Are LBS taking advantage of Customers using Cyclescheme ?

[festival]

not quite true. any broken stuff would be warranty work which is free to the customer and the dealer then has the aggro of chasing the fee from the manufacturer.

if something has worn out in 3 months of commuting i would be questioning the quality of the part.

thankfully when the cassette/hub bearings started grinding on my bike Decathlon changed it ( with an upgrade on the wheel) no arguments. they also replaced a bent rear hanger under warranty even though they are not supposed to replace impact damaged stuff. OK this isn't cycle to work scheme bike but the principles are exactly the same.

Good for you, but you must know that after one day or one year impact damage is not covered and you cant run a business by giving out freebies to all
Any retailer worth his salt will offer a foc check on a bike sale after a short time from date of purchase, call it a safety check, foc 1st service ,or whatever.
There are various reason for this, but is as much about retaining customer satisfaction as anything else.
I repeat, wear and tear and damage is not part of the deal, but it depends on the circumstances how any issues are dealt with.
Each case should be taken on its own merits and often a good will gesture is worthile to keep everyone happy.
Warranty is over and above what was being discussed, how it is dealt with by the retailer is important at all times .
But its quite possible, e.g. to wear out or damage various parts by ignorance (as a general term) in the expectations of what the bike can do and a good retailer would be amiss not to inform as well as offer goodwill

 

[Norm]

Yes I know, there's no need to be rude.
But if I was unclear this is what I mean .
Its a tool to be used to increase sales and though there are rules and conditions to conform to it has obvious advantages to the customer and the retailer.
Its not rocket science, but generally if the customer wants to use the scheme and the retailer is not really bothered (as shown with some of the examples given) I would question their general approach to building a successful business and to their customers .

The customer should always gain financially , if not go elsewhere. The retailer gains a sale and potentially a customer for life.

I will go with "failure to read" then, as you are obviously confusing CycleScheme with the Cycle To Work Regulations.

CycleScheme is not a tool. It is one specific commercial organisation, founded purely to make money running a very easy operation for lazy employers.

 

[MacB]

I think your better off negotiating the best deal you can and dont bother with C2W. You wont get any discount on C2W and its a load of faffing around. If you want to spread the cost take out a low introductory offer on a credit card pay for the bike then cut it up immediately.Done that with both my recent bike purchases.

Bike shop 0% interest deals arent great either.You will get the bike at a better price if you use cash or card.

This would be my take on it, the only problem being those without access to credit like that. Of course the government could just make cycling stuff non vatable.

Also very good point by Norm re Cyclescheme, fortunately I was able to both read and comprehend , we have yet another financial middleman doing very nicely in the economy.

 

[festival]

I was never confused.
The true dictionary definition of the word tool may not have been 100% true but the scheme can be viewed as an instrument of use or service
so I stand by my comment.
Before you reach for your dictionary, I believe the word tool also has a modern slang usage,

 

[subaqua]

Good for you, but you must know that after one day or one year impact damage is not covered and you cant run a business by giving out freebies to all
Any retailer worth his salt will offer a foc check on a bike sale after a short time from date of purchase, call it a safety check, foc 1st service ,or whatever.
There are various reason for this, but is as much about retaining customer satisfaction as anything else.
I repeat, wear and tear and damage is not part of the deal, but it depends on the circumstances how any issues are dealt with.
Each case should be taken on its own merits and often a good will gesture is worthile to keep everyone happy.
Warranty is over and above what was being discussed, how it is dealt with by the retailer is important at all times .
But its quite possible, e.g. to wear out or damage various parts by ignorance (as a general term) in the expectations of what the bike can do and a good retailer would be amiss not to inform as well as offer goodwill

if you get a decent manufacturer they usually offer a 2 year warranty on parts and 5 on frames. the sale of goods act will also apply on worn bits if it could be reasonably expected to last longer in normal use.

the guys at decathlon took 45 minutes to check adjust and change the bits .

eldest daughters bike took about the same at Go -outdoors but she had been a bit kinder to her bike and didn't need any adjustments.

 

[festival]

if you get a decent manufacturer they usually offer a 2 year warranty on parts and 5 on frames. the sale of goods act will also apply on worn bits if it could be reasonably expected to last longer in normal use.

the guys at decathlon took 45 minutes to check adjust and change the bits .

eldest daughters bike took about the same at Go -outdoors but she had been a bit kinder to her bike and didn't need any adjustments.

we seem to be having a thread withinin a thread ,so will conclude by just saying, in 25+ years in the trade If the customer was given the correct advise and the bike was PDI'd properly then the sale of goods act will not help. 'worn out' is down to the useage and will be at the discrection of the retailer/supplier.
The important bits are underlined and I confess thats not always the case.
Generally peoples ignorance ( I dont mean that unkindly) is no excuse, but its up to the retailer to help inform them.

