I can't believe a bike shop would do this

[slowK]

Very interesting post http://carbonaddiction.net/2014/07/16/t ... de-almost/

Maybe I'm naive, but I'm amazed that a shop would try this.

(I have nothing to do with carbonaddiction, but I do like reading his blog.)

[rkelsen]

They're in business to make money. I had a good chuckle at the car dealer comment. They do things much worse than that...

[ldrcycles]

As one of the comments on the article says, if it was me i would get a refund and then never set foot anywhere near that shop again.

I've never heard of it before but it makes sense, after all as soon as the next year's model is out the "old" one is all but worthless.

[outnabike]

Maybe the shop owner does this every year and gets away with it, riding the latest every year and then palming it off.
Love to see the invoicing from the distributor on how many "demos" this shop buys.

[biker jk]

These shonks need to be named and shamed. Fair Trading needs to be informed otherwise it will happen again. There needs to be some financial penalty and reputational damage.

[Dirty32]

Yeah, thats very poor form and a shocking business practise.
Id be gutted if I found out that I had bought a bike from them previously...!

[Parker]

Wasn't there a bike shop in WA that was doing that with Pinarello's?

[AUbicycles]

Although the policy on BNA is not to name and shame (because there are two sides to every argument) - The shop has shown that they did scam and the big problem is that they are obviously of poor character and could pull this stunt on someone else who is less experienced.

We only know a small part of the story but I would not feel comfortable getting the same shop to order the genuine bike. It is fraud and and from this perspective it is in the greater interest that consumers are aware of their practices.

[mikaelkn]

I dunno, looks a bit overly exaggerated by our car salesman:

Luckily for me, working in the auto game I caught on to the scam pretty much straight away. When I took the bike home I immediately attempted to register the frame on the manufacturer’s website to initiate the warranty that comes standard with their products.The website kept crashing so I couldn’t finalise the frame registration. I rang the distributor’s contact number..

Claims to be sharp but really his persistence paid off. Also the bit about the manufacturer's website kept on crashing should be indicative of the manufacturer's quality lol.

Anyway I reckon it was nothing more than the shop getting the wrong colour on the buyer's vanity initials.

[AUbicycles]

mikaelkn, while we have limited info, I don't agree with your take on this and would hate to be a victim of this - likewise wouldn't like to see others being a victim.

While it is mostly a one-way account, the extract you have highlighted could mean that Luigi caught onto the scam with due dilligence when registering and confirming details with the brand. It is uncertain whether Luigi is indicating that he suspected the scam when picking up the bike.

Much of the bike industry is behind with technology - while some big brands have been progressive, there is no automatic connection between the quality of a brand and the quality of their website.

Granted that the buyer was confident and prides themself on detecting the scam - But if the buyer orders a 2014 bike and receive a 2011-2013 frame that was resprayed to resemble the new model, then it reeks more of deceptive that a mistake ordering. Generally paint work is done overseas and the buyer has documented that the decals don't match original / genuine specification.


Perhaps a rider may not notice the difference and it could be argued that what they don't know doesn't hurt them. But I believe if the retailer is profiting by deceiving the customer and not fulfilling the service for which they are being paid, then the retailer is in the wrong. If however the account by Luigi is incorrect and the shop acted properly - then this should have been revealed by now.

[warthog1]

Well summarised Chris.

I would hope the bike shop would have their contact to sell these bikes terminated given these passages in the blog;

I rang the distributor’s contact number and they were very helpful. When asked to supply the frame ID, we found that the black and yellow frame I’d been given was actually purchased by the bike shop as a “demo” frame and was originally painted black, white and red. The frame had been re-sprayed to look like the 2014 model I wanted.

After discovering what had happened, I chose to correspond with the bike store concerned via emails only and copied all correspondence to the Australian distributor.

That sort of behaviour reflects very poorly on that bike shop and you would hope the distributor (and manufacturer if aware) would no longer want to be associated with them.

[jules21]

Wasn't there a bike shop in WA that was doing that with Pinarello's?

glory cycles or bike force?

[AUbicycles]

I have refererenced this story in a new article on the main site: My Bike Shop Sucks! How to find a better bike store.

[Le Mong]

What shop was it?

[AUbicycles]

The original source did not name... and the forum policy is not to name and shame. Read the article I wrote (linked above) about some of the problems cause by naming a retailer (no mater how wrong or right they are.

[Mulger bill]

What shop was it?

Shoot a PM to the OP.

[Le Mong]

The original source did not name... and the forum policy is not to name and shame. Read the article I wrote (linked above) about some of the problems cause by naming a retailer (no mater how wrong or right they are.

Threaten all they like. If there is documented proof they did this then they dont have a leg to stand in terms of name and shame if its kept factual.

[bigfriendlyvegan]

What shop was it?

Shoot a PM to the OP.

You'd have to ask Peter Maniaty from Carbon Addiction who wrote the piece.

[find_bruce]

The original source did not name... and the forum policy is not to name and shame. Read the article I wrote (linked above) about some of the problems cause by naming a retailer (no mater how wrong or right they are.

Threaten all they like. If there is documented proof they did this then they dont have a leg to stand in terms of name and shame if its kept factual.

I take it you have never been the subject of a spurious lawsuit like this one. Sure the person ended up getting an order for costs, Elliott v Tomkins (No. 3) [2014] NSWDC 68, but (1) the amount will be ~75% of the money actually spent (2) an order for costs is not the same as receiving money and (3) none of it compensates you for the time and effort you spend on dealing with the matter, time that could be more usefully spent riding your bike or hunting down that toby jug that will finish ff your collection.

I am all in favour of people donating money to the underprivileged lawyers who are struggling to make ends meet on a lousy $750,000 pa. Times are so tough some of them have even had to sell off paintings & sculptures. Do you know how much it costs to hire a helicopter to get the sculpture out ?

Despite my altruistic nature, I can understand why AUbicycles would rather avoid it.

[outnabike]

Easy for others to make the bullets and then let him fire them.
Maybe if the bloke concerned sues the bike shop he will not get the recommended first service.

[jules21]

bruce, i always imagined that a defamation case based on internet musings was only likely to succeed if a request to delete the offending content was ignored. sure if it's put on the front page of The Australian the damage is done, but on a forum?

[find_bruce]

bruce, i always imagined that a defamation case based on internet musings was only likely to succeed if a request to delete the offending content was ignored. sure if it's put on the front page of The Australian the damage is done, but on a forum?

Defamation law isn't my thing, but from my limited understanding, the tort is complete once the offending material is published. Deletion, retraction, apologies etc may reduce damage & placate hurt feelings but it doesn't eliminate the case - eg Andrw Farley was ordered to pay $85,000 compensatory damages for his tweets & facebook posts & a further $20,000 for failing to remove them Mickle v Farley [2013] NSWDC 295, although the teacher probably didn't receive much, given he reportedly filed for bankruptcy.

Not a bad summary of it in this guardian article Six things to know to avoid being sued for defamation in Australia

[rkelsen]

A statement of fact is not defamation.

[bigfriendlyvegan]

What Bruce is pointing out is that even if it's a statement of fact, having someone take you to court can be costly. Bruce knows a thing or two about this sort of stuff. He sometimes wears a wig under his bike helmet.

[rkelsen]

That'd have to itch, wouldn't it?