Bike repair dispute and advice

[Pale Rider]

The wheel was part-worn when you bought the bike, as were all the other components.

You and sister put about 600 miles on the wheel before it failed.

It's hard for the shop to know how much wear is left in a wheel without knowing its history.

The fact it lasted 600 miles is reasonable in the context of a bicycle component and a relatively cheap bicycle.

I agree the bike looks basically sound, so is worth getting repaired for the sake of £35.

With a bit of care and maintenance, it could be made to last for years.

 

[Tom B]

I think £32 fitted for a new back wheel is very reasonable.
For the price you paid for that bike (a very nice bike, btw) I wouldn't have expected the hubs to be serviced: pitting of the hubs can happen in a week of wet commuting, specially if the hubs were a bit dry to start with.

Ive just gone through a nobrand, 15mm thru-axle hub on a new £1k bike in less than 3 months. Though I've ridden it through all sorts.

( I wasn't expecting it to be that deep) I don't expect it to be fixed for nothing.

Tyres certainly, but to some extent wheels are consumables.
Commuting through gritty salty water can do horrific things to bikes parts in a short amount of time.

As for the chain, I get through a chain every 4-8weeks in winter. Chains are relatively cheap and easy to replace. Early replacement saves expensive cassette and chainring wear. Get yourself a chain measuring tool for a few £ and replace the chain whenever it gets over +0.75%. Lube little and often as per "the mickle method" (google it).

Bikes are not maintenance free, use and riding with some mechanical sympathy will help you enjoy your riding, understand how it works and grow confidence in fixing it yourself..

 

[leeboy105]

I don't expect it to be fixed for nothing.

I think people are misinterpreting my original post. I'm happy to pay for something that I believe is reasonable.

I'm guessing this is due to my lack of knowledge about bikes, but I thought a serviced bike would mean a rear wheel that lasts longer. I don't expect the chain, brake pads etc to be damage free after use and repaired free or charge. I just thought that regardless of the length of a guarantee, the rear wheel should last a reasonable amount of time and I wasn't sure if the time since it was purchased until it became faulty counted as reasonable.

 

[alicat]

Here is some blunt northern advice.

The bike was bought from a not for profit social enterprise. Three months guarantee is reasonable for second hand bikes and was given.

The seller has stayed within the law but you are expecting them to go beyond it. I don't think that is reasonable for a not for profit organisation.

If you wanted a bike with full Sale of Goods Act type rights then the thing to do would have been to go to a local bike shop and bought one and paid more than double the price.

 

[steveindenmark]

I think you have been had over.

Having said that. You are not blameless. Whoever bought the bike should have seen the tyre was shot at the outset. They should have known, or at least taken someone who knew what needed to be done and asked the questions.

The guarantee is for three months. You had three months to test the bike and it is not the bike shops fault that it was not tested properly, taken back and repaired under warranty.

I would get it back from the bike shop and tell them that you will spread the word that they are a bunch of cowboys. Then get it repaired somewhere else.

The lesson here is Buyer Beware.

 

[screenman]

I think you have been had over.

Having said that. You are not blameless. Whoever bought the bike should have seen the tyre was shot at the outset. They should have known, or at least taken someone who knew what needed to be done and asked the questions.

The guarantee is for three months. You had three months to test the bike and it is not the bike shops fault that it was not tested properly, taken back and repaired under warranty.

I would get it back from the bike shop and tell them that you will spread the word that they are a bunch of cowboys. Then get it repaired somewhere else.

The lesson here is Buyer Beware.

So it is not the not for profit shops fault but you would rubbish them all the same, is that not a tad contradictory. We are of course only getting one side of the story.

 

[robgul]

Here is some blunt northern advice.

The bike was bought from a not for profit social enterprise. Three months guarantee is reasonable for second hand bikes and was given.

The seller has stayed within the law but you are expecting them to go beyond it. I don't think that is reasonable for a not for profit organisation.

