lie.

The other easy alternative (if you paid by credit card - not debit) is to explain to your card issuer, that the service paid for, of a money back guarantee for goods you chose to reject, was not provided, and as a result you have no choice but to make a s75 Consumer Credit Act request to the card issuer, that they provide the service you paid the seller for, i.e. they provide a refund.

You've other options. It is open to you to make a moneyclaim https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome against the seller, however, this is all contingent on there having been a money back guarantee. If it is not written down but someone promised it to you verbally (that that was what 'No Quibble Guarantee' meant) then that isn't a problem.

I've read the current terms on their website (it's possible the terms you agreed to are completely different) and all that is mentioned by way of no quibble guarantee is the "manufacturer warranty" (their words). Which I find quite strange, in that I don't see why a manufacturer warranty would involve quibbling ordinarily. So to promise a "No Quibble Guarantee" on top does seem to be promising something more, although I'm not sure what. If there was nothing saying it was a money back guarantee then you could argue it before a small claims court as a fourth alternative course of action, however, like I say if there was nothing said or written at any time about there being a money back guarantee then I think the judge would have to reluctantly refuse you a straight refund. However if anything was said about a money back guarantee, then you've a much easier case, although again the conditions under which that guarantee operates then become important.

There is a fifth possibility, that if you contacted 50cycles to reject the goods, within 14 calendar days starting the moment you received the goods, then I gather that amounts to a cancellation of the contract. Under the old Distance Selling Regulations, a buyer had the right to unpack and inspect the goods, much as they might in a store, and (I believe) use them just enough to see what the goods' properties are. I'm not sure if your 30 miles are a bit above that level. However if there is a money back guarantee, then depending on its terms, your 30 miles need not stop you invoking that guarantee.

The last point to note is that you can waive what rights you may have just by accepting 50cycles' refusal to honour them (if that's what they're doing), and by accepting the goods back, and then using them or keeping them for more than a little while. You might therefore decide it's prudent that until you have clarity about what your rights are exactly (which is not necessarily what a retailer says they are), that it would be best not to accept the bike back just yet. If that's what you decide, you must tell them that they mustn't send the bike back yet.

Good luck.

Thank you very much for your detailed and helpful replies. Thank you also for pointing out that 50 Cycles have now removed the guarantee from their web site. Fortunately, I have a screen shot which clearly shows the money back guarantee. The fact that they have altered it is , I feel, helpful to my case. I will certainly look at the moneyclaim option, although I would prefer to resolve the problem by negotiation if possible. As a result of this thread, 50 Cycles have been in contact, so I will let you know how I get on.

 

[Wander]

Fortunately, I have a screen shot which clearly shows the money back guarantee. The fact that they have altered it is , I feel, helpful to my case.

Looks like you are right!

Won't this however be subject to the terms that I've already posted on the first page of this thread?

 

[trex]

I've read their terms and conditions. There has always been a 28-day money back guarantee but it's not the same as a 'no quibble' money back guarantee.
Their 'no quibble guarantee' applies to their after sale support, like when you've got your battery replaced free of charge after it flew off your bike, even though it seems to me that it was possibly your fault for not installing the battery properly, that's to me is 'no quibble guarantee'.

 

[KMG440]

For the sake of balance it's probably fair also to post what has been posted against that youtube clip as it gives a response that 50 cycles have already made:-

Published on 14 May 2015
This bike cost over £2000 from 50Cycles, UK - so I didn't expect that the (£800) battery would fall out the first time I rode it, nor that it would have this horrendous creak. Solution? I was told to start stripping the bike down to tighten the cranks & the motor bolts (neither fixed it), then told to take it to a bike shop to get it repaired!
This German bike is generally of quality build, but on the basis of 50Cycles' snail-inspired after-sales service (the bike has been returned, but after daily phone calls, I'm still waiting for a refund) I would have to recommend DON'T BUY.

