# CONSUMER RIGHTS CLAIM LETTER
## Important legal, jurisdiction and formality warning
This fictional letter is an illustrative worked example, not legal advice, a formal claim form or a guarantee that a particular remedy will succeed. It assumes a consumer and trader in England and Wales and refers to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, but the correct remedy depends on the contract, goods, timing, evidence, exclusions, payment method and any mandatory rule. A bespoke or personalised item may raise different issues, and a trader may have rights to inspect or offer a repair or replacement. Check the current pre-action practice direction, limitation rules, court fees, ADR options and evidence before issuing proceedings. Obtain advice from a qualified adviser or consumer service if the dispute is significant.
From: Imogen Claire Mercer, 7 Saffron Court, Norwich NR2 3QL
Telephone: 01603 555 2782 | Email: imogen.mercer@example.test
To: Fenwick Cycle Works Limited, Customer Resolutions, 14 Foundry Street, Norwich NR1 1LF
Date: 8 November 2026
Subject: Consumer rights claim concerning Ashmere Touring Bicycle, order FCW-21984
Dear Customer Resolutions Team,
I write about the Ashmere Touring Bicycle, frame size medium, serial number ATB-26-0417, which I ordered from Fenwick Cycle Works Limited on 12 September 2026. I paid the agreed price of £1,860.00, made up of the bicycle at £1,725.00, a fitted rear rack at £85.00 and delivery at £50.00. VAT was included in the displayed prices. I bought as a consumer for personal touring and commuting, not for business, hire or resale. Delivery to 7 Saffron Court, Norwich, took place on 19 September 2026.
The sales adviser, Oliver Dane, told me in the showroom on 12 September that the bicycle had been built and checked for a rider weighing up to 120 kilograms, that the rack was rated for 25 kilograms, and that the bicycle was suitable for a 45-mile mixed-surface charity ride that I described. The written order records the frame, rack and a six-month service appointment. I did not ask for an unusual modification beyond the listed frame colour, and I have followed the handbook and maintenance instructions.
## Chronology and defects
On 20 September I completed a 12-mile test ride. The rear wheel developed a pronounced side-to-side movement and the rear brake began rubbing. I reported this by email the same day and supplied photographs. Fenwick asked me to bring the bicycle to its workshop, which I did on 22 September. The technician, Ravi Malhotra, adjusted the wheel and brake and returned the bicycle on 24 September.
The fault returned during a 17-mile ride on 28 September. On 29 September the rear wheel spokes loosened further and the tyre contacted the frame. I stopped riding immediately. I emailed the workshop and delivered the bicycle on 30 September. Your job sheet JS-8841 records replacement of two spokes and a second brake adjustment, with no charge to me. The bicycle was returned on 5 October.
On 11 October, during a 9-mile ride on an ordinary paved cycle route, the rear wheel again moved laterally. The rack also detached at its left mounting point, although I had carried a 6-kilogram pannier, well below the stated 25-kilogram rating. The bicycle was not involved in a collision. A local independent mechanic, Rosedale Cycles, examined it on 13 October. Its report RC-1037 dated 14 October records a recurring wheel-build problem, a distorted dropout alignment measurement of 1.8 millimetres, and a rack mounting bolt that could not be tightened to the manufacturer torque without the mounting eyelet turning.
I notified Fenwick with the report on 15 October and asked for a permanent solution. On 19 October Oliver offered a further wheel adjustment and a replacement rack, but did not give a date or confirm that the underlying alignment would be investigated. I declined to ride the bicycle pending a safe inspection. On 22 October Fenwick offered collection on 10 November. Because that date was after my planned event, I bought a safe short-term hire bicycle from Norwich Pedal Hire for three days at £96.00. The hire was reasonably incurred and I have the invoice NPH-5520.
## Legal basis and remedy sought
The bicycle and fitted rack have not been of satisfactory quality and have not been fit for the purpose made known to the trader. The defects appeared within a short period, have recurred after two repair attempts, and affect safety and ordinary use. I rely on the statutory rights applicable to my consumer contract, including the short-term right to reject where available and, alternatively, the rights to a repair or replacement and then an appropriate price reduction or final rejection. I do not treat a manufacturer warranty as replacing my statutory rights.
I now exercise my right to reject the bicycle and rack and request a refund of £1,860.00 to the card used for payment. I will make the goods available for collection at 7 Saffron Court or deliver them to a mutually agreed local location at Fenwick's reasonable cost. Please do not treat a collection as acceptance of a further repair. If you say that rejection is unavailable, please explain the legal and factual basis and make a specific, safe proposal for a durable remedy without requiring me to incur further transport or inspection costs.
My presently evidenced consequential loss is £96.00 for the three-day hire bicycle. The arithmetic is three days at £32.00 per day, totaling £96.00. I also paid £45.00 to Rosedale Cycles for its diagnostic report, invoice RC-1037, and request reimbursement because it was reasonably obtained after the repeated problem. The total additional sum requested is therefore £141.00, making the total requested payment £2,001.00. I will provide copies of the receipts and will not claim both overlapping losses. I reserve my position on any further loss only if it is legally recoverable and supported by evidence.
Please respond in writing by 22 November 2026, confirming whether Fenwick accepts rejection, the collection arrangements, the refund date and payment of £141.00. If you dispute any part, identify each disputed fact, provide the relevant inspection or repair record, state the remedy you propose, and explain how it addresses the recurring alignment and rack-mounting defects. I invite Fenwick to propose an appropriate ADR process if it cannot resolve the matter by that date.
## Evidence and preservation
I hold the order confirmation, payment receipt, sales email, photographs dated 20 September and 11 October, job sheet JS-8841, independent report RC-1037, hire invoice NPH-5520, diagnostic invoice, and correspondence with Oliver Dane. I have stored the bicycle dry and have not altered it since 11 October. Please preserve all workshop notes, photographs, component measurements, quality-control records and communications concerning serial number ATB-26-0417.
If the dispute remains unresolved, I may seek advice and consider proceedings in the appropriate court. Any court claim would be subject to the applicable limitation period, pre-action rules, court fee and the court's assessment of evidence and remedy. This letter is intended to give a fair opportunity to resolve the dispute and is not a claim form. I remain willing to discuss a practical collection date and an accurate final settlement.
Yours faithfully,
Imogen Claire Mercer
Signature: __________________________ Date: 8 November 2026