Thread: Motorcycle

Hi,

Bought a motorcycle on Sunday. I dont know why I did it.

I saw a bike advertised at the shop where I did my lessons. This is what I was told...

• It was an 02 with 48,000 miles.
• The previous owner rode the bike quite hard.
• The latest annual service was quite pricey, so he traded it in for a new bike.
• All of the outstanding service items where subsequently completed.
• The dealership provided the bike from new, and knew the full history.
• The previous owner laid the bike down at some point resulting in a few cracks in the fairing.
• The engine is "bullet-proof" and is capable of much more than the current mileage.
• It will provide a reliable ride that I will not lose any money on over a few years.
• There is nothing to do to the bike for 4,000 miles (the service interval)
• It runs as "sweet as a nut"

During my road test (Saturday), I pointed out an engine noise and an ineffective rear brake. I was told these would be sorted when I collected the bike.

Sunday, I collected the bike. I was told the work had been completed. I paid for the bike (part cash/part credit card) and rode off. I never thought to question the service work.

After a few miles it became apparent that the engine noises where still present. Upon calling the dealer, I was told that it is to be expected in an "older" bike. This contradicts ("Sweet as a Nut").

10 miles from the shop, I showed the bike to a friend (biker). He pointed out a few things.

• Oil was leaking from the crank case.
• The exhaust emissions where black.
• The bodywork has been repainted (badly).

His exact words where "get rid of it!" While showing it to him the electrics died. The alarm would activate, but nothing started. The bike had to be recovered to my house on a truck. The dealer says it must have blown a fuse...but that indicates an electrical fault.

I want a refund. This bike is not safe, and the quality of work on it is not acceptable.

I have told the dealer that I wish to return it for a refund according to the Sale Of Goods Act. It is not a reasonably, reliable machine.

What are my rights?

Similar Threads:

• Motorcycle Mistake
• motorcycle ticket help
• help with motorcycle trader
• motorcycle insurance
• Motorcycle Advice

SOGA will apply to any mechanical defects etc. and if so bad you can claim money back; Also it has been represented, usually in an advert or in writing, difficult to prove verbal claims. did it come with anew MOT? Emmisions/brake probs etc.
What was the engine noise? could be a serious bill waiting to happen! did they say they would deal with it and have not what did they do?
minor oil leak and dodgy paintwork wont do it and if the electrical problem is easily fixed!

You need to discuss all these points with them and see what they say.
Bike must be safe and of merchantable quality, i.e fit for purpose.

Originally Posted by sharkie

Is this the same thread.

Yes. sorry. I thought it was better here, in the "Vehicle Retailers" section. I also reogranized my thoughts to make a better case.

I have contacted them and insisted on a refund. I have quoted the act and the defects in the bike. Thanks for the advice.

I have received a response from the retailer.

Thanks for your replies.

I am still considering my options, but I do feel there was a certain amount of misrepresentation. Because the letter was posted does not mean that I fully agree with what he said.

For starters my wife was not threatening (in a physical manner). She threatened with legal action.

It was never advertised at £2500. The price written on the sticker was £1900.

I am personally unsure about the oil problem. I will have a closer look when I go to see the bike.

I was told in no uncertain terms, that the bike was not looked after properly, but had not been in an accident. Given the level of repair work, I think this might not be true. If I can demonstrate that it has been in a collission of some sort, I will want my money back.

Overall, I think with a bit of effort this can be an OK bike. I dont think I will make any money on it, but I dont think I will lose much if I replace some parts sourced from breakers and ebay. But I definitely made it clear that I did not want an accident damaged bike, so there are a few items that I noted early on that I want fixing. (i have a list), which if he agrees to, I will be satisfied to keep the bike.

I also want a longer guarantee on the supposed electrical fault, and not just "half the bill", because I dont beleive fuses blow just for the fun of it.

I received an email from the retailer yesterday.

