Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Should retailers accept returns on bibshorts?

So after extensive research I purchased a pair of Castelli Nanoflex bibs from Wiggle, paying strict attention to the size guide. They are rated 4.4/5 on Wiggle's site, and the only 'fit' problems raised are with length.

Tried them on in the privacy of my own home, looked good, felt good, all OK. No bunching anywhere, feel snug whilst not restrictive, etc etc.

Go out on a ride, and within 20 miles, it feels like I'm sitting on a rolled-up sock. After 40 miles, I genuinely had to check I had them on the right way around (correct).

Get home, give them a good wash, all seams/pad seem correct and accounted for.

Return them to Wiggle for a refund, and they say:

"We have received back your Castelli Nanoflex Bibshorts you would like us to refund due to the item not fitting. All customers have the opportunity to try on goods when they first receive them to check the fit and size of the item before using them. We hope you can appreciate that we have to follow our own returns procedure to ensure that we only sell goods in the best possible condition, we don't sell used goods so we cannot accept back used goods. All returned goods must be returned to us unused in there original packaging and labels http://www.wiggle.co.uk/h/option/returnsprocedure. Unfortunately sizing issues are not a manufacturing fault therefore are not covered by warranty, due to this we are only able to return this item back to you"

Now I ride about 5,000 miles a year. I have never had a saddle sore. I have never had any kind of issue in the nether department. Be it wearing normal. knicks or full-length bibs, waistband shorts or MTB baggies with a pad.

Should a retailer have to honour a return where the customer has done everything they could to ensure it was a quality product, the right size, the correct fit, used correctly - and yet the product is simply not fit for purpose?

Aside from Wiggle's stupidity at potentially losing for life a customer who spends about £500 a year on stuff over an item they probably made £10 margin on, can I actually go them in a small claims court under the distance selling regs?

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

70 comments

Avatar
DanTe | 9 years ago
0 likes

What happens to all the stuff that gets sent back to Wiggle? They can't resell mateys 20 mile bibs but surely they sell the castelli arm warmers that I've just sent back, even though I separated them?

Avatar
WiznaeMe | 9 years ago
0 likes

If retailers were to refund clothing, which has no manufacturing defects, after customers had worn the items then there would be no reason for anyone to ever hire formal wear etc. They could just buy it and return it.

I looked at the North Face link posted and it says that goods can be returned up to a year later. I didn't notice anything about wearing the items. Perhaps this returns policy is to allow people to buy Christmas presents like ski wear in Summer as a present and when they make the gift it doesn't fit/suit.

Avatar
Kapelmuur | 9 years ago
0 likes

I have sympathy with the OP, a garment that is designed to keep the wearer comfy while riding a bike can only be proven to perform during a ride, not during a '5 second' try on. In this case the garment is not fit for purpose. Surely it's in the interest of the retailer and manufacturer to investigate? This could be the equivalent of the 'Friday car' and maybe there are other similarly defective garments out there that the 'suck it up' brigade have quietly binned while vowing not to buy Wiggle/Castelli again.

I've worked in retail and know there are plenty of vexatious chancers out there, but the OP has a history of transactions with the retailer that should be taken into consideration.

Avatar
mrmo | 9 years ago
0 likes

thing is i suspect the longs are fine, and it is a bit like saddles, not everyone is the same and some shorts and some saddles really do not work as a pair. It wouldn't shock me that if the OP changed their saddle that the longs become comfortable.

Avatar
Merchant of Cool | 9 years ago
0 likes

Should have gone to your LBS......

Avatar
The _Kaner | 9 years ago
0 likes

What's a pad...surely some goose fat on the nethers is all it takes....and a house brick taped to the crossbar...eeeh when I were a lad....

Avatar
indyjukebox | 9 years ago
0 likes

Have you perhaps considered that it is your nether regions that are not fit for purpose?

Ok, jokes aside, I think you are mad. And I think it is commendable of Wiggle to offer a 75% refund. The fact that you are still whining after getting decent CS, I am at a loss for words.

