50 cycles - misleading advertising

[trex]

shemozzle999, you can google ' 50 cycles no quibble guarantee', the most recent cached version dated 03-June, not so long ago, and google '50 cycles money back guarantee'. The point is, there has not been a 'no quibble money back guarantee' in the cached version.

 

[RobF]

The ASA is not a court of law. A small claims court judge works mainly on the principle of reasonableness when he makes a judgement. I don’t believe she is being reasonable, and I very much doubt a small claims court would think she was either.

The county court judge is not an expert on ebikes, he's not meant to be.

He will be faced by a consumer who has bought an expensive item from a company whose advertising has been found to be misleading.

The ASA is the accepted authority on these things, they have said the advert was misleading, so for court purposes, it was.

The county courts are more sympathetic to the consumer than they used to be.

Given the misleading advertisement, I can only see this going one way.

The 'natural' justice of the case may lie elsewhere, as some on here are suggesting,

But the lesson of the story is really for 50 Cycles - don't publish advertisements which are misleading.

 

[Wander]

Rob

We obviously only have KMGs version of this & we don't know how far the ASA delved to establish the terms & conditions of the offer.

50 cycles' t's & c's for this offer say
Thank you for shopping with 50cycles Ltd. If you are not satisfied with your order, please return your goods within 28 days of the purchase date for a full refund. Any item can be returned to us provided it is returned unused with its original packaging and a valid receipt. We are unable to offer any refund without a valid receipt (a copy of the confirmation email for your order will be accepted)

KMG hasn't confirmed whether (s)he complied with these. There is a strong steer that (s)he didn't.

Also a quick email from the ASA isn't a ruling that a court would rely on. They publish rulings here:-
https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications.aspx
At best what has happened here is likely to be an Informally Resolved Case.

 

[RobF]

Rob

We obviously only have KMGs version of this & we don't know how far the ASA delved to establish the terms & conditions of the offer.

50 cycles' t's & c's for this offer say
Thank you for shopping with 50cycles Ltd. If you are not satisfied with your order, please return your goods within 28 days of the purchase date for a full refund. Any item can be returned to us provided it is returned unused with its original packaging and a valid receipt. We are unable to offer any refund without a valid receipt (a copy of the confirmation email for your order will be accepted)

KMG hasn't confirmed whether (s)he complied with these. There is a strong steer that (s)he didn't.

Also a quick email from the ASA isn't a ruling that a court would rely on. They publish rulings here:-
https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications.aspx
At best what has happened here is likely to be an Informally Resolved Case.

The ad had been officially branded as misleading, the OP's email from the ASA is good enough to establish that.

50 Cycles has taken the ad down.

For some reason, some of you on here appear desperate to support 50 Cycles.

I couldn't care less about them, just as I couldn't care less about the OP.

From that neutral standpoint, I believe the OP will win a county court case.

As I mentioned earlier, contacting the ASA may have been a shrewd move by OP.

It may be the OP, on a broader view, could be seen as fortunate to receive a full refund.

But that is what I believe will happen.

50 Cycles would me mad to put this before a court, the OP has simply paid them money, they have published a misleading advertisement.

I agree that probably looks worse than it actually is, but the court is all about tactics, the misleading ad would be dragged up at every turn.

Hence settling with the OP is the only sensible option.

 

[shemozzle999]

I assume 50 cycles were taking advantage of this sales marketing technique they chose to try out the idea of improving sales but with that decision comes the flip side of having to honour it.

All the OP is guilty of is buying the bike under these terms.

 

[Wander]

Personally I think that the OP's reluctance to provide direct responses to the questions many have raised speaks volumes.

Also it didn't take much Googling to establish that (s)he is VERY likely to know exactly what his/her rights are under consumer law & knows exactly where to turn to for advice.

But instead (s)he runs off to the ASA & signs up onto an internet forum in an attempt to drum up bad publicity ...............................

Sorry KMG I just don't buy all your 'poor me I've been misled' story. I didn't buy it before & even less now I am aware of your experience.

As I've posted on here before:-
But, in true 'points of view' language YOYOYOY are we even considering & quoting the law here? I once attended a testimonial dinner for a solicitor celebrating, I think it was, 50 or 60 years in practice. A very eloquent speaker made a speech which included the words that not only did said solicitor 'do things right' he also 'did the right thing'.

Sometimes we need to all step back & not start quoting the law, but actually, in the words of that speaker, 'do the right thing'.

 

[shemozzle999]

The only question to be asked - was the money provided, in what ever form, by the OP accepted by 50 cycles for the purchase of the bike.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

The only question to be asked - was the money provided, in what ever form, by the OP accepted by 50 cycles for the purchase of the bike.

I think I heard that 50cycles let OP have the bike without having to pay, like they normally do.

 

[JohnCade]

The only question to be asked - was the money provided, in what ever form, by the OP accepted by 50 cycles for the purchase of the bike.

That might be the only question you would ask, but to me it would seem to be irrelevant. The point is did the company ever offer an unconditional guarantee that they would give purchasers their money back for whatever reason, and without quibble? But in their terms and conditions they make clear that they don’t offer that.

So to put so much weight on a meaningless phrase like 100% Money Back Guarantee in a tiny roundel on the page is to clutch at straws. You might just was well demand your money back from a supermarket because you thought the fruit you bought was organic, when the wording on the packaging was Farm Fresh. That’s just another advertising phrase which means nothing at all. Just like 100% Money Back Guarantee.