ALL COMMENTS (2)
Share your thoughts


Garry Wiseman 2 weeks ago
Quote from 50 Cycles web site: 'No quibble guarantee ..100% money back guarantee' 50 Cycles have repeatedly rejected our request for refund They have also threatened legal action over this honest review.
·



Scott Snaith 2 weeks ago
Dear Garry, Even though you did not lock the battery in place correctly we still replaced your battery free of charge. With regards to the creeks it was just a matter of bedding in the bike and adjusting the saddle. Again we picked up the bike free of charge which was not packaged correctly and resulted in the console getting damaged. We have replaced this free of charge and gave a full free service when both problem were actually caused by yourself. Again we want you to have the best experience possible and ensured that these minor inconveniences have been at no cost to yourself. We pride ourselves on the best service and find your comments most unfair. Kind regards Scott

Thank you very much for your detailed and helpful replies. Thank you also for pointing out that 50 Cycles have now removed the guarantee from their web site. Fortunately, I have a screen shot which clearly shows the money back guarantee. The fact that they have altered it is , I feel, helpful to my case. I will certainly look at the moneyclaim option, although I would prefer to resolve the problem by negotiation if possible. As a result of this thread, 50 Cycles have been in contact, so I will let you know how I get on.

I've read their terms and conditions. There has always been a 28-day money back guarantee but it's not the same as a 'no quibble' money back guarantee.
Their 'no quibble guarantee' applies to their after sale support, like when you've got your battery replaced free of charge after it flew off your bike, even though it seems to me that it was possibly your fault for not installing the battery properly, that's to me is 'no quibble guarantee'.

I

 

[KMG440]

The Advertising Standards have this to say regarding 50 Cycles web advert:

.."we have looked at the ad you provided and agree that this was misleading. Therefore we have contacted 50cycles and asked them for assurance that they will ensure that any future ads for money back guarantees will make all terms and limitations of the guarantee clear."
Emily Gent
Complaints Executive

 

[JohnCade]

Yes, that’s what I meant by not expecting to use something and then send it back and get a full refund. Woosh for instance offers a 28 day money back guarantee too. But if you read the small print it, like 50 Cycles says the bike has to be sent back in the same condition as it arrived, with the packaging intact. They would need to be able to sell it again as new, and if it’s been used it obviously isn’t new. So why should a company be expected to offer to send something for you to try on spec, and you only decide to keep or not after you’ve used it?

Perhaps you can tell us why you wanted to get a refund? The battery falling out was your mistake because it wasn’t in properly. Though they could make it clearer that it should be pushed in and clicked and double checked perhaps. The little noise could be anything from the handle bars, to the saddle, to the pedals, and should be easily fixed.

So is it that you just changed you mind after you rode it?

 

[KMG440]

I've read their terms and conditions. There has always been a 28-day money back guarantee but it's not the same as a 'no quibble' money back guarantee.
Their 'no quibble guarantee' applies to their after sale support, like when you've got your battery replaced free of charge after it flew off your bike, even though it seems to me that it was possibly your fault for not installing the battery properly, that's to me is 'no quibble guarantee'.

Regarding the battery (which is not the main issue here) - the bike arrived with the battery fitted. We charged it on the bike (which the shop told us was OK to do). The battery fitting is actually so stiff that I lack the physical strength needed to do secure it myself. This is one of several reasons why I felt it was not a suitable bike for me and requested a refund.

 

[JohnCade]

The Advertising Standards have this to say regarding 50 Cycles web advert:

.."we have looked at the ad you provided and agree that this was misleading. Therefore we have contacted 50cycles and asked them for assurance that they will ensure that any future ads for money back guarantees will make all terms and limitations of the guarantee clear."
Emily Gent
Complaints Executive

So is it the case that you bought it on the basis that you could try it and then send it back and get a refund if you didn’t like it? If so I can understand why 50 Cycles have changed the wording because IMO no reasonable person would expect to be able to do that.

 

[KMG440]

Yes, that’s what I meant by not expecting to use something and then send it back and get a full refund. Woosh for instance offers a 28 day money back guarantee too. But if you read the small print it, like 50 Cycles says the bike has to be sent back in the same condition as it arrived, with the packaging intact. They would need to be able to sell it again as new, and if it’s been used it obviously isn’t new. So why should a company be expected to offer to send something for you to try on spec, and you only decide to keep or not after you’ve used it?