Its underwear, it is not refundable. Otherwise we would all be enjoying someone else's skid marks.

Avatar
tomisitt | 9 years ago
0 likes

Blah blah blah blah. It's the Test Valley CC I feel sorry for!

Mike, you asked for opinions, many were offered, mostly along the lines of "no, retailers shouldn't have to accept returns on used bibshorts". You have your answer. Take the 75% refund and move on.

Avatar
hsiaolc | 9 years ago
0 likes

If sizing doesn't fit then you should know once you have tried it on and not after you taken a 20 mile ride?
Sorry but I think once you've already used it then you shouldn't expect a full refund especially on under garments.

Avatar
md6 | 9 years ago
0 likes

So in essence you think that something which doesn't fit you well is faulty? Its not. It might be the wrong size/shape for you, but that doesn't mean it isn't fit for purpose, just that it is not the correct size/shape for you. If you bought shoes that pinched your feet after wearing them for a few days in the office, would they be 'not fit for purpose' or would you just think they were too narrow (or whatever) for your foot? I really don't understand why you think Wiggle would refund you for something that you wore and don't like the fit of, which is all this really is, regardless of you dressing it up as anything else. Long and short, you don't like the fit after wearing for 20 miles. That doesn't make it 'not fit for purpose'

Avatar
hsiaolc | 9 years ago
0 likes

So when you tried it on it fits fine but only after a ride of 20 miles then it starts to bunch up?

I have bought many bibs before long or short and if it is too long you know it immediately. Not sure how you manage to get it to fit perfectly and then suddenly it starts to stretch to a point where you feel like bunch up sock.

I bought a short bib from Rapha and it was way too long and you can see that the moment you put it on. Show them the pictures on me and they exchanged for another one smaller. I didn't have to ride in it to know its long.

From experience the long bibs they can't cater to everyone at different heights or leg length. Pull it up a bit more if you think it is too long or leave it more at the bottom of the ankle so it is flush at the thighs and most importantly around the knees.

You really can't expect to get full refund on under garments that you used for a 20 mile ride and washed it and then return.

Sorry I don't agree with your mentality or thinking with regards to this.

Avatar
mrmo replied to WiznaeMe | 9 years ago
0 likes
WiznaeMe wrote:

If retailers were to refund clothing, which has no manufacturing defects, after customers had worn the items then there would be no reason for anyone to ever hire formal wear etc. They could just buy it and return it.

Well....

Not saying i have, but i do know people who have...

just don't spill red wine on it.

Avatar
Chuck replied to Merchant of Cool | 9 years ago
0 likes
Merchant of Cool wrote:

Should have gone to your LBS......

What would be different if he had?

Avatar
KiwiMike replied to mrmo | 9 years ago
0 likes
mrmo wrote:

thing is i suspect the longs are fine, and it is a bit like saddles, not everyone is the same and some shorts and some saddles really do not work as a pair. It wouldn't shock me that if the OP changed their saddle that the longs become comfortable.

Are you kidding? nearly 10,000km with that saddle (Charge Spoon) and never a saddle sore or problem, sitting up for a 16hr Audax or doing a 1hr deep-in-the-drops TT-of-Death. No way am I risking that relationship  3

Avatar
KiwiMike replied to indyjukebox | 9 years ago
0 likes
indyjukebox wrote:

Have you perhaps considered that it is your nether regions that are not fit for purpose?

Ok, jokes aside, I think you are mad. And I think it is commendable of Wiggle to offer a 75% refund. The fact that you are still whining after getting decent CS, I am at a loss for words.

Its underwear, it is not refundable. Otherwise we would all be enjoying someone else's skid marks.

You cannot return 'underwear' under the Consumer Contract Regulations if you simply change your mind - http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/distance-selling-regul...

