Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • the same 3 question on the n180 are asked before the mediation can begin. so you then say ... despite numerous requests dating back over 1yrs the claimant nor their sols have supplied me with requested paperwork to enable me to make an informed decision upon entering into mediation. i therefore refuse. you are doing the same thing again you did last year  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/458251-linkkearns-claimform-old-barclaycard-debt-now-n244/?do=findComment&comment=5232418    
    • I'm compiling a brief list of points to state in tomorrow's mediation call.  it would seem that I have to come to an agreement of some sort. Seeing as most of the defence, lack of genuine paperwork evidence from the claimant, mild threats etc. seems to go in my favour, is it best to mediate for that agreement or to let it run to court?  Short of the 6 year rule playing out, I'm going to have to pay up somehow, so why don't I just end it tomorrow? By paying I mean, not hurling myself off a cliff.    
    • @ReuTheo Thanks very much. Coincidentally, it has now been exactly over 1 year since I sent my parcel with Evri and began my enquiries with them as to where my parcel is (and eventually coming to this forum / starting this thread). I understand how you are feeling. It's why I kept this thread active and detailed, so anyone who reads it, can clearly understand what was happening at each stage of the process, so they don't feel anxious or overwhelmed with the process through MCOL, mediation, arranging for trial, working through the WS / Court bundle, and finally going in front of a judge. The work has been put in so hopefully you (and everyone else) now has a good WS template to use and build the case. I agree the legal language and specifics are not easy to understand at first glance by layman / non-legal persons. What I found useful is reading the WS and researching some of the Acts in my own time so that I could understand the legal speak. This reading / research really helped me to have a clear idea of what the rules/laws are and how they apply to my case (and likely your case also). As you know, this is a self-help forum so you certainly got to put in the time/work to understand your case/argument. It will be worth it in the end (I say this from personal experience - given this time last year, I was banging my head against a wall with Evri and couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel). Above all else, the team on this forum such as @BankFodder and @jk2054 are a tremendous help with getting the WS in the right state and giving guidance. Don't be afraid to ask questions on this forum - it's for your ultimate benefit (even if sometimes the responses seem harsh - don't take it personally. If my experience is anything to go by, it'll help give clarity and maybe even close a potential gap in your case). Good luck with your case.
    • Savers are pouring money into cash Isas as they look to protect the interest on their nest eggs from tax. They put more than £11bn into cash Isas in April.View the full article
    • The stock ended the trading day at nearly $136, up 3.5%, making it more valuable than Microsoft.View the full article
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Direct bikes -Scooter.co.uk, chinese rubbish, terrible product and after care

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3495 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Do not trust or deal with DIRECT BIKES operating under Scooter.co.uk.


The brand new bike arrived damaged in a rusty crate,

unsecured and we were unable to move it,


on opening the bike was damaged.


We contacted Direct Bikes within 1 business day and


they didn't want to know and


when we challenged them they said we had to pay for the return of the bike at £85

which we now find out is completely false and they tried to bully us into keeping the bike.


It had 1 mile on the bike and yet inside were rusty nails,

after just 3 months the clutch went which the garage said was poor workmanship,


the free roof box arrived damaged and unable to use.


Direct Bikes said their warranty did not cover the free gift

- what is the point of a free gift worth £49.99 if they supply it broken,


then the rear grab rail shafted off at the bolt.


Direct Bikes have been the most appalling and aggressive people to deal with.

The Bike (VIPER) has been serviced at 300 km and 1100km,


Direct Bikes have done their upmost to deny the rights of the Distant Selling Act and the Sale of Goods Act.


This bike is a danger, cheap Chinese rubbish that is rusty from the inside,


also Direct Bikes if you challenge them will be aggressive and defiant and deny all your evidence.


We have supplied video evidence, photos of the bike with 1 mile on and rust under a sealed dash.


This is just typical of an aggressively managed company that has no interest at all in their customers safety or vulnerability on the road.


Once they have your money you will struggle if you have any issues.


It is a clowns bike and every day we wonder what will drop off.


We have had 2 services and spent more than £300 on service and repairs in just 3 months

all of which Direct Bikes vehemently and aggressively refuse.


Be very careful, Cheap Chinese rubbish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Direct Bikes again.


This is not the first time that we have heard complaints about Direct Bikes. Furthermore, I seem to remember that the story you are describing here is very similar.


Direct Bikes is a company which sells cheap motor scooters online. No doubt there are many people who are satisfied customers. However it seems that the quality control is not great, the delivery mechanism leaves a lot to be desired – and more importantly it looks as if customer service is not at a particularly high level.


Because this is an online company, all purchases from Direct Bikes are subject to the Consumer Contracts Regulations - which includes what was formerly the Distance Selling Regulations..


Here is a link to a summary of the effect of the regulations http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-contracts-regulations


When the bike was delivered to you, you had the right to return it for any reason. If it was damaged, you had the right anyway regardless of the regulations to return it and Direct Bikes were acting unlawfully in requiring you to pay a sum of money for the return.


