Broken frame Halfords

CramCycle

So my brother in law bought a bike from Halfords just over two years ago. He has used it for commuting and nothing else and even thn, not regularly as he often runs into town from his home place. He sent me this pic the other day and asked WTF:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bw2ko0Bkj1gzUHlEZTA4TEN6ZVdHdkRXMmFMb2x2Yi0ycGtv

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bw2ko0Bkj1gzVEkzZVBNREpMa2FxLUhmWXRFOFFGeFUxNkZr

I told him to bring it in, it looks like a weak point at the weld, given that your not even close to the 3rd birthday it should be replaceable as it is well within the expected lifetime of an alu frame and you have not had any accidents.
He brought it in, they said grand, those frames actually have a 3 year warranty, and they took it off him, saying it just had to be sent off and a replacement was forthcoming. The next day he receives a call saying it is actually only a 2 year warranty on the frame. He points out that he had asked more knowledgeable people and had been informed that given the level of use and storage conditions there should be a good few years left in its expected lifecycle (my knowledge says 5 years of hard riding for an alu frame but not sure where that came from). They went away and came back and said fair enough but the reason for the break was that he set his saddle post to high (I can see it going down past the break so that does not make sense to me although I could be wrong). He politely reminded them that they set the saddle post height when he bought it and that he had twice since dropped it in for a service there, so any changes were done by their shop team (I have seen his bike, unless it was an incredibly short post, it was not set to high). They have now come aback and said tough sh1t, it is your fault. Where do you go next? My understanding is if it is within the expected lifetime of a product and it has not been misused (it was serviced twice by Halfords themselves), then he has some standing for a replacement, is it a case of small claims or going via their head office.

magicbastarder

i don't think i've ever seen a frame break there before!

how much of the above - if any - does he have in writing?
i think small claims court would generally expect you to have exhausted reasonable avenues of redress, so i'd go to their head office first.

kona

That seat post clamp doesn't look in the correct position. It's riding up too high.
If Halfords fitted it that way then it's their problem. A frame shouldn't break like that anyways. As said get onto the head office.

Alek

I've seen this kind of damage before. How deep was the seatpost inserted?




If it was set up at the minimum insertion point indicated on it, it may have been too high for this particular frame design. The end of the seatpost should be always at least 1cm under the top tube / seat tube weld.

magicbastarder

if your brother was sold the bike on the understanding there was a three year warranty, and they're now saying it's only two years, that's being sold the bike under false pretences.
and the fact that the staff thought there was a three year warranty probably means they've been continuing to sell bikes and telling customers there's a three year warranty.
the smoking gun working in your brother's favour though is them claiming the damage was self inflicted, but as it turns out the fault was with halford's themselves.

in that sense, if they refuse to play ball, in his position, he could possibly threaten to sue them for the value of the frame; but IANAL.

Hungrycol

That's bizzar. It would be terrible if Halfords had to do a product recall given the dangerious nature of the frame failing under normal workloads. It could be perceived as a frame weakness and all owners need to be contacted and informed to drop their bikes in for inspection of the framt (& seat height) or bike replacement.

It may be just easier for Halford to give you/him a new frame and send him on his way!

I don't expect your BIL to be a larger than normal gentleman by any chance?

Bloggsie

magicbastarder wrote: »

if your brother was sold the bike on the understanding there was a three year warranty, and they're now saying it's only two years, that's being sold the bike under false pretences.
and the fact that the staff thought there was a three year warranty probably means they've been continuing to sell bikes and telling customers there's a three year warranty.
the smoking gun working in your brother's favour though is them claiming the damage was self inflicted, but as it turns out the fault was with halford's themselves.

in that sense, if they refuse to play ball, in his position, he could possibly threaten to sue them for the value of the frame; but IANAL.

for the purposes of finding out how long the warranty is, go into a halfords store and let on to be interested in buying a comparable alu frame bike, ask some questions and include a one about the warranty, then, "i'll have to think about it etc, etc, I'll get back to you" and leave.

Alek

If my theory is correct that the original seatpost wasn't used past its minimum insertion point and yet caused the frame to fail (in other words, the minimum insertion point was inadequate to the frame design), this should trigger a general product recall from Halfords regardless of the warranty status...

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

how much of the above - if any - does he have in writing?

I told him to try and get it in writing

i think small claims court would generally expect you to have exhausted reasonable avenues of redress, so i'd go to their head office first.

He has reported it to their head office today, i will report back with what they say.

Alek wrote: »

I've seen this kind of damage before. How deep was the seatpost inserted?

