Motolegends, Guilford

Motolegends, Guilford

Author
Discussion

CAPP0

19,533 posts

202 months

Sunday 23rd October 2016
quotequote all
allojon said:
Have to say their arrogant attitude didn't go down well with us either.
(Insincere, bit like some of the replies on this thread are coming across).
And who exactly are these insinceres, The Moose?

Dog Star

16,079 posts

167 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
Is someone going to explain this "The Moose" in-joke, then? confused

HammyUK

129 posts

100 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
So "Christopher Paul" has emailed me with so many inaccuracies is it incredulous!
Going from the fact that I have bought a road trouser and wearing it with an off-road boot with buckles and straps so it was catching on them and not settling back down again. Fairly sure last time I checked Alpinestars SMX are a smooth leather raod boot. In fact the same smooth leather road boot I was wearing on wednesday when I visited their shop to sort it out with them.
He als suggested that I am short in stature and because I'm riding a GS so the leg length will never be right.
That i told the staff that heated gloves were unsuitable for me hence wanting to try the R-Stars.
Any many more.

After replying to him correcting his inaccuracies and suggesting that in fact he might want to review their CCTV to check just what I was in fact wearing when I visited them last week in case one of us was mistaken he came back stating that I had in fact worn the trousers more than once and on one of those occasions had got them heavily wet whereby they had accumulated road grime and dirt, that I have misunderstood the Consumer Rights Act around rejecting the item - that I cannot simply buy a size that I no longer feel is the correct size for me and then reject them and that he had instructed his staff to enter into no further communication with me!

So as far as Christopher Paul is concerned his staff advising me that the short leg is correct and me accepting that due to them having the correct knowledge, product training, etc is now my fault for having bought the wrong length and deciding they now aren't right.
That getting wet whilst wearing the trousers for the first time hence finding out that they were in fact the wrong length meant that I couldn't return them as unfit for purpose.

He reiterated that the products were in fact very high end and very effective.They cannot take back used products, it is made very clear in their terms and conditions. It would be unfair on the next customer.
He believes I must take responsibility for my purchase and not to try and blame his staff for the decisions I have made. Apparently they are there at that time to help and to give their opinion, but in the final analysis, I made the choices, that at that time felt were right.

He is also happy to defend their decision in court should I choose to pursue it.


Gusto

606 posts

232 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
I would just do what you are doing. Vote with your feet and keyboard. Suck it up as experience and don't go back.

But that's just me.

Also remember Sales people in Sales jobs - no matter how hard you might find this to believe - are Sales guys, and rarely know more about a product than you can find out on line/in reviews. Whether they are selling Bikes, Cars, technical kit or pork pies, they sell them, not make them.

HammyUK

129 posts

100 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
Sorry but I'm not about to suck up £600 to experience!
All they had to do wednesday was go "sorry - lets swap them"
End of. No posts here, no complaint, nothing, nada.
But they said "how about.... we could...." letting the clock tick and trying to fob me off.
Not having it - Consumer Rights Act covers it as verified by the Ombudsman this afternoon and a complaint submitted.
Chargeback heading their way too as the bank have confirmed it is covered.
So lets see how Christopher Paul likes his decision to tell me to sod off pans out.

sc0tt

18,032 posts

200 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
Cheers


Gusto

606 posts

232 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
fair enough, I didnt read the bit about £600, I probably would have stood in the doorway crying.

Well played ScOtt, well played!.

terry tibbs

2,188 posts

220 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
HammyUK said:
So "Christopher Paul" has emailed me with so many inaccuracies is it incredulous!
Going from the fact that I have bought a road trouser and wearing it with an off-road boot with buckles and straps so it was catching on them and not settling back down again. Fairly sure last time I checked Alpinestars SMX are a smooth leather raod boot. In fact the same smooth leather road boot I was wearing on wednesday when I visited their shop to sort it out with them.
He als suggested that I am short in stature and because I'm riding a GS so the leg length will never be right.
That i told the staff that heated gloves were unsuitable for me hence wanting to try the R-Stars.
Any many more.

After replying to him correcting his inaccuracies and suggesting that in fact he might want to review their CCTV to check just what I was in fact wearing when I visited them last week in case one of us was mistaken he came back stating that I had in fact worn the trousers more than once and on one of those occasions had got them heavily wet whereby they had accumulated road grime and dirt, that I have misunderstood the Consumer Rights Act around rejecting the item - that I cannot simply buy a size that I no longer feel is the correct size for me and then reject them and that he had instructed his staff to enter into no further communication with me!

So as far as Christopher Paul is concerned his staff advising me that the short leg is correct and me accepting that due to them having the correct knowledge, product training, etc is now my fault for having bought the wrong length and deciding they now aren't right.
That getting wet whilst wearing the trousers for the first time hence finding out that they were in fact the wrong length meant that I couldn't return them as unfit for purpose.