By keeping the bike one could say that you acquiesced in the contract and lost certain rights. However, I do understand that you kept the bike because you felt under pressure and you could not afford the unlawful return fee.


The bike generally is covered by the Sale of Goods Act and it must be of satisfactory quality. If the clutch has already broken after only three months use then I would say that it is not of satisfactory quality and furthermore, this is such a fundamental breach of the contract by Direct Bikes that it has the effect of allowing you to terminate the contract if you wish.


Frankly, I suggest that you do so.


If that is what you would like to do, then you should stop using the bike completely. Write a letter immediately to Direct Bikes. Tell them that the bike is defective and that you are now rejecting it under the contract and you want them to arrange to collect it and refund you all of your money. If there are any associated expenses which you have incurred with this, then tell them that you want this returned as well.


Give them seven days to collect the bike. That is more than adequate. If they will not collect the bike within your timescale and also if they will not return the money within a further seven days then if I were you I would sue them in the Small Claims Court. You need to stand your ground here. Looking at past stories, I gather that Direct Bikes are not especially cooperative when it comes to this kind of thing. It's a shame because if they really do have a decent bike for sale at very good prices then they could enhance their whole image by responding quickly and positively to the problems which do arise from time to time with any business.


I would suggest that you write the letter that I have suggested above and also in the letter say that they should take the letter as part of the pre-action protocol and if the whole matter is not sorted out to your satisfaction within 14 days that you will start a claim in the County Court.


In the meantime you should start reading around and finding about how to start and to pursue a small claim. Let me assure you that it is very easy and for the kind of value that you are dealing with here you will get your claim fee back and any other expenses. Also, on the basis of what you say, your chances of success are 100%.


We will help you all the way.


My instinct is that if you start making the threats to Direct Bikes they will want to settle. However, don't bank on it. If you make the threat to sue then be prepared to carry out the threat. Don't bluff. If you're not prepared to go ahead then don't make the threat.


You are 100% in the right here. There is no reason few to accept any compromise and Direct Bikes will be best off offering a full and rapid solution.


In relation to the damaged top-box, Direct Bikes are entirely wrong that it is not covered by any warranty simply because it is a free gift. This kind of nasty get-out trick has been tried before and it has come up in front of the courts. The Sale of Goods Act applies to all of the goods which are supplied under the contract and this includes any free gifts. This means that free gifts must also be of satisfactory quality.


Finally, in law you would be entitled to sue Direct Bikes for a sum of money which places you into the position that you would have been in if the contract had proceeded satisfactorily. This means that you don't have to limit yourself simply to suing for the recovery of your money although this would be more normal. It would be entirely acceptable for you to sue for the price of a replacement bike from some other supplier – even if it is more expensive than the bike supplied by Direct Bikes. If this appeals to you, then you should look at the Internet and find a bike which is the equivalent in power and quality to the one that you bought from Direct Bikes. Try and find two or three equivalents from different suppliers. Take the cheapest and if that is more expensive than the Direct Bikes item which you have bought, then you can sue in the County Court for that amount of money on the basis that Direct Bikes contracted to provide you with a bike of a certain quality and as they have failed to do so, you are now going to get an equivalent machine elsewhere at a higher price and that it is reasonable to do so because all you are doing is satisfying the reasonable expectation which you had when you first made your arrangement with Direct Bikes.


Please let us know what you want to do. We will help you draft letters and a claim.


You need to act quickly and efficiently, so make your decision now. We will help you with any small claim, but don't expect us to do all the work for you, you will have to read around the forum to understand the process yourself.


Just to warn you, Direct Bikes monitor this forum and I'm sure that they will see this thread. They may well approach you about the thread. Please don't worry about it. Conduct yourself honestly and moderately and there is nothing to worry about. Please keep your language careful. I have already amended the title of your thread to remove some language which could be taken as unnecessarily offensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have supplied video evidence, photos of the bike with 1 mile on and rust under a sealed dash.




We would be very pleased to receive copies of this evidence please. Could you contact us by emjail on our admin email address. Put direct bikes in the subject line

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we have received some pictures, thank you - but they are rather too close up to really understand their context.


Also, I have looked at their T&Cs. In fairness, they expressly reserve your statutory rights - which would have to happen anyway - reserved or not.


However, there are several detailed terms which are in complete conflict with your statutory rights

- and as such I would expect that they would confuse ordinary customers.


If those invalid terms are then quoted in correspondence to unhappy customers,

I think that there is a real possibility that those customers might be persuaded that they no other rights in the matter and give up their complaint.


Because of this, I think that the Direct Bikes contract is unfair and it should be reported to Trading Standards.




Let me say that lots of companies use similar types of contracts to the same effect.


Unfortunately it is not unlawful to do so.


It is merely unfair

- and course much if the contract is invalid as a result or this unfairness

- in addition to being in conflict with statutory consumer law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...