But all retailers accept bike shorts back, and you are indeed recommended to try them on and can return if they 'don't fit' - AKA 'change your mind' - as many have said so here. So by the retailer's own standards, these are not 'underwear'.

*ANY ITEM* that has been used and returned cannot be sold as-new by a retailer. Be it shoes, a Garmin, a 105 shifter or a pair of bibshorts. So no, you are incorrect to suggest that if Wiggle accepted returns on shorts that they would then be illegally repackaging them so you would then "be enjoying someone else's skid marks". To say that is to also suggest that every other item returned under the Consumer Contract Regulations is then also repackaged and sold as-new.

The law doesn't get all juvenile over the fact that yes, it's been near your arse. It's simply A Product, that has Been Used, and then returned because it Didn't Work. A surprisingly hard concept to grasp, apparently. Not sure why, perhaps because significant personal discomfort is harder to quantify than, say, a failed battery, defective screen or cleat ripped out from a shoe. That doesn't make it any less of a ground to request a replacement product or a refund on.

Avatar
KiwiMike replied to tomisitt | 9 years ago
0 likes
tomisitt wrote:

Blah blah blah blah. It's the Test Valley CC I feel sorry for!

Mike, you asked for opinions, many were offered, mostly along the lines of "no, retailers shouldn't have to accept returns on used bibshorts". You have your answer. Take the 75% refund and move on.

{adds 'Should you be able to return bibshorts?' to list of Things Not To Discuss At Cycling Dinner Parties}

...Still intrigued by the logical argument why so many people accept one kind of kit as being OK to not work as described despite costing £90 and being sized correctly, no right of return, no consumer rights, at the whim of the retailer to offer a partial refund. Yet the same folks would probably scream blue murder if a £90 tyre only lasted 500k, or a £90 bike computer was only visible at night, etc. etc.

The 'it's underwear so it's special' canard has been debunked - retailers can't resell *any* item of kit that's been returned used, except on eBay. Where you'll see plenty of pairs of bibshorts up for auction.

Anyway, it's with Castelli/Saddleback to review now.

Avatar
KiwiMike replied to hsiaolc | 9 years ago
0 likes
hsiaolc wrote:

If sizing doesn't fit then you should know once you have tried it on and not after you taken a 20 mile ride?
Sorry but I think once you've already used it then you shouldn't expect a full refund especially on under garments.

Sizing did 'fit', to the inch. Felt great at home and on bike in garage. See OP.

Had already purchased the next size down following reviews that had said the legs may be too long and the fit was slim, and sent back after trying on as they 'felt' too small.

Avatar
KiwiMike replied to md6 | 9 years ago
0 likes
md6 wrote:

So in essence you think that something which doesn't fit you well is faulty? Its not. It might be the wrong size/shape for you, but that doesn't mean it isn't fit for purpose, just that it is not the correct size/shape for you. If you bought shoes that pinched your feet after wearing them for a few days in the office, would they be 'not fit for purpose' or would you just think they were too narrow (or whatever) for your foot? I really don't understand why you think Wiggle would refund you for something that you wore and don't like the fit of, which is all this really is, regardless of you dressing it up as anything else. Long and short, you don't like the fit after wearing for 20 miles. That doesn't make it 'not fit for purpose'

It's not that I 'didn't like' them - they were painful. I wasn't buying them for anyone else, I was buying them for *me*. The only 'fit for purpose' reference point is *my* purpose.

The analogy re shoes is out for two reasons:

1 - shoes only stretch to fit your foot. Some discomfort is acceptable at first. You can tell if they aren't going to work.

2 - as pointed out above by another, used shoe returns are a well-beaten-path, if you'll excuse the pun. The hiking/sports industry pretty much accepts them as part of business: http://community.runnersworld.com/topic/return-policy-at-your-shoe-store...

Fundamentally I don't see the difference in going for a 40-mile ride in £90 shorts or a 20-mile run in some £90 shoes - neither can be resold as new if returned, and if both cause pain after following manufacturer's fit guides, they should be replaced/refunded. The shoe industry agrees, why shouldn't the cycling industry?

hsiaolc wrote:

So when you tried it on it fits fine but only after a ride of 20 miles then it starts to bunch up?

