UKH

In case you weren't aware (done a search and can't find a thread) I'll post this link to the PDF as I know some of you will have bought these over the last year! https://mediadcom.decathlon.com/media/recall/EN-P190115-A4-Store_Poster_ROC...

Not the clearest notice...

"We ask you to stop using this product without checking it"

Stop using it; don't even check it...?

Or stop using it unless you have checked it is correctly assembled (I think is the intended message).

The images of 'good' and 'bad' aren't exactly