 

[subaqua]

I suppose its like the difference in buying a rolls royce or a ford.

one you will get treated well and the PDI will be done correctly and time spent on it.

in the other they shunt em in and out as fast as possible

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Yes I am as much as the many benefit cheats take advantage of us taxpayers. And as I pay about £350 a month in tax at least I am contributing to society

Benefit fraud is illegal, and a massively exagerated problem imo. Especially compared with tax fiddles. I pay a considerable amount of tax each month. Dear God, I can still remember my gross monthly pay being less than what I pay in tax and NI now.

But I still can't figure why you, and other hard working folk elsewhere in UK plc with no interest in cycling, should be subsidising my bike purchases. C2W is massively abused and the rules should be changed.

 

[Norm]

I set up a cycle to work scheme at a previous employers and made good use of it by getting two bikes on it. And I'll probably set up another one with my current employers.

But I still agree with Greg.

 

[Downward]

This would be my take on it, the only problem being those without access to credit like that. Of course the government could just make cycling stuff non vatable.

Also very good point by Norm re Cyclescheme, fortunately I was able to both read and comprehend , we have yet another financial middleman doing very nicely in the economy.

Cyclescheme although a Private company won the Tender for this Tax free cycling for the majority of the public sector so you can't knock them for being a business which many Public sectors companies now like childcare vouchers rely on to administer schemes.

 

[Downward]

Benefit fraud is illegal, and a massively exagerated problem imo. Especially compared with tax fiddles. I pay a considerable amount of tax each month. Dear God, I can still remember my gross monthly pay being less than what I pay in tax and NI now.

But I still can't figure why you, and other hard working folk elsewhere in UK plc with no interest in cycling, should be subsidising my bike purchases. C2W is massively abused and the rules should be changed.

Same reason my PAYE and council tax pays for various things I don't agree on or infact impact on my life.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I set up a cycle to work scheme at a previous employers and made good use of it by getting two bikes on it. And I'll probably set up another one with my current employers.

But I still agree with Greg.

I set the work scheme up here. I'm on my third C2W bike in three years and will be probs. be getting bike #4, a Brompton or some sort, in the spring unless it is abolished. Hypocrite? Moi? Mais oui.

Less than 50% of the scheme bikes have ever been seen at the office. One was so big its female 'owner' would have had to use a step ladder to get on it, and LOL at the irony, the bike I ride to work on currently isn't even a C2W bike.....

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Same reason my PAYE and council tax pays for various things I don't agree on or infact impact on my life.

You may be right, but I'm not sure I can think of an example where another's taxes are used as a direct subsidy to any of my other hobbies. Indirectly, for sure, but directly into my pocket....... a tough one.

 

[festival]

[QUOTE 1315441"]
Sorry, but that's not true. Goods have to be fit for purpose. A bike may leave the store correctly checked and sold in good faith but if, for example, a component was made of poor quality or inappropriate material and failed before it should be expected to, the purchaser has a good case under the act. People not bothering to push it as far as they're entitled to doesn't mean that the act hasn't helped them.

A good example is the front brake issue on the Crosstrail.
[/quote]


Just to be clear, I was not talking about genuine warranty issues.
Even If we take 'bicycle shaped objects out of the equation for a moment we all know the term 'mountain bike' does not mean its indestructible and spraying lube on a chain regularly doesn't constitute maintenance.
I am a consumer also, but peoples expectations should not be confused with what is fit for purpose.
Hope that makes it clear were i am coming from.

 

[Norm]

.. and LOL at the irony, the bike I ride to work on currently isn't even a C2W bike.....

You are Norm and I Claim My Five Pounds.

About the only bike I've ridden in the past 2 months is 20+ years old, when most of the current government were still at Eton. Actually, thinking of the riding I was doing 20 years ago, I might have, literally, bumped into them.

You may be right, but I'm not sure I can think of an example where another's taxes are used as a direct subsidy to any of my other hobbies. Indirectly, for sure, but directly into my pocket....... a tough one.

I think the issue is that the subsidy should be going to bicycle as a form of commuter transport, not to the bicycle as a hobby. The wording was too flexible and the policing completely non-existent, though, so people are using it to get themselves discounted bikes.

I wonder, though, as most tax legislation is so well tied down, whether there wasn't some implicit nudge, nudge, wink, wink when they set up the C2W regs. As a way to get people to buy and ride bikes, with the associated health improvements, it has worked very well. However, if they just said "go and buy a bike and we'll give you an equivalent tax break", I think there would have been significant cries from the non-cycling peanut gallery.