Perhaps you can tell us why you wanted to get a refund? The battery falling out was your mistake because it wasn’t in properly. Though they could make it clearer that it should be pushed in and clicked and double checked perhaps. The little noise could be anything from the handle bars, to the saddle, to the pedals, and should be easily fixed.

So is it that you just changed you mind after you rode it?

With respect, I feel you are missing the main point here. The company did not honour their advertised promise, which I feel is pretty clear: 'No quibble 100% money back' There was no small print attached to this promise, no time limit, no mileage limit, just no quibble.

 

[JohnCade]

With respect, I feel you are missing the main point here. The company did not honour their advertised promise, which I feel is pretty clear: 'No quibble 100% money back' There was no small print attached to this promise, no time limit, no mileage limit, just no quibble.

With respect. If you took that to mean that you could have them send you a bike to try out for a couple of weeks, and then be able send it back because you decided you didn’t want it after all, then you were a little naive. That is unreasonable whatever it is that is bought. Goods can be returned unused under the law unless faulty.

If they didn’t make that clear on the site they should have, and that was their mistake which they seem to have rectified now. But you appear to be trying to take advantage of this former wording. Because you haven’t given any valid reason for wanting to claim a refund other than you just changed your mind.

 

[trex]

Regarding the battery (which is not the main issue here) - the bike arrived with the battery fitted. We charged it on the bike (which the shop told us was OK to do). The battery fitting is actually so stiff that I lack the physical strength needed to do secure it myself. This is one of several reasons why I felt it was not a suitable bike for me and requested a refund.

I agree that the battery is a second issue.
I have looked at the cached page where the 'no quibble guarantee' was:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.50cycles.com/bicycles/upgrades-and-extras.html

and even down one more level:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.50cycles.com/our-promise.html

It's clear: 'no quibble garrantee' and 'money back guarantee' yes, but not 'no quibble money back guarantee'

 

[oldtom]

With respect, I feel you are missing the main point here.

I'm pretty sure I understand your point but can you say if the bike is returned to you with an easily mountable/detachable new battery, new console and all creaks silenced that you would still feel the bike is not for you?

Lots of people buy at distance, some without even test-riding their bike of choice, but the sensible approach is to travel to those dealers with bikes available for test-rides before finally committing to purchase. In my case, I made the somewhat circuitous journey (from where I live) to 50Cycles at Hampton Wick simply to ensure that the bike I had in mind would actually both suit me and fit me.

If you are still dogmatic about pushing for a full refund from the dealer rather than accepting the returned bike even if it's perfect, I wish you every success.

Tom

 

[KMG440]

I'm pretty sure I understand your point but can you say if the bike is returned to you with an easily mountable/detachable new battery, new console and all creaks silenced that you would still feel the bike is not for you?

Lots of people buy at distance, some without even test-riding their bike of choice, but the sensible approach is to travel to those dealers with bikes available for test-rides before finally committing to purchase. In my case, I made the somewhat circuitous journey (from where I live) to 50Cycles at Hampton Wick simply to ensure that the bike I had in mind would actually both suit me and fit me.

If you are still dogmatic about pushing for a full refund from the dealer rather than accepting the returned bike even if it's perfect, I wish you every success.

Tom

I agree, it is best to test-ride a bike. I went to Loughborough to do just this. However, it is pretty flat around there, compared with the Shropshire Hills, where I live. The problems only showed up on a steep hill. Also, the bike which I purchased was not identical to the one tested, as there are (understandably) only a limited range available for test rides. 50 cycles are very good at selling bikes and quick to answer the phone to prospective customers , but, in my experience, less responsive when there are after-sales issues. I would advise others to be extremely cautious when dealing with this company.

 

[JohnCade]

I'm pretty sure I understand your point but can you say if the bike is returned to you with an easily mountable/detachable new battery, new console and all creaks silenced that you would still feel the bike is not for you?

