i understand the explanation ect my point is infact this
i feel this story should have been shared with others so that perhaps someone else would not be put through what i was. and with the joys of internet nowadays it is easy for criminals to pass their wares many miles away from where they were stolen. the fact i decided the bike was not suited to my riding style decided to flip it for a small profit had i not done this i would still be riding it right now and possibly for many years undetected as a stolen bike it may have then been sold to another unsuspecting buyer and so on my point is how many of you could be riding about on stolen bikes and if the same was to happen you too could find yourself in this situation no one is exempt from the law i thought a receipt would proove it was bought in good faith obviously not the case
What I'm struggling with, is why they wouldn't just contact you / come 'round for a chat, first - check out some details.
Seems in this instance, they went for the nuclear option first, pre-emptive strike, and would have probably needed some red-tape organising. As somebody else in the thread went to detail about what would have had to be arranged to do all of that, I'm not getting why just a single claim of a stolen bike would make them do all that. So with that in mind, I can't help but think there's something you're not telling - 'cos I'm not buying that's a typical response.
You may think that's suspicious minds, and you may think it's unfair - but something just seems off - whether that's because you haven't disclosed something pertinent, or whether it's some true anomaly and conspiracy, I can't say, but something doesn't add up.
Having said all that - I'm done, I'm out - I've said my piece.
This page intentionally left blank