A major factor in him refusing to take the bike back was that he might not sell it for 6 months, and will need to put a new MOT on it. I offered to pay for a new MOT, but today he refused offering to agree to buy the bike back for an undisclosed but reduced amount, that "realistically reflected the work the dealership put into the bike". According to them all they did was connect the battery, give it a clean, and put an MOT on it.

I also reviewed the invoice which he gave me. The invoice identifies the agreed price for the bike, plus all service items. The invoice is bizarre because it lists 2 chains, 2 front and rear sprockets, 12 litres of engine oil, and many more duplicated items. It also lists a brand new fron brake disc which there is no evidence of on the bike.

One of the major factors in purchasing this bike in its condition, was because the dealer assured me that they originally supplied the bike as new to the previous owner and knew its full service history. I tracked the previous owner down yesterday; he purchased the bike from another local dealership, so what I was told was a lie. This dealer can not possibly be aware of the full history.

Lastly, I spoke with my legal team yesterday afternoon. A specialist in Consumer Law told me that I am fully within my rights to return the bike under the Sale Of Goods Act. It broke down within 1 hour of leaving the dealership. Before it broke down entirely it cut out 2 times while idling. The bike clearly exhibits an electrical fault that was very likely inherent when I purchased the bike. Closer inspection also indicates previous electrical work to the bike. I was not aware of the inherent problem, and therefore intend to reject the bike and demand a refund.

Originally Posted by BankFodder

Why have you removed the dealer's letter?

I removed the letter because it identified the seller; I do not want to identify them at this point incase it harbours their willingness to return my money.

The letter also included a lot of detail that I do not agree with. I dont want it to appear that this letter states the truth, and thus damage my case. Particulars are that the bike was not worth the value quoted by the seller; My wife was not abusive to his son; I did not agree to the terms of warranty that he states. However all of this is irrelevant because the bike was sold with an inherent electrical fault.

Originally Posted by BankFodder

At an early stage you said that the bike was not safe. In what way?

This is a personal opinion. The quality of workmanship on the bike appears "second-rate". The fairing vibrates considerably; there is something loose rattling under the engine; the back brake does not operate properly. I would not trust this bike while travelling at 70mph on the motorway.

Here is the first letter...

Dear Mr X

I have now completed reading your missives and road testing your motorcycle.

First and formost I am most disturbed that your wife decided to resort to bad language and threatening my son. If I had been aware of her actions I would have told him to leave the bike and drive away. If there is any further threat to him or any other member of staff I will pursue the case to the police.

After you had test ridden the machine you phoned and offered me £1400 for the bike. You were aware that we were advertising the machine for £2500 and that was reflecting it’s below average condition. I considered the £1100 reduction in cost and said I was prepared to do the deal on the clear understanding that the warranty would be restricted to major mechanical problems. You asked me what that meant. I explained that it would cover catastrophic failures. IE the motorcycle became unusable due to a very expensive failure.

I also pointed out that the machine was above average mileage and below average condition. This was perfectly obvious looking at it’s general condition.

I also pointed out that a machine of this age in perfect condition was worth about £3200 so the selling price of the bike clearly reflected that position.

I have at no time attempted to misrepresent this machine.
In your email and letters you are clearly attempting to say the machine described as being in much better condition than is the case.

You agreed to the restricted warranty and stated that you wanted something to just ride round on for 12 months and do up a bit. I said that at the price you were buying it for you would probably get your money back at that time.

At the point of sale I was aware that your wife was very reluctant that you should go ahead with the sale and she left in what appeared to be a bad mood. I was conscious that the disagreement might carry on later so offered that if you wished I would exchange the bike for something else we had in stock up to a week later.

I was very disappointed that with in an hour of taking the machine you were attempting to return it under the sale of goods act.

I have read your letters and list of complaints.

There is no oil leak from the side of the engine. It is chain lubricant (an expert would have told you that as soon they looked at the consistency)

There is no noise from the engine that is unusual. ( in fact I thought it to be exceptionally quiet) It is a large capacity air and oil cooled 4 cylinder engine. There is inherent engine noise at all times. The rattle or vibration that you describe is the body work. This often occurs when the engine is accelerating from low revs (circa 2500 to 3200 rpm) it is very common for motorcycles to “rattle or vibrate” their body work in these conditions and the simple answer is to not labour the engine.