The clamp was still stuck firm so the seatpost would appear to have been further down than the minimum. Regardless of this, he had it set up for him by Halfords and checked over on two occasions since.

magicbastarder wrote: »

if your brother was sold the bike on the understanding there was a three year warranty, and they're now saying it's only two years, that's being sold the bike under false pretences.
and the fact that the staff thought there was a three year warranty probably means they've been continuing to sell bikes and telling customers there's a three year warranty.
the smoking gun working in your brother's favour though is them claiming the damage was self inflicted, but as it turns out the fault was with halford's themselves..

I am not sure if he knew of the 3 year warranty. I think he went in there on the basis of reasonable lifetime of an alu frame. Which to me is at least 5 years of hard riding bar mistreatment or crashing.

Hungrycol wrote: »

That's bizzar. It would be terrible if Halfords had to do a product recall given the dangerious nature of the frame failing under normal workloads. It could be perceived as a frame weakness and all owners need to be contacted and informed to drop their bikes in for inspection of the framt (& seat height) or bike replacement.

It may be just easier for Halford to give you/him a new frame and send him on his way!

I don't expect your BIL to be a larger than normal gentleman by any chance?

Not really, he is bigger than me but not by much, certainly not large by commuter sizes and reasonably fit (what with running into to for work some mornings (at least 9km) at a good pace. Kilo for kilo we are probably within a few of each other.

Type 17

Warranties are offered in addition to your statutory consumer rights, not instead of them, so never be put off by a retailer telling you that the warranty has expired (unless the item is beyond its expected reasonable lifespan, or has been accidentally damaged, or neglected/abused).

Under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980, goods must be:

Of merchantable quality
Fit for the purpose intended
As Described

The seat post wasn't too high, the bike wasn't crashed, and three years is well within the lifespan of a bicycle frame (many other manufacturers have a 10-year warranty on their frames). If you quote the above act, you should get a better result.

PS: If they say that the seat post shouldn't be stuck, tell them that they should have greased it when the bike was being assembled.

Hungrycol

Im now thinking that somehow the seat clamp weakened that part of the frame. If it was stuck that tightly it could be overtightened. Then again the seatpost inside should take a lot of the tightened force unless the seatpost diameter was too small for the downtube.

Hope your BIL has success with their HO.

doozerie

I'm going to speculate wildly here and question whether the welding of the joint was done badly and weakened the seat tube in the process. From what I understand, welding aluminium is challenging to do correctly, I have a very vague memory of reading that it's hard to get the heat sufficient to achieve the weld without damaging the material. It really is a vague memory though so I may be talking rubbish.

I'd certainly take the view that Halfords should replace or refund it, given that the nature of the break would leave questions in my head about the quality of the rame I'd be more inclined to push for a refund rather than a straight replacement with the same bike/frame.

CramCycle

Alek wrote: »

If it was set up at the minimum insertion point indicated on it, it may have been too high for this particular frame design. The end of the seatpost should be always at least 1cm under the top tube / seat tube weld.

Definetly below that point, which is why the break seems so weird

Hungrycol wrote: »

Im now thinking that somehow the seat clamp weakened that part of the frame. If it was stuck that tightly it could be overtightened. Then again the seatpost inside should take a lot of the tightened force unless the seatpost diameter was too small for the downtube.

The mechanics in Halfords set it up for him so I presume that is something they should have picked up on?

doozerie wrote: »

I'm going to speculate wildly here and question whether the welding of the joint was done badly and weakened the seat tube in the process. From what I understand, welding aluminium is challenging to do correctly, I have a very vague memory of reading that it's hard to get the heat sufficient to achieve the weld without damaging the material. It really is a vague memory though so I may be talking rubbish.

I am sure Halfords would not want to hear that for a batch of the bikes.

saccades

Odd, 2 years is a standard warranty length as that's plenty of time for a manufacturing defect to raise it's head.

May well be a defect but it probably should have been spotted before it sheared off.

I'd push it for a replacement or some discount on a replacement but outside the warranty you are relying on the vendor/manufacturers goodwill unless you can prove it was faulty. (The onus shifts from seller to buyer) Something that is normally not worth it on a cheap bike.

CramCycle

saccades wrote: »

Odd, 2 years is a standard warranty length as that's plenty of time for a manufacturing defect to raise it's head.

Not the same but I had an LG TV die on me after 3 years. I found the issue and priced fixing it, which was not terrible but 50:50 on whether it would work. Came across a few places online that mentioned the same fault. Rang up the registered repair crowd. They collected it from my house for a 50euro deposit (that they never took) and said they would price the repair but if it was a listed issue they would repair free of charge regardless of age. Got TV back in working order a week later. 2 years is only reasonable if you use something a lot or stress it when you do.
In this case, 30km a week, with two services by Halfords own mechanics, clearly wasn't.

May well be a defect but it probably should have been spotted before it sheared off.