Lots of people buy at distance, some without even test-riding their bike of choice, but the sensible approach is to travel to those dealers with bikes available for test-rides before finally committing to purchase. In my case, I made the somewhat circuitous journey (from where I live) to 50Cycles at Hampton Wick simply to ensure that the bike I had in mind would actually both suit me and fit me.

If you are still dogmatic about pushing for a full refund from the dealer rather than accepting the returned bike even if it's perfect, I wish you every success.

Tom

I think 50 Cycles posted on youtube that they replaced the battery which fell out without any quibble. Though they pointed out that it was clearly not put in properly. So after much probing I think we have identified the real reason she wants to back out of buying it. Which is that the bike isn’t as good on hills as she thought it would be. That’s fairly close to what I surmised from her first post.

The OP says she tried out a bike but not this one. So what model is it? I don’t think that’s been listed anywhere. Unless it’s a three speed shopper any Impulse should go up almost any hill with a bit of leg effort. I’m an old fart, and ride a heavy less powerful Impulse 1 Agutta carrying locks and stuff; and I bet the hills in Wales where I live are steeper than rolling Shropshire. I usually go up them pretty well.

 

[jonathan75]

I agree, it is best to test-ride a bike. I went to Loughborough to do just this. However, it is pretty flat around there, compared with the Shropshire Hills, where I live. The problems only showed up on a steep hill. Also, the bike which I purchased was not identical to the one tested, as there are (understandably) only a limited range available for test rides. 50 cycles are very good at selling bikes and quick to answer the phone to prospective customers , but less responsive when there are after-sales issues. I would advise others to be extremely cautious when dealing with this company.

KMG440 I've had a look at the screengrab you posted and I agree with your construal of the promise. It objectively appears to be a promise to whoever buys the bike, to increase their confidence that they'll be satisfied with product, and be willing to part with their money. You relied on it. The only uncertain part of it which I think it doesn't cover, is how long it is to last for - but there's I think good news about that.

Another commenter wrote that you didn't return it within the 28 day period and couldn't enjoy the guarantee. However, I think that there are a number of reasons why this shouldn't be a problem. You might think of better arguments.

1) The all-encompassing nature of the guarantee promise seems to me to suggest that it is a freestanding promise not requiring reference to other terms; and that such a promise would be normally construed as meaning it applies provided you return (or notify your intention to return) the bike within 'a reasonable time'. I think this term, properly construed, is capable of being relied on by the customer, and is incompatible with the smallprint terms, which are for this reason vulnerable to being struck out under the UTCCR 1999 s 5 as being 'unfair'.

2) alternatively, if this is incorrect, 'return' is more often than not shorthand in consumer contracts, for 'notify us you wish to return', and is usually cited as 'return' in a way which is incompatible with statutory cancellation rules, i.e. n normal retail practice it means 'notify'; and it is not clear who is responsible for the return (given its 'no quibble' nature); it is also not clear whether it means 'complete the return' (which would be absurd - post is often delayed) or 'begin the return'. It is then not clear at what point the return is begun, i.e. whether at the point you put it in the letterbox (the famous 19th century 'postal rule' for acceptance of contracts), or - in the modern day version, contact the retailer to let them know you'd like to return it.

So it seems to have an ambiguous meaning here which ought to be clarified and isn't. For this reason I think it should be construed in the way which is most favourable to you

3) It seems to me that the retailer attempting to ignore the above objections and any others, is indeed 'quibbling'.


As for not using the bike, it seems to me that a proper construal of the "100% no quibble money back guarantee" seems to me to be that you'd be satisfied on using it - not just on looking at it which isn't 100% it seems to me. The ASA agree with you. Again I think that the terms which restrict your '100%' to just looking at the bike, are unfair per s 5 UTCCR 1999, and could be struck out by a judge. Again you might think of better arguments.

Moneyclaim carries with it a financial risk (you have to invest upfront, and there's a chance you'll lose) whereas chargeback and s75 don't. The latter two may be wasted time because providers tend to look to the letter of the contract rather than the law, but because they don't cost, they may be worth trying anyway because it's someone else doing most of the admin

It's possible a judge would take a different view to mine - what I'm saying is argument only. They'll ask themselves what is fair and many differ from one another in their views - hence my suggestion that you first try the chargeback/s75 first (120 days time limit on chargeback).

