Bought a bike that's broken. They won't issue refund

that’s Halfords own made up rule that has no bearing in reality, but that most of the employees will believe. Irish consumer low trumps Halfords. What did you pay for the bike? If it’s within the small claims limit, that procedure might be the quickest way to a resolution.

Yes can't be over 2000 afaik.

’as the 30 days are up’ would suggest the Halfords staff are parroting Halfords bull5hit

I disagree. It's ok for Halfords to have a 30 day refund/returns policy. They only have to provide repair, replacement, refund or reduction. Not your choice of remedy.

They are offering repair & then replacement. Had it been within 30 days, their refund policy may have kicked in. This is not in conflict with your statutory rights.

What are they doing wrong in this case? I am confused.

Whether you agree or not doesn’t alter the facts of consumer protection legislation here. The consumer has the choice of repair or replacement. See the useful link posted above. Businesses such as Halfords will often have their own ‘policy’ that their staff will generally believe, being as misinformed as the average punter. What these policies amount to though, is an agreement not to push back against their responsibilities as vendors within an arbitrary time limit that they set themselves. It’s a dishonest practice and should be stamped on at every opportunity.

I had a row with DID a few years ago and all I got from the staff was "we don't do this and we can't do the other". I had a store manager ring me and try to intimidate me. I had another person phone me and offer me a discount on a future purchase (he wouldn't say how much!) and so on. He e-mailled me numerous times. In the end they were ordered to pay up by the Small Claims Court. I was glad to see they lost money in the years after that. I am also happy that I contributed to that loss.

I think the leaflet from the CPCC is a bit oversimplified. Under the legislation the customer can choose between the remedies of repair and replacement unless:

• One of these remedies is impossible — e.g. if the bike is damaged beyond repair, you can't insist on a repair; if the bike is no longer available in the market, you can't insist on a replacement.
• One of the remedies imposes costs that are disproportionate in the circumstances — e.g. if a repair would be quick, cheap and effective, you can't insist on a whole new bike; if a repair would cost the trader as much or more than giving the customer a new bike as a replacement, you can't insist on a repair.

For completeness, though I think it's not relevant here, if both of the remedies are impossible, or impose disproportionate costs, then the customer isn't entitled to either of them. In that circumstances the customer's only options are

• a price reduction, proportionate to the diminished value of the bike; or
• (so long as the defect is not minor) terminate the contract of sale, in which case you get all your money back but you have to give back the bike.

If both of these remedies are available (i.e. if the defect is not minor) then the customer has the choice of which is to apply.

Yes I did. Nowhere does it state they have tried to fix it 4 times. It states that it didn't work 4 times, possibly the same issue?

"In my latest visit to have the bike fixed", doesn't mean the previous visits were to get the bike fixed.

You are over egging the pudding a little.

We don’t know the full details, but the OP tells us they returned to the shop after several months of use and reported a fault with the bicycle. A fault which they indicated presented 4 times during their use. It is a reasonable remedy for the shop to repair the fault (assuming it is a genuine defect, and there isn’t a use case which is the root cause).

By your logic, if I bought a car in January, drove around the country until September and it broke down, I could lift the phone to dealer and demand my money back. It doesn’t work like that. The vendor is afforded an opportunity to resolve the issue by means of a repair.

"They said that if the higher maintenance guys can't find a solution it will be a bike replacement "

According to the first post, they have offered a repair and a replacement if that is unsuccessful. At this point it is not clear why there is a thread. As for the 30 days, Halfords may offer a customer superior rights to their legal ones for 30 days, there is nothing dishonest about this, in fact it is reflects well on them.

Are you sure that it is still the case that the retailer decides which of the "3R's" applies? I thought this changed in the latest CCPC policy & it is the buyer that now decides whether they want a repair or replacement.

So the decision on repair or replacement rests with the buyer & not the retailer!

But Halfords have already said they will replace.