He reiterated that the products were in fact very high end and very effective.They cannot take back used products, it is made very clear in their terms and conditions. It would be unfair on the next customer.
He believes I must take responsibility for my purchase and not to try and blame his staff for the decisions I have made. Apparently they are there at that time to help and to give their opinion, but in the final analysis, I made the choices, that at that time felt were right.

He is also happy to defend their decision in court should I choose to pursue it.
never trust anyone with two Christian names using as a surname. The Moose

fergus

6,430 posts

274 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
HammyUK said:
Sorry but I'm not about to suck up £600 to experience!
All they had to do wednesday was go "sorry - lets swap them"
End of. No posts here, no complaint, nothing, nada.
But they said "how about.... we could...." letting the clock tick and trying to fob me off.
Not having it - Consumer Rights Act covers it as verified by the Ombudsman this afternoon and a complaint submitted.
Chargeback heading their way too as the bank have confirmed it is covered.
So lets see how Christopher Paul likes his decision to tell me to sod off pans out.
From his point of view though, The Moose, you had tried the trousers on, then stood at the till and paid for them, without being under coercion? I think you may have an interesting battle ahead.

HammyUK

129 posts

100 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
fergus said:
From his point of view though, The Moose, you had tried the trousers on, then stood at the till and paid for them, without being under coercion? I think you may have an interesting battle ahead.
Not disputing that however I asked for the regular in the price match original email.
His employed staff said that the short was the correct size as per the manufacturer's specifications, etc.
The law is quite clear that it was an "advised sale" as his staff are classed as a professional.
They are expected to have sufficient knowledge as to advise a "layman".

Consumer Direct and the Ombudsman have both stated as such and opened case numbers as as far as the law is concerned the goods are not fit for use. I am entitled to a replacement, refund or repair at no cost. Its not up for discussion - its clearly laid out.

The fact remains that all this wouldn't even be mentioned if they'd simply swapped them on wednesday.
Even their own website clearly states:
"Our ‘Returns' policy on motorcycle protective wear is pretty straightforward, but nonetheless there is some technical stuff we need to go through with you.
Basically, if you want to return something to us because it doesn't fit, or because you've simply changed your mind, you have a full 12 months to get your goods back to us.
All that we ask is that the items be returned to us unused, in their original packaging, and with all the relevant labels, so that they can be re-sold as new items.
It's a slightly different story if you are returning faulty goods.
In such cases, you must contact us within 4 weeks."

I contacted them in 5 days.
The law states I can return them regardless.
The law also states I can request a replacement, repair or refund regardless.
The merchant cannot refuse this under the act.

Their arrogant attitude and dismissive comments, going on to then suggest wearing them in more rain and having them modified was the cherry on a very unsavoury cake.

CAPP0

19,533 posts

202 months

Monday 24th October 2016
quotequote all
sc0tt said:
Cheers

bow

Others may note however The Moose that simply dropping The Moose randomly into any sentence The Moose is not the answer. This work is best left to the pioneers, The Moose.

Edited by CAPP0 on Monday 24th October 20:42

fergus

6,430 posts

274 months

Tuesday 25th October 2016
quotequote all
HammyUK said:
Even their own website clearly states:

All that we ask is that the items be returned to us unused, in their original packaging, and with all the relevant labels, so that they can be re-sold as new items.
Is this not their issue?

Ed.

2,172 posts

237 months

Tuesday 25th October 2016
quotequote all
fergus said:
HammyUK said:
Even their own website clearly states:

All that we ask is that the items be returned to us unused, in their original packaging, and with all the relevant labels, so that they can be re-sold as new items.
Is this not their issue?
If he had simply changed his mind about wanting them when he got home, yes.
But the whole point is he went in asking for something in one size and the sales assistant said 'no sir, this size will fit you better'.

Broccers

3,236 posts

252 months

Tuesday 25th October 2016
quotequote all
Id do a chargeback and see what your credit card firm comes up with.

SteelerSE

1,885 posts

155 months

Tuesday 25th October 2016
quotequote all
Ed. said:
If he had simply changed his mind about wanting them when he got home, yes.
But the whole point is he went in asking for something in one size and the sales assistant said 'no sir, this size will fit you better'.
Meaning, "no sir this is all we've got in stock and I want my commission."

The...Caribou?


Not entirely sure I've got the hang of this.

308mate

13,757 posts

221 months

Wednesday 26th October 2016
quotequote all
I'm not convinced that place is the last word in practical knowledge. I went in there with a friend and as she had leathers on, his opening line was "Hello, we mainly cater for very high end and bespoke lifestyle and cafe racer type clothing, so you won't find any MotoGP replicas and aero hump stuff in here, ok" Very dismissive, given the person I was with has the capacity to have bought one of everything in store on a whim.

I won't go back. It's all a bit too wky. A cup of tea on arrival does not a good store make.

They do have a fking sexual Kustani leather jacket in there, mind you.