If you wanted a bike with full Sale of Goods Act type rights then the thing to do would have been to go to a local bike shop and bought one and paid more than double the price.

... and the same blunt advice from the Midlands.

Rob

 

[robgul]

I think you have been had over.

Having said that. You are not blameless. Whoever bought the bike should have seen the tyre was shot at the outset. They should have known, or at least taken someone who knew what needed to be done and asked the questions.

The guarantee is for three months. You had three months to test the bike and it is not the bike shops fault that it was not tested properly, taken back and repaired under warranty.

I would get it back from the bike shop and tell them that you will spread the word that they are a bunch of cowboys. Then get it repaired somewhere else.

The lesson here is Buyer Beware.

Totally out of order post (and sadly out of character from what I have seen of your previous posts)

The only line of the text that is reasonable is "Buyer beware"

Rob

 

[400bhp]

I think people are misinterpreting my original post. I'm happy to pay for something that I believe is reasonable.

I'm guessing this is due to my lack of knowledge about bikes.

Yes, you're correct.

I'm inferring that your sister is also not knowledgeable about bikes too, but if that's not the case then I apologise.

It's therefore likely you or your sister carried out no inspection, maintenance or basic cleaning throughout its use and, particularly, commuting in the winter months. Coupled with that it's not unlikely you were being unsympathetic when using the bike (e.g something known as cross chaining would wear chain and cassette very quickly).

The rear hub and cassette may be of the cheaoer variety on the bike which makes maintence and repair more difficult.

Coupled with this it appears you needed a bike shop to tell you the rear tyre was worn, when a simple visual inspection is all that's necessary.

Also you used a shop (Go Outdoors) that I've not heard of any cyclist using to fix bikes and they are a national chain so it may be likely that they do not have the experience, knowledge or potential to get hold of parts to service your bike. Additionally it's not unheard of for sports retail chains to sell you items you don't really need.

In summary, it appears reasonable that your bike lasted 6 months before a few parts needed replacing.

It's worth asking on here in future BEFORE you purchase a bike to help with a potential purchase.

Happy riding and put this down to experience.

 

[youngoldbloke]

I think you have been had over.

Having said that. You are not blameless. Whoever bought the bike should have seen the tyre was shot at the outset. They should have known, or at least taken someone who knew what needed to be done and asked the questions.

The guarantee is for three months. You had three months to test the bike and it is not the bike shops fault that it was not tested properly, taken back and repaired under warranty.

I would get it back from the bike shop and tell them that you will spread the word that they are a bunch of cowboys. Then get it repaired somewhere else.

The lesson here is Buyer Beware.

After earlier confusion in the OPs posts regarding what the big round thing at the back of the bike is called, I believe the tyres were new, having been changed for more puncture resistant ones. The guarantee was 3 months. The wear to the hub became evident after this, and it was a used, second hand wheel. Minimal maintenance and wear and tear. No comeback on the shop.

 

[midlife]

Off topic but thought I'd mention the Sale of Goods Act is no more and has been replaced.

Shaun

 

[derrick]

As said before, it's a cheap second hand bike, You get what you pay for.

 

[Heltor Chasca]

... and the same blunt advice from the Midlands.

Rob

And the South West. You are running this conflab on a couple of forums and the replies seem similar and you are smart enough to get the gist. For a social enterprise (I think) they have probably done their best for you and your sister and no doubt the people working with them.

£32? 1st World problem. Move on. It's taking up your valuable bike purchasing time.

 

[raleighnut]

As said before, it's a cheap second hand bike, You get what you pay for.

It has the potential to be a very nice bike, those old 4130 Raleigh frames are excellent.

 

[ufkacbln]

Thanks for the responses. Just a question though. Has the tyre lasted a reasonable amount of time? Should I expect it to last longer considering what I deem (maybe incorrectly out of naivety) to be fairly light usage.

That would be a losing argument. You would have seen what the tyre was like when you bought the bike