Whilst I agree that the rear brake is “spongy” it is perfectly acceptable as a rear brake. It is not dangerous and I am surprised that you appear to think it should be used primarily to slow you down. As explained to you at great length during the rider training the front brake is the primary brake and the rear is used as a secondary , back up or holding brake. If the rear brake is used aggressively it will almost immediately lock up which is why manufacturers fit much weaker rear brakes to the rear than the front. It is also why it passed the MOT brake test. I have already offered to repair it if it detiorates.

With regard to the rest of you notes I would suggest that you had inspected the machine before you purchased and having made a clear buying desition you later changed your mind.

The odd discs and levers you mention are cosmetic differences and in no way affect the performance of the machine

I have found no further instances of the fuse blowing but as a good will gesture if this occurs more than 3 further times we will investigate and eradicate the cause at half the invoice cost.

I utterly refute your claim the refund under the sale of goods act and will be quite happy to discuss the position with Trading Standards or if necessary the small claims court.

Any attempt to reverse the card payment under these circumstances is illegal and I will immediately resort to the law to recover the payment and any costs involved.

Our mechanic is at this time attempting to reduce the body vibration and the machine is ready for your collection at any time I must repeat that this sort of vibration is quite normal and it is highly unlikely to be completely eradicated.

Yours sincerely

Mr S

I have some comments...

The only only bad language my wife used was to say that they sold us a "piece of sh--!".
The only threat she made was one of legal action.

The bike was advertised at £1999, not £2500.

There is a disagreement as to what the "reduced warranty" was. I agreed to be responsible for minor issues such as tyres and lights. Anything to do with the running and usability of the bike was to be included. Warranty is irrelevent anyway, as I rejected the bike due to an inherent electrical issue.

After I test rode the bike I pointed out some rattles, later to be identified as the fairing and supposedly a "clip" under the engine somewhere.

An 02 Bandit in perfect condition would be worth about £2500, NOT £3200. I dont know where he gets his figures from.

The dealer DID misrepresent the bike. I was told...

• the dealer provided the bike to the previous owners and carried out all maintenance on the bike. Not true, the previous owner bought the bike somewhere else.
• the bike was laid down, but not in an accident, however the previous owner came off the bike while riding.
• the bike was running "as sweet as a nut".
• there would be nothing to do to the bike for 4,000 miles.

Also, the invoice that I was given listed all of the service items that where replaced on the bike prior to me purchasing it. It included 2 chains, 16 litres of oil, 2 sets of front and rear sprockets, 16 spark plugs, and a new brake disc which I dont believe was supplied with the bike.

The dealership was fully aware of my requirements for a bike, which included...
I wanted

• a reliable bike to get me to work every week.
• something to customize when time/money permits.
• something that didnt break within an hour.

I was aware of a few cracks in the fairing; not an entire respray. The bike has an electrical fault. It also spits out black exhaust, which is indicative of engine problems.

As for the oil leak, I will need to check it out. If it was chain lube, I do not understand why there was so much of it, and it was of a consistency similar to engine oil.

I never laboured the engine. There is a rattle under the engine and in the fairing which I had asked to be fixed before I collected the bike.

The rear brake is not acceptable. After speaking to the MOT station it was operating at 50% efficiency.

THe odd discs and levers may be cosmetic and not affect the performance of the bike, but they are indicitive of the quality of workmanship that is produced from this dealership.

The fuse may not blow again for some time; however the bike cut out twice before the fuse blowing. This is likely to be indicitive of a more serious inherent electrical fault. There is evidence on the bike of electrical tape, likely to be theresult of a previous electrical repair.

I dont want any repair completed. I want my money back. I have spoken to a solicitor and am entitled due to the electrical fault alone.