Not sure how? Considering the light riding he does, only noticed when he felt a movement wheeling it out the door.

I'd push it for a replacement or some discount on a replacement but outside the warranty you are relying on the vendor/manufacturers goodwill unless you can prove it was faulty. (The onus shifts from seller to buyer) Something that is normally not worth it on a cheap bike.

Not sure who it moves too but it would not be hard to show within reason it was unlikely to be the buyer. Light use but still serviced once a year. It is a cheap bike by the standards of many on here but too many non enthusiasts it was reasonably pricey.

I ride my bikes into the ground and I know my LBS would still treat me well if I wandered in after 2 years with a similar fault. My BIL actually does very little with his bike and even looks after it. I hope for Halfords sake it was just a backwards thinking manager rather than general management. You could argue about whose frame costs more but I know who actually deserves to be looked after and it is not me.

Lusk_Doyle

saccades wrote: »

Odd, 2 years is a standard warranty length as that's plenty of time for a manufacturing defect to raise it's head.

May well be a defect but it probably should have been spotted before it sheared off.

I'd push it for a replacement or some discount on a replacement but outside the warranty you are relying on the vendor/manufacturers goodwill unless you can prove it was faulty. (The onus shifts from seller to buyer) Something that is normally not worth it on a cheap bike.

Surely a frame failure of such type can only be as a result of a defect?

magicbastarder

regardless of whether or not the waranty was two years, there's no reasonable argument to be made that the expected reasonable lifetime of a bicycle frame is only two years, except in relatively unusual cases like bikes used for downhilling maybe.

as mentioned by Type 17 above, the law trumps the warranty.

magicbastarder

any progress?

CramCycle

In fact there has been, so eventually he went down the small claims court route. He rang them up, got their legal name in Ireland, submitted the paperwork and furnished them with the documentation. He noted they were very helpful in giving him any info he needed for it.
Got a letter on Friday, from their legal team to say they would not be contesting his story and that they would reimburse him for the full cost of the bike.
He is pissed that there was so much running around. He probably would have settled on day one for a frame replacement, a similar bike or even just a reduced price on a new bike.
Either way, all their messing about cost them more money than it needed too. I really hope the manager gets a word in the ear about customer service and cop on.

Roger Hassenforder

CramCycle wrote: »

In fact there has been, so eventually he went down the small claims court route. He rang them up, got their legal name in Ireland, submitted the paperwork and furnished them with the documentation. He noted they were very helpful in giving him any info he needed for it.
Got a letter on Friday, from their legal team to say they would not be contesting his story and that they would reimburse him for the full cost of the bike.
He is pissed that there was so much running around. He probably would have settled on day one for a frame replacement, a similar bike or even just a reduced price on a new bike.
Either way, all their messing about cost them more money than it needed too. I really hope the manager gets a word in the ear about customer service and cop on.

Is he not looking for his costs?

kirving

Only came across this thread now, and I wasn't one bit surprised to read it. Have a look at this post of mine from a couple of years ago.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=80321630

I will say however, that I had the refund immediately, and the manager was very understanding and committed to notifying the company of the safety issue.

ted1

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Is he not looking for his costs?

It's only about 20 euro to submit a claim

CramCycle

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Is he not looking for his costs?

I never asked, he may have and he never said but all I know as a minimum he got the full price of the bike ie the cash he handed over.

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I will say however, that I had the refund immediately, and the manager was very understanding and committed to notifying the company of the safety issue.

And I think that is the big difference, any manager worth their salt (and the mechanics had accepted on the first day that it would be covered) would have just said sorry about that, never seen it before, and offered a, b or c. I imagine the cost to halfords in regards staff time, legal letter and all the rest, was probably more than the bike was worth, so they lost out twice, all because of a poor manager.

Kaisr Sose

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Is he not looking for his costs?

You don't get costs in the small claims court process. Just your loss or % awarded.

Good result but a pity it had to go to that.

Roger Hassenforder

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

You don't get costs in the small claims court process. Just your loss or % awarded.

Good result but a pity it had to go to that.

Got the impression it was settled out of court?

magicbastarder

are judgements in the small claims court made public, and - if so - can they be used as precedence in other claims?

josip

In my experience buying bikes from 3 different Halfords branches, there can be a big difference in the attitude to customers between the various branches.

The larger, busier branches also seem to have a higher turnover of staff with the result that they are less experienced than smaller, quieter branches where the staff are there longer.

Kaisr Sose

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Got the impression it was settled out of court?

The process allows for the respondent to accept liability in full (ie. enter no defence) before a court hearing before a judge (which seems to be the case). While it appears to be out of court, it's within the defined settlement process.
There is no "out of court" in the Small Claims process unless the claimant withdraws the claim (which is not the case here)