I have a 2010 Aprilia Dorsoduro which is still under warranty. I bought the bike to commute to work on but it has now broken down on 6 separate occasions throughout the time I've own it. It has spent more than 3 months off the road at dealers who so far have been unable to find a lasting and permenant fix. The bike has stopped without warning in dangerous positions on busy roads and unfortunately I have now lost all faith in it. Currently it is at a dealers having a new loom fitted. I want to ask what my rights are in these circumstances as I feel the bike is simply not fit for purpose and positively dangerous. It's got beyond the point where I would simply accept the bike back and go on my way as I've endured too much inconvenience and expense. I've had to recover the bike on each occasion and find alternative transport at my own cost. I've never been offered a loan bike for the time it has been off the road. In my view they have had enough chances to fix the problems but have failed so far. Also, the warranty runs out in a couple of months and I fear I'll be left with an inherently unreliable bike which will then prove very costly to fix. I have complained to Piaggio UK who are basically just fobbing me off. Can I demand a refund in this situation?
Consumer rights over unreliable bike
Posts 8 | Views 396
your contract is with your dealer whom you bought it from, and not the manufacturer.
Have you had it from new?
Welcome simon,you are an idiot sorry an angel for putting up with this bike,breakdown once but no more than twice.
You should and still can reject the bike with costs in writing with a signed witness and inform them of legal action if no joy.
Why didn`t you ask for a courtesy bike early days?
You have to invoke the Sale of Goods Act 1979 Part II Section 14, as modified by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, subsequently modified by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994, contending that the supplier is in breach of contract to you for supplying a car which was not "of satisfactory quality", or did not remain so for a reasonable period of time. Appeal Court Case law (Bernstein v Palmerston Motors 1987) has held that the supplier must be given three chances to rectify the fault for which the goods are rejected and must have failed to do so. The goods must be returned to the supplier together with all keys and paperwork. (Scott and Scott v Blade Motor Company 1997.) And the supplier (in the case of a car the dealer principal of the dealership) must be sent a letter by recorded delivery detailing why the car has been rejected as not "of satisfactory quality". Case law (Rogers v Parrish 1987) has put a limit of 6 months on the time you can successfully reject a car and obtain a full refund, though lesser refunds, taking account of mileage covered, may be obtained outside that period. The price you pay compared to market value will be taken into account. So if you buy a cheap car on trade terms you cannot reject it under the Act. And if you buy a cheap car (under £2,000) on retail terms from a trader, you cannot reasonably expect it to be perfect
After 6 Months
Under sale of goods legislation (Sale of Goods Act 1979, Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994) consumers are entitled to expect that any goods they buy are of satisfactory quality. That is, that the goods meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory taking into account the way they are described, their price, and any other relevant circumstances, such as the fact that they are second-hand or used. ... ..
If a product that was not of satisfactory quality at the time of the sale is returned to the retailer, the buyer is entitled to a full refund (if it is within a reasonable time of the sale), or, if a "reasonable time " has elapsed, to a reasonable amount of compensation, or to have the goods repaired. The consumer needs to demonstrate the goods were not of satisfactory quality at the time of sale. This is so if the consumer chooses to request an immediate refund or compensation. It is also the case for any product returned more than six months after the date of sale.
If the amount is less than £5,000 and qualifies for the Small Claims Court then any decision made does not become case law.
However, if it goes to the County Court, then a decision does become case law. County Court rulings can be overruled by Appeal Court rulings which then become case law. And cases will be argued on the facts. So though the Sale and Supply of Goods Act may appear to give you rights, your true rights are governed by case law and asserting them can be very expensive.
PS, I do have to agree with jaffa,this fiasco should've been adressed months ago,however I wish you well with your claim.
Ride safe if poss
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Thanks for the advice so far.
Yes I did buy the bike from new. I did originally ask for a loan bike but none were ever available. It's also been pointed out by Aprilia that I have no right to expect one!
Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, I would have rejected this bike within the first six months. However, (one air pressure sensor aside) my problems didn't really start in ernest until after that. In each case I go to the dealers and I have been reassured that they have found the fault and it is fixed. Some problems have been fixed without re-occurance but the electrical problem is really the one that is causing ongoing concern.
At the moment I have sent another letter to Piaggio UK and also HQ in Italy and I await their response. In the meantime my bike is still being fixed and it's looking likely that I may be able to get it back this coming Saturday after they have replaced the loom and many other electrical components. My contention now is whether to actually pick up the bike at all or leave it there?
Why come on here for advice when you ignore it?
Go to another forum and natter them.
In my original post, along with some pertinent background info, I was asking what rights I have so that I better understand what options are available to me as a consumer. It seems logical to me to try and understand how this problem would conclude in the event that my relationship with the dealer/manufacturer completely breaks down and litigation is the only option left available.
Jaffa90, I appreciate that you've taken the time to post. However, as this is an open forum and I have no idea of the background and expertise behind various posts, you'll have to excuse me if try navigate my way through this process endeavouring to separate the good advice from the bad.
You'll also accept no doubt that there are always many different approaches and your advice is limited in detail and may not be the best course of action in this case.
My second letter to Piaggio was sent a couple of days ago and I simply want to wait for a response before deciding on the next steps. However, I will refuse to pick the bike up from the dealer, if it is finally ready to collect, until I have that response and will look at what options I have then.
I do very much value the advice offered in a few of the posts above, so thanks to all the more serious contributions.
Don't worry you're not an idiot.
The dealer will not want to give you your money back - even though you are totally entitled to it.
the bike should be fine for 2 years - unless you bought it at a very low price.
prepare a report stating all the problems - dates - professional opinions - legal references (sales of goods act, consumer rights act etc etc) include some pictures to take up space ancd make it look bigger and more intimidating. if you walk in with a fist full of paper and tell them you have a report to give them on the bike they need to give you a refund for they will soon stop trying to stall you.