I would ensure that you mention the ASA ruling, quite early on in any conversation, submission, or correspondence about this, as (provided you bought the bike before you noticed the problem with the terms) it supports the interpretation of there being a big and unfair problem with the terms in your case.

GL

 

[selrahc1992]

Thank you very much for your detailed and helpful replies. Thank you also for pointing out that 50 Cycles have now removed the guarantee from their web site. Fortunately, I have a screen shot which clearly shows the money back guarantee. The fact that they have altered it is , I feel, helpful to my case. I will certainly look at the moneyclaim option, although I would prefer to resolve the problem by negotiation if possible. As a result of this thread, 50 Cycles have been in contact, so I will let you know how I get on.

I hope you get the money back, for your sake and in principle. On another level (and apologies for a detour) you mentioned that youve had three chinese bikes and wanted something higher quality on which the batteries woudl last longer. That felt familiar to me - at the beginning i had very high expectations of an ebike (something that would be as indestructable as a brompton an dprovide easy fast commuting forever without significant maintenance on a trickle of electricity). I think different now - it's not really a cheap option (with battery cost i doubt whether its much cheaper than a moped to run). BUT, if i were you and planned a fresh start after this I'd go for a (preferably good) chinese kit - at least when things go wrong a replacement battery will be generic (and wont cost £799) and having built it yourself you wouldnt have to get entangled with a company and could fix it yourself.

 

[JohnCade]

KMG440 I've had a look at the screengrab you posted and I agree with your construal of the promise. It objectively appears to be a promise to whoever buys the bike, to increase their confidence that they'll be satisfied with product, and be willing to part with their money. You relied on it. The only uncertain part of it which I think it doesn't cover, is how long it is to last for - but there's I think good news about that.

Another commenter wrote that you didn't return it within the 28 day period and couldn't enjoy the guarantee. However, I think that there are a number of reasons why this shouldn't be a problem. You might think of better arguments.

1) The all-encompassing nature of the guarantee promise seems to me to suggest that it is a freestanding promise not requiring reference to other terms; and that such a promise would be normally construed as meaning it applies provided you return (or notify your intention to return) the bike within 'a reasonable time'. I think this term, properly construed, is capable of being relied on by the customer, and is incompatible with the smallprint terms, which are for this reason vulnerable to being struck out under the UTCCR 1999 s 5 as being 'unfair'.

2) alternatively, if this is incorrect, 'return' is more often than not shorthand in consumer contracts, for 'notify us you wish to return', and is usually cited as 'return' in a way which is incompatible with statutory cancellation rules, i.e. n normal retail practice it means 'notify'; and it is not clear who is responsible for the return (given its 'no quibble' nature); it is also not clear whether it means 'complete the return' (which would be absurd - post is often delayed) or 'begin the return'. It is then not clear at what point the return is begun, i.e. whether at the point you put it in the letterbox (the famous 19th century 'postal rule' for acceptance of contracts), or - in the modern day version, contact the retailer to let them know you'd like to return it.

So it seems to have an ambiguous meaning here which ought to be clarified and isn't. For this reason I think it should be construed in the way which is most favourable to you

3) It seems to me that the retailer attempting to ignore the above objections and any others, is indeed 'quibbling'.


As for not using the bike, it seems to me that a proper construal of the "100% no quibble money back guarantee" seems to me to be that you'd be satisfied on using it - not just on looking at it which isn't 100% it seems to me. The ASA agree with you. Again I think that the terms which restrict your '100%' to just looking at the bike, are unfair per s 5 UTCCR 1999, and could be struck out by a judge. Again you might think of better arguments.

Moneyclaim carries with it a financial risk (you have to invest upfront, and there's a chance you'll lose) whereas chargeback and s75 don't. The latter two may be wasted time because providers tend to look to the letter of the contract rather than the law, but because they don't cost, they may be worth trying anyway because it's someone else doing most of the admin

It's possible a judge would take a different view to mine - what I'm saying is argument only. They'll ask themselves what is fair and many differ from one another in their views - hence my suggestion that you first try the chargeback/s75 first (120 days time limit on chargeback).

