log in
register

Should retailers accept returns on bibshorts?

  • Creator
    Topic
  • November 14, 2014 at 7:58 am #22733
    KiwiMike

    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?

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 70 total)
1 2 3 4 5
  • Author
    Replies
  • November 16, 2014 at 8:12 pm #820965
    0
    mrmo

    thing is i suspect the longs
    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.

    November 16, 2014 at 7:52 pm #820963
    0
    Kapelmuur

    I have sympathy with the OP,
    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.

    November 15, 2014 at 10:17 pm #820961
    0
    mrmo

    WiznaeMe wrote:If retailers

    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.

    November 15, 2014 at 9:57 pm #820959
    0
    WiznaeMe

    If retailers were to refund
    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.

    November 15, 2014 at 9:19 pm #820957
    0
    DanTe

    What happens to all the stuff
    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?

    November 15, 2014 at 8:29 pm #820955
    0
    Nixster

    You don’t appear to have
    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.

    November 15, 2014 at 7:58 pm #820953
    0
    KiwiMike

    mattsccm wrote:Surely the OP

    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.

    November 15, 2014 at 7:46 pm #820951
    0
    Colin Peyresourde

    Yeah, got to agree with the
    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.

    November 15, 2014 at 7:00 pm #820949
    0
    mattsccm

    Surely the OP is pulling our
    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.

    November 15, 2014 at 6:04 pm #820947
    0
    Nixster

    Sorry, just re-read what I
    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. 😀

    November 15, 2014 at 5:50 pm #820945
    0
    Nixster

    I feel the need to quote a
    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…

    November 15, 2014 at 1:21 pm #820943
    0
    Beefy

    I don’t think it is
    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

    November 15, 2014 at 12:36 pm #820941
    0
    Nick T

    Feeling like they don’t fit
    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.

    November 15, 2014 at 10:41 am #820939
    0
    Grizzerly

    It sounds to me as if the
    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.

    November 14, 2014 at 9:54 pm #820937
    0
    Nick T

    KiwiMike wrote:Nick T

    KiwiMike wrote:
    Nick T wrote:
    You sound a bit mental. What retailers are there which accept clothes with the tag removed to be returned used?

    Christ, would you take half a bag of spuds back to Tesco because the ones you ate didn’t make as good a bowl of mash as you were expecting?

    http://www.thenorthface.com/en_US/contact-us/return-policy/

    This retailer. You may have heard of them. Maybe they are ‘a bit mental’ as well.

    They’ll probably be out of business before you know it, with a customer service/returns policy like that.

    But of course, the collective wisdom of Road.CC forum denizens knows better.

    It’s not uncommon for a manufacturer to offer a refund or replacement policy if the product is no good.

    Retailers, like Wiggle, not so much. Like my Turbo, I bought it from Total Cycling but I registered my warranty with Kurt themselves and will contact them with any claims I may have. Perhaps you might be wise to take it up with Castelli for making ill fitting gear. Or yourself, for having an ill fitting arse.

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 70 total)
1 2 3 4 5
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.