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.

Hi don't

Welcome to CAG

How did you pay for the bike?

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.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?419313-Direct-Scooters-Direct-Bikes-***

http://www.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:6449422593&ie=UTF-8&q=direct+bikes&sa=Search+CAG#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%22direct%20bikes%22

http://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/5crfg-16-year-old-son-bought-new-scooter-direct-bikes-but.html

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=876100

http://www.bikechatforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=264093

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5112631&goto=newpost\

http://www.scootershack.co.uk/threads/headlight-and-rear-light-direct-bikes.20149/

By the way, do not get involved in any phone calls without recording the call.

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

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.

http://www.scooter.co.uk/scooter-terms.html

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.