I would ensure that you mention the ASA ruling, quite early on in any conversation, submission, or correspondence about this, as (provided you bought the bike before you noticed the problem with the terms) it supports the interpretation of there being a big and unfair problem with the terms in your case.

GL

I can’t see anything there offering a money back guarantee.

As has been said above it’s just a no quibble guarantee, and they didn’t quibble when they sent her a new £800 battery when it fell out onto the road. Can you point me to where it offers an unconditional money back guarantee? Wander found something, but that was the standard, in original packaging within 28 days etc. None of that applies here. The ASA might think the small facsimile stamp’s wording of 100% money back guarantee was ambiguous, and it is since it’s not qualified. But in the real world I don’t think she has a hope in Hell of getting anywhere in court with this.

 

[KMG440]

KMG440 I've had a look at the screengrab you posted and I agree with your construal of the promise. It objectively appears to be a promise to whoever buys the bike, to increase their confidence that they'll be satisfied with product, and be willing to part with their money. You relied on it. The only uncertain part of it which I think it doesn't cover, is how long it is to last for - but there's I think good news about that.

Another commenter wrote that you didn't return it within the 28 day period and couldn't enjoy the guarantee. However, I think that there are a number of reasons why this shouldn't be a problem. You might think of better arguments.

1) The all-encompassing nature of the guarantee promise seems to me to suggest that it is a freestanding promise not requiring reference to other terms; and that such a promise would be normally construed as meaning it applies provided you return (or notify your intention to return) the bike within 'a reasonable time'. I think this term, properly construed, is capable of being relied on by the customer, and is incompatible with the smallprint terms, which are for this reason vulnerable to being struck out under the UTCCR 1999 s 5 as being 'unfair'.

2) alternatively, if this is incorrect, 'return' is more often than not shorthand in consumer contracts, for 'notify us you wish to return', and is usually cited as 'return' in a way which is incompatible with statutory cancellation rules, i.e. n normal retail practice it means 'notify'; and it is not clear who is responsible for the return (given its 'no quibble' nature); it is also not clear whether it means 'complete the return' (which would be absurd - post is often delayed) or 'begin the return'. It is then not clear at what point the return is begun, i.e. whether at the point you put it in the letterbox (the famous 19th century 'postal rule' for acceptance of contracts), or - in the modern day version, contact the retailer to let them know you'd like to return it.

So it seems to have an ambiguous meaning here which ought to be clarified and isn't. For this reason I think it should be construed in the way which is most favourable to you

3) It seems to me that the retailer attempting to ignore the above objections and any others, is indeed 'quibbling'.


As for not using the bike, it seems to me that a proper construal of the "100% no quibble money back guarantee" seems to me to be that you'd be satisfied on using it - not just on looking at it which isn't 100% it seems to me. The ASA agree with you. Again I think that the terms which restrict your '100%' to just looking at the bike, are unfair per s 5 UTCCR 1999, and could be struck out by a judge. Again you might think of better arguments.

Moneyclaim carries with it a financial risk (you have to invest upfront, and there's a chance you'll lose) whereas chargeback and s75 don't. The latter two may be wasted time because providers tend to look to the letter of the contract rather than the law, but because they don't cost, they may be worth trying anyway because it's someone else doing most of the admin

It's possible a judge would take a different view to mine - what I'm saying is argument only. They'll ask themselves what is fair and many differ from one another in their views - hence my suggestion that you first try the chargeback/s75 first (120 days time limit on chargeback).

I would ensure that you mention the ASA ruling, quite early on in any conversation, submission, or correspondence about this, as (provided you bought the bike before you noticed the problem with the terms) it supports the interpretation of there being a big and unfair problem with the terms in your case.

GL

Thank you, I feel encouraged by you analysis! The directors of 50 Cycles are aware of the ASA ruling, but have not replied to my most recent messages via this forum. I am still hopeful of an amicable solution as it will be best for all parties, and the e bike market in general.