What the company actually offered was a 100% money back guarantee if the goods were returned in the condition they were sent in, and in the original packaging. Which it states in the terms and conditions. Yes, the phrase was misleading, and the ASA was right to tell them to stop using it. But that doesn’t mean the buyer can rely on it without reading the stated T&Cs.

But again we don’t know why she wants her money back do we? Because she won’t tell us, and she is instead relying on what she sees as a loophole. Relying on a phrase which we all know was not meant as an unconditional guarantee that she could try the bike out for two weeks, and then send it back used, and demand a refund. If the bike was faulty she would have a point. But the faults she widely advertised here and on Youtube were minor niggles. Not major issues that would cause her to want to return the bike as unfit for purpose.

Any dealer who actually did offer the sort of completely unconditional money back guarantee which the OP claims she relied on in buying this bike would find himself being taken advantage of by unscrupulous buyers, and would probably go out of business right quick.

 

[shemozzle999]

Totally relevant question, if the OP has paid monies for the goods and they have been accepted then the buyer has completed their side of the contract.

It is now down to 50 cycles to honour their side.

 

[JohnCade]

Totally relevant question, if the OP has paid monies for the goods and they have been accepted then the buyer has completed their side of the contract.

It is now down to 50 cycles to honour their side.

It is the nature of the contract which the OP claims exists which is in dispute.

I’m sure the dealer would send her back the goods she contracted to buy tomorrow. But she doesn’t want the bike back.

 

[shemozzle999]

From a previous inquiry I made recently:


Thank you for your email to the Citizens Advice consumer service dated xx/4/2015. Your reference number for this case is AW- xxxxxxxx. It would be helpful if you could quote this reference number in any future contact with our service, so we can record all the information and advice offered.

We understand from your email that you would like to clarify law on selling electrically assisted pedal cycles.

Your rights and obligations:

On 01/10/2014 amendments were made to the Consumer Protection Regulations. These regulations now state that if a consumer is subject to misleading practice by a trader they could have the right to ‘unwind’ the contract, or payment for a refund. To unwind a contract or payment the consumer would need to make the trader they paid aware of any misleading practice within 90 days which starts from the date when any service had begun.

After the 90 days or if the consumer would prefer to keep the goods, the consumer could claim a discount which would reflect the severity of any misleading action. The discount amounts which are made available under these regulations are broken down into four categories. These are as follows:

A more than minor misleading action: this could result in a 25% discount

A significant misleading action: this could result in a 50% discount

A serious misleading action: this could result in a 75% discount

A very serious misleading action: this could result in a 100% discount

You can read more about the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014 by clicking here


Criminal Offence:

Selling unsafe goods could be considered a criminal offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008; therefore the information you have provided would usually be passed to Trading Standards for further consideration. The case details will also be placed on a central data base that can be accessed by all the other Trading Standards throughout the UK.

In general, Trading Standards will only contact you or this service if they need further information, or they feel they could be of further assistance.

If you require any further advice or information about this case, please do not hesitate to contact the Citizens Advice consumer service by return email or on 03454 04 05 06 quoting the case reference number.

Thank you for your email.

xxxxxx

Citizens Advice consumer service

 

[trex]

shemozzle999, which category of unfair trading or agressive tactics that you think the wording 'no quibble guarantee' apply to? I searched the CAB's database for 'no quibble' - no case found.

 

[shemozzle999]

I suggest you direct that question to the contact telephone number given in my post above if you really need to know the answer.

 

[trex]

I will call them on Monday, and post the result here. They are not answering at weekend.
I must say I am slowly swayed by your logical argument but I thought this thread is about whether members think that the original wording 'no quibble guarantee' should be interpreted as inclusive of 'no quibble money back guarantee'. If it does, then I accept that the OP is correct.

 

[shemozzle999]

I have no interest one way or other just trying to piece together the facts and present them.

 

[JohnCade]

I don’t think what you’ve posted there is relevant to this at all.

I doubt we will ever know all the facts because the OP will not tell us why she rejected the bike, and 50 Cycles has not posted its side here.

They did post this against her youtube vid which Wander posted here a few days ago. They didn’t quibble when they replaced the £800 battery....

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

 

[oldtom]

But again we don’t know why she wants her money back do we? Because she won’t tell us, and she is instead relying on what she sees as a loophole. Relying on a phrase which we all know was not meant as an unconditional guarantee that she could try the bike out for two weeks, and then send it back used, and demand a refund. If the bike was faulty she would have a point. But the faults she widely advertised here and on Youtube were minor niggles. Not major issues that would cause her to want to return the bike as unfit for purpose.

John, the longer this thread lumbers on, the OP's limited content dissected daily by the forum's legal eagles, the more I am reminded of something written by a chap called Bill, a minor theatrical type back in the 1600s: 'The lady doth protest too much, methinks!'

Tom

 

[JohnCade]

John, the longer this thread lumbers on, the OP's limited content dissected daily by the forum's legal eagles, the more I am reminded of something written by a chap called Bill, a minor theatrical type back in the 1600s: 'The lady doth protest too much, methinks!'

Tom

Yes, I think 50 Cycles is more sinned against than sinning. In this case at least.

I suspect her strategy will work too, if it hasn’t already. Better to lose a little money than have this sort of publicity. Some prospective buyers on this site have said they are put off by it and others will be too.

 

[EddiePJ]

What I don't understand is why the forum moderators/admin haven't moved the thread to somewhere else. It shouldn't be in "Site announcements, feedback and support" It's pretty much the thread that hits you in the face when looking at the forum menu, and it shouldn't be.