I purchased the frame for £350 but as it's no longer available brand new, the current model would set me back £1495. I'd accept losing the cost of delivery for retention of the frame, however, I'm concerned that if I go back to them with that they'll see it as me relenting and they'll stick to their original settlement offers, which I don't consider recompense me for the inconvenience this has and will cause me. Thanks

Hi All, I'm here for some advice, I recently purchased a bike frame from eBay and arranged for a courier to collect it, as it was a collection only item. The parcel arrived on the specified date but the frame has suffered irreparable damage and is unusable. The frame is no longer available so is not easily replaced without significant additional financial outlay on my part. I purchased insurance cover and have been offered the following two settlement options: 1.) Approx. 70% of the purchase price and I keep the frame, or 2.) 100% of the purchase price and I hand the frame over to them. I understand that under the CRA 2015 I'm entitled to a price reduction and can claim for consequential losses, as the service was not carried out with reasonable care so I've counter-offered: - full refund of the cost of the service paid for plus the additional insurance (£39.98 total) - 100% of the purchase price, and - I retain the frame They've responded stating that the settlement offers above are all that is on the table and they will not consider refunding the cost of the service because: "We did in fact collect the item on the day you specified and then delivered the following day as per our agreement. So in this case we cannot refund the courier costs as we have fulfilled the contract agreed." However, they clearly did not carry out that service with reasonable care. My queries are: 1.) Are their settlement offers reasonable? 2.) Is my counter-offer reasonable? 3.) How should I proceed? Thanks in advance. Dan

Thanks for the replies. I have tried pretty much everything to mitigate the situation even to the point of suggesting they cover the costs of fuel to get it to them, all they kept saying was "we're not willing to do that". I can't see anywhere in the SOGA where it states I have to give them the opportunity to repair it, and as has been mentioned above, legally am I deemed to have 'accepted' the car when I only had it 9 days before rejecting it, and the fault developed the very next morning after purchase, which I'm led to believe by SOGA that as such it is deemed to have been present at the time of purchase. Yes it was my decision to purchase the car even though it was so far away but this shouldn't affect my legal rights. The car is a Suzuki Swift Sport and the diagnosis came from a reputable Suzuki dealership, who even tried to get Suzuki to pay towards the repair as the car was just (1month) out of the manufacturers warranty. As for your final comment about the extended warranty, you should have read the letter they sent, definitely not intended the way you've suggested it might have been.

Thanks Sidewinder

I have been led to believe by 5 separate lawyers/solicitors (4 from Which? Legal service and 1 independent) that the exact nature of the fault is irrelevant to a certain extent (its a significant enough fault that it will cost £1600 to repair) and so is their offer to repair it. We've had the car 9 days and as such have the right to reject it as unfit for purpose/ of unsatisfactory quality. I've been informed that had we had the car longer we would then have to allow them the option to fix it. Thats how I understand my position from the advice I've been given anyway.

Apologies for it being in one long paragraph, it was broken down in to smaller bite size paragraphs

Hi All,I'm looking for a little help and advice.I bought a 2008 car from a dealer on 12th October 2011, after viewing over the internet (dealer is 176miles away). I travelled to the dealership to buy the car after I gave it a test drive. I drove the car home and it seemed fine. The following morning I drove the car down to town and the ESP warning light came on on the dash. I got the car in to the local dealership at my earliest convenience which was the 21st October only to be told by the dealership that the pump had failed, as a result the esp system and the traction control system no longer worked as intended and there was the potential for the abs to fail to function properly as well. I got a report stating all of this from the dealership and immediately contacted the dealer that sold me the car. They offered to fix the car under their 3 month in-house warranty, however I refused to drive the car 176 miles to have it repaired after finding out that some of the safety systems weren't functioning properly, if at all. As such I asked them if they were willing to pay the local dealership to repair the car (I could get it recovered there at no cost to myself and minimal inconvenience). They refused so I informed them that as a result of the car being faulty I was well within my rights to reject the car as I had only owned it for 9 days. They told me to go ahead. I contacted Which? legal and they advised me of my rights and what to do.I sent them a letter stating my official rejection of the car and requested a full refund within 14 days. I received a reply letter from them stating that I had to give them the opportunity to repair the car and that I refused to take the extended warranty which would have meant they would have paid the local dealership to repair the car, and that they were still happy to repair the car.I am curently at the point of writing my reply which will inform them that I am not obligated to afford them the opportunity to repair the car and that I they have 7 days to collect the car and provide me with a full refund. I will be including extracts from the SOGA to back up my points. The sections I will be refering them to will be:- Section 14, Subsection 2- Section 36- Part 5A; Section 48I have spent considerable time trying to research my rights in this matter and believe I am well within them, however I have that horrible niggling feeling that I might be wrong. This I feel is borne from my lack of experience in situations such as this. Please could some knowledgable members affirm my beliefs or show me the error of my ways, I'd really appreciate it.Kind regardsDan