No, it didn't 'bunch up'. Yes, they fitted fine.

hsiaolc wrote:

I have bought many bibs before long or short and if it is too long you know it immediately

Agreed - leg length was fine. I wouldn't have ridden them if it weren't.

hsiaolc wrote:

Not sure how you manage to get it to fit perfectly and then suddenly it starts to stretch to a point where you feel like bunch up sock.

Me neither. Hence why I think they are faulty.

Avatar
mrmo replied to KiwiMike | 9 years ago
0 likes
KiwiMike wrote:

Are you kidding? nearly 10,000km with that saddle (Charge Spoon) and never a saddle sore or problem, sitting up for a 16hr Audax or doing a 1hr deep-in-the-drops TT-of-Death. No way am I risking that relationship  3

Well if we're willy waving, done 40,000km on an SLR135 on the road bike and a few thousand on a SLRXP and SLR135 on the mountain bike, both using a variety of shorts, 3/4s and longs, one pair that were fine on the SLR XP and SLR135 on the mountain bike are excruciating on the road bike.

Pad position, ride position, saddle, all matter. I guess it is why Endura are starting to offer different pad widths in their shorts.

Avatar
hsiaolc replied to KiwiMike | 9 years ago
0 likes
KiwiMike wrote:
hsiaolc wrote:

If sizing doesn't fit then you should know once you have tried it on and not after you taken a 20 mile ride?
Sorry but I think once you've already used it then you shouldn't expect a full refund especially on under garments.

Sizing did 'fit', to the inch. Felt great at home and on bike in garage. See OP.

Had already purchased the next size down following reviews that had said the legs may be too long and the fit was slim, and sent back after trying on as they 'felt' too small.

If sizing of this brand doesn't fit you well then don't buy it next time. Sell it second hand.

I personally think I have a very weird body geometry so if most bibs fit me fine I don't see you can't and I am fat and short so I have to buy big and with long legs but never really had too much problem.

I had the Castili, rapha, assos, dhb, pactimo, and a few others and never had to return because of long legs except for rapha bib shorts. They are mostly made out of lycra so just pull them up and they mostly will stay.

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde | 9 years ago
0 likes

Yeah, got to agree with the general thread of this. Wiggle are not responsible for the fit of a garment. If you tried on a jacket and it was immediately too large, then you put it back in the box and get a refund. No use, no problem. If you'd done the same with the bib shorts then they could not complain.

But to take it out, decide you don't like how it sits after the sweat and bum juice have had a chance to mingle with the product is a little bit much. Unless there is a problem with the build quality the manufacturer has designed the pad and shorts as you found them. Unless the stitching etc. went and the seat pad shifted then, the design didn't change from when you first tried them on to the time they started to cause chaffing.

There are few seat pads that don't make you wish for bucket seats and cotton pants after 80+miles.

I must admit I had a similar customer service issue with Snow & Rock (this was actually to do with a Power Monkey charger). I took the product back after use saying it didn't do what I thought it could do, and essentially it didn't seem to work. I was mightily surprised that they didn't refund me the money there and then.

They sent it off to the customer services for testing and then eventually agreed with me that it was faulty and refunded the money….but not before my feeling about their brand had taken a serious dent. But their point was that they could not resell the product, and needed to be sure it didn't work. I think they should have just sucked it up and dealt with the manufacturer.

Avatar
mattsccm | 9 years ago
0 likes

Surely the OP is pulling our plonkers ? A 5 second fit is plenty. They cannot now be sold as new so why should they be replaced.
It's a sad situation that so many shops are put in this stupid situation by a stupid law. +why should people have the right to reject just because they got it wrong or were too tight to go to a real shop and pay a bit more.
I have no objections to returns if a product is defective but otherwise it should be at the sellers discretion. No doubt many sellers would offer returns but to make it compulsory is just another example of the sad and selfish society we live in where no one takes responsibility for anything.

