Damaged skis ;-(

Tony_H wrote:the ski's were only bought in November 2009

Hang on - if the skis were bought less than 6 months ago, the warranty is irrelevant. Aren't you covered by your statutory rights under the Sale of Goods Act, which states that goods should be fit for purpose? Skis would be expected to last longer than 1 season, surely? Even if you skiied every single day for 6 months - which you haven't anyway. Your first remedy is with the retailer from whom you purchased the skis. They shouldn't be fobbing you off onto the manufacturer, as your contract is with the retailer.
Also, thanks to European Regulations, UK law now offers greater protection for consumers against products which develop faults within the first 6 months.
I also understand that for damage spotted within the first 6 months, it is for the supplier to prove that the goods conformed with the contract at the point at which they were supplied – and not you to prove that you didn't cause the damage.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have picked this information up from extensive research on consumer protection for various family and friends. Maybe you'll find something useful in it.

Good luck,
Allie

acarr wrote:

Tony_H wrote:the ski's were only bought in November 2009

Hang on - if the skis were bought less than 6 months ago, the warranty is irrelevant. Aren't you covered by your statutory rights under the Sale of Goods Act, which states that goods should be fit for purpose? Skis would be expected to last longer than 1 season, surely? Even if you skiied every single day for 6 months - which you haven't anyway. Your first remedy is with the retailer from whom you purchased the skis. They shouldn't be fobbing you off onto the manufacturer, as your contract is with the retailer.
Also, thanks to European Regulations, UK law now offers greater protection for consumers against products which develop faults within the first 6 months.
I also understand that for damage spotted within the first 6 months, it is for the supplier to prove that the goods conformed with the contract at the point at which they were supplied – and not you to prove that you didn't cause the damage.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have picked this information up from extensive research on consumer protection for various family and friends. Maybe you'll find something useful in it.

Good luck,
Allie

What is normal wear and tear for a ski ?

I would guess that such a case might be based on whether damage to ski tips is normal wear and tear, and the manufacturer should be expected take steps to protect the tip, because of the resulting possibility of delamination. Over the last decade, there had been a move toward all skis having protective caps on the tips of the skis, but that has changed for certain types of ski. I think the trend away from tip caps, is probably dictated by fashion. People want their skis, especially powder, and park, to look like they are made by small ski builders, and also tip protectors can be ugly (I don't think swing weight is really a factor). So did the manufacturer make a decision to design a ski without a tip cap, knowing that damage and resulting delamination were likely ?

Hmmm, lots of interesting things thrown in here.
Scott skis, all mountain ones anyway, certainly do not have tip protectors. I would imagine this is because they are invariably semi or full twin tips and therefore this is a fashion and design choice. I have to say I think that skis do look better without tip protectors, but thats just me.

As for insurance, my excess is £50 so its well worth claiming if it comes to that. The policy is a winter sports extension which simply says "cover if damaged lost or stolen during your journey...."

At this stage, its only the retailer who have suggested it may not be a manufacturing issue. I am still waiting for Scott to come back, but the retailer are suggesting they feel this may be the case. So I am interested to read the comments regarding my rights as a buyer, the 6 month issue, and so on. Lets see what Scott say before I do anything else.

Ok, there is bad news, and some good news.
The bad news is Scott definitely think the damage comes from rear end severe impact. This is news to me, but I guess having transported them 3 times across Europe this season, anything could have happened to them to cause this.

The good news is my insurance covers me for damage during transport, and Snowtrax are being particularly helpful in providing documentation which confirms the problem and how they may have been damaged. I will have to pay an excess, but basically I will get back almost as much as I paid for them.

In the meantime, Snowtrax have offered to provide me with a pair of 2011 Neo's at a heavily reduced rate so I can replace them for very little financial uplift.

I now need to wait for the insurance to pay out, and I can get sorted again.

Tony, I've not had my hands on the damaged ski, but I've seen the photo. It must have been a pretty specialised rear end hit to delaminate just the one layer of base and leave no impact mark.

Any decent ski shop will provide documentation in the form of valuation and a damage report for insurers. Been there done that.

Lots of web active skiers are aware that there were duff batches of Scotts which were prone to delam problems around the production time of your skis.

So, being totally cynical, the dealer gets rid of a known problem, neatly sidesteps their responsibilities as a seller and gets to sell you another pair too. Nice work if you can get it!

Waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck.........

However, I'm aware that you are pretty busy with lots of stuff right now, so take the path of least resistance, would be my suggestion.

As for a replacement ski, I suggest that you wait and test, there are plenty of skis in this performance category, some seem to have less quality control problems.

I still think superglue and a clamp would have sorted the problem. Its worked for me in the past!! :?:

Tony

I have just done a quick search about the problems that Scott have had and it seems to relate to Neos and Mission skis however judging by it Scott are just reverting saying that it is impact damage and will provide a report advising the same. I haven't been able to find any professional report or opinion on the delamination.

Putting my professional head on I have to say that you won't get anywhere with Scott unless you can obtain an independant experts report that says the delamination isn't as a result of impact but a manufacturing defect. Whilst this isn't impossible the time and cost isn't worth it and even then Scott are unlikely to pay out so it will mean you having to run a case through the small claims court and you have a 50:50 chance of succeeding.

My honest opinion is to wait and see what Scott say if they refuse on account of impact then ensure they give you are report and submit this to your household insurers and claim the cost back. Keep the skis and get the repaired and buy yourself a new set :twisted:

I am with Bandit on this one - the 'rear end impact' sounds much too convenient.

I had a problem with my nearly new car, a car which was covered by a 3 year manufacturers warranty, and the garage also said it was 'rear end impact' which wasn't covered under the warranty (and was totally invisible plus I am the only driver and I leave it overnight in our own yard so it must have happened in a car park in town).

However, life is too short for long stomach-ulcer inducing arguments sometimes, and I just paid to have it fixed. The second time it happened, though, they claimed under the warranty and I got it properly fixed for nothing (better glue and clamp, Brucie). And the car's been fine ever since.

I think I'd do the same as Tony - just say thanks very much and buy some new skis with the money (assuming the insurers don't argue about it, and I don't see why they would). But I'd think twice before buying the same skis, in case it really is a manufacturing fault, as Bandit said.
I'm sure the problem with my car was a manufacturing fault.

Ally