Cyclescheme refund - legal advice wanted

[Chuffy]

Hi all
About three weeks ago I took delivery of a brand new Kona Dew Drop via Cyclescheme. It's a do-it-all commuter/tourer type beast but there is a huge problem.

There are two eyelets on the back for mudguards and a rack. The bike came fitted with mudguards, which fit fine. I've tried fitting a rack but the free eyelet sits on a flat surface of the seat stay. It's so close to the metal of the seat stay that it's almost impossible to fit a rack, the metal around the rack hole fouls the seat stay and stops the holes from lining up. See pic.

The upper eyelet is purely decorative, it won't take a mudguard either. I've tried fitting both rack and guards on the bottom eyelet but only works with the rack on the outside which is dangerous and nasty. Needless to say, I'm very, very p*ssed off.

I'm not after technical solutions.

What I need to know is:-
Can I reasonably claim that the bike is not fit for purpose?
How do refunds work in relation to Cyclescheme?

Cheers,
Chuffy

 

[mickle]

Dangerous? Eh? It's a perfectly acceptable set up imo. Whack it on and go for a ride.

 

[rich p]

Why is the upper eyelet decorative only?

 

[AlanW]

Looking at the picture, well it looks to me that those two holes are to fasten a hydraulic brake caliper to?

 

[Norm]

I don't see an issue with the fitment there but, if you are going to claim "not fit for purpose", you will need evidence to show that you had told the supplying dealer that you were going to use those particular mudguards.

Also, being strictly legal, you are hiring the bike from your employer, they have the contract to supply the bike. Whether the contract exists between the employer and Cyclescheme or between the employer and the supplying dealer would depend on Cyclescheme's terms and conditions, which I haven't seen.

All a bit of a legal minefield, though, especially over something like whether poorly-fitting mudguards makes it not fit for purpose.

 

[Chuffy]

Mickle - Rack on the inside would be ok, that's an acceptable bodge. On the outside, no. Too much stress on the outside of a long bolt and there's a chance, however slim, that the bolt will be worked free resulting in distress, especially as I'll be running a single pannier most of the time.

AlanW - No. The frame has disc eyelets on the chainstay (you can just see the calliper) which is a redesign from the 09 model. The two eyelets I'm talking about are for rack and mudguards.

RichP - Because it serves no practical purpose, being too bloody close to the stay! I may as well stick a plastic flower in it.

Norm - There's no problem with the mudguards. My 'unfit for purpose' grumble is because a bike that is designed with utility in mind won't take a rack. This vexes me.

If the eyelet stood just 5mm further out from the stay, everything would be fine. As it is, it's a shocking flaw on an otherwise nice bike.

Thanks for the comments. I'll see what the shop say tomorrow...

 

[alecstilleyedye]

get a longer bolt and use the current mudguard hole for both 'guards and rack. i do that on a bike with only the one hole and it works fine.

 

[Crackle]

Warning, technical soln you don't want. reply......

Will the stay go on the inside of the top bolt with the bolt through from the inside to the outside (yes I have used that technique before).

 

[Crackle]

...or file a few mm off the mudguard stay. OK, I'll stop now.

 

[bauldbairn]

Silly question(probably) - Is the rear rack Disc Brake compatible?

I looked at a Kona Dew Drop in the Wiggle sale last year and somebody had posted something on their reviews saying their rack wouldn't fit properly. One customer modded theirs another was told to return the rack for a disc brake compatible one - by Wiggle.

I'm sure the modded one included a pic! On the Wiggle website.

Just a thought Chuffy.

 

[JtB]

get a longer bolt and use the current mudguard hole for both 'guards and rack. i do that on a bike with only the one hole and it works fine.

Me too, with the rack on the outside (TBH, don't see what the problem is).

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The 2009 Dew Drop, (and Sutra iirc) had its disc mounted atop the seat stay. Kona got loads of -ve feedback about this and redesigned the brake mounts for this season. Can we be sure they didn't just tack disc mounts onto the chainstay leaving the old ones in situ. I ask as to my eye those two holes look like a disc mount to me.

either way it should be eminently resolveable with some spacers, a file and a bit of thought.

As for not fit for purpose; the contract exists between your employer and whoever they bought the bike from so your employer would have to agitate, you have no legal relationship with the bike's vendor 'merely' being a hirer of the bike.

For future cyclescheme peeps - I'd say spec the guard and rack when you buy the bike and get the vendor to fit them for you.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

unfit for purpose means unusable in normal conditions for the item. Is your bike that?

can you not ride it at all? does it fail to operate as a bicycle without mudguards, a rack, either or both in any combination of fixings? have you explored every alternative luggage option (backpacks included) and given the vendor the opportunity to assess and rectify the 'defect' before demanding a refund and threatening legal action.

Did you write in specific terms to your employer (bike owner right now) and the vendor explaining your specific needs and your conditions of acceptance. have you got their agreement in writing to whatever conditions you stipulated?

did you research this before buying the bike as it's obviously such a big deal that you'd even consider a legal option for something that most of the rest of the world (especially the 99.999999% non bike obsessives) would consider incredibly trivial.

This is your employers bike that you lease. If you want to make an issue of it and make life difficult for them I'm sure they'd be perfectly happy to rip up your agreement and take their bike off you. you've got far more to lose than anyone else over something and nothing.

 

[bikepete]

Tubus (who know a thing or two about racks) supply 5mm spacers to go between their racks and the dropouts as standard. A mudguard stay will be no thicker. Really, it's not a problem for an M5 bolt to hold up a rack with that sort of overhang. If you plan on crossing Tibet with a heffalump on the back you could worry about it - for general commuting and shopping no problem IMO.

You think you have problems - look what I had to do to fit a rack & guards to a short-wheelbase tandem:

More details/pics here FWIW.

 

[Chuffy]

Greg - That crossed my mind yesterday evening although the 09 model was, iirc, also able to take rack and guards, albeit a disc specific rack.

Bikepete - Good grief! I bodge, I don't engineer! Fair point, I didn't know about the spacers. Mind you, Minoura know about luggage and they were responsible for the Space Grip...

I have been bodging things onto my bikes for years. Trust me, a GT Rave does not take kindly to having a rack and mudguards forced onto it, but that's a racing bike which happens to have the relevant fittings so I'll accept the compromise. The Kona is designed with light touring/commuting in mind. That's a key part of the bike's purpose (hence my question about 'not fit for')so the design fail on display is pretty shoddy, to say the least. If you have to start modifying standard accessories in order to make them fit, that's a failing on the part of the manufacturer.

I'll probably go with the guard and rack on the same 'ole. If the bolt fails and I die horribly then Baggy has instructions to sue you all until your gizzards glow.