Avatar
KiwiMike replied to mattsccm | 9 years ago
0 likes
mattsccm wrote:

Surely the OP is pulling our plonkers ? A 5 second fit is plenty. They cannot now be sold as new so why should they be replaced.
It's a sad situation that so many shops are put in this stupid situation by a stupid law. +why should people have the right to reject just because they got it wrong or were too tight to go to a real shop and pay a bit more.
I have no objections to returns if a product is defective but otherwise it should be at the sellers discretion. No doubt many sellers would offer returns but to make it compulsory is just another example of the sad and selfish society we live in where no one takes responsibility for anything.

You don't appear to have understood the fundamental point that something that's been purchased following extensive research and according to manufacturer's size guidelines, and is then uncomfortable to the point of pain after moderate use is not 'fit for purpose'. Hey ho.

Avatar
Nixster replied to KiwiMike | 9 years ago
0 likes

You don't appear to have understood the fundamental point that something that's been purchased following extensive research and according to manufacturer's size guidelines, and is then uncomfortable to the point of pain after moderate use is not 'fit for purpose'. Hey ho.[/quote]

No, to be honest I think we understand the point you're trying to make, you simply haven't made it.

If the proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus can successfully use them for their intended purpose, then they are fit for purpose. One could cite in supporting evidence the numerous positive reviews on Wiggle and elsewhere. The fact that you personally find them uncomfortable, while unfortunate, is not in itself definitive evidence that the shorts in question are not fit for purpose. Rather it suggests that they do not suit you.

So I suggest that they are fit for purpose, they just don't meet your preferences. A 75% refund on the grounds of 'I don't like them now I've used them' seems on the generous side of reasonable to me.

Avatar
Nixster | 9 years ago
0 likes

Sorry, just re-read what I wrote there, clearly wasn't thinking straight.

What I meant to say was, if they're a medium, send them to me and I'll give you the other 25% plus postage and I'll take the risk on fit for purpose. You can even keep the Haribo.  4

Avatar
Nixster | 9 years ago
0 likes

I feel the need to quote a balancing experience of Wiggle, as it happens also in relation to some Castelli shorts.

After nearly 3 months of approximately weekly wear, the silicone leg gripper tape came away from one leg of a pair of Evoluzione bibs - which are their entry level shorts.

Wiggle offered a full refund or exchange the day the shorts reached them. I considered this pretty good really, a fair outcome speedily reached and made me a happy customer.

As others have said, fit for purpose means that it does what it's supposed to. Other than the view that you don't like the way they feel, you haven't made an argument on fitness for purpose. A 75% refund sound more than fair to me. Ebay them, you'll probably end up in profit.

Other on-line retailers are also available...

Avatar
Beefy | 9 years ago
0 likes

I don't think it is reasonable to expect a refund on the shorts surely the customer has a responsibility to make certain the item suits before using,, though I must say my experience of wiggle customer service particularly returning faulty items is shit! However there prices can some times out weigh the poor service

Avatar
Nick T | 9 years ago
0 likes

Feeling like they don't fit you after you've given them a good wear doesn't really add up to being unfit for purpose. These aren't bespoke items, they make no garuantee of comfort for every body. If they're faulty fair enough, but it doesn't seem like that's tge case here. You can take your new car back to VW because the engine keeps breaking down, but good luck getting a full refund because you don't like the seats.

Avatar
Grizzerly | 9 years ago
0 likes

It sounds to me as if the goods were not 'suitable for the purpose intended', which is the basic grounds for the retailer to accept the return and provide a refund.
It doesn't matter how good everyone else thinks they are.

Avatar
monty dog | 9 years ago
0 likes

How would the OP feel if he bought a pair of 'new' shorts from Wiggle and found they'd only been used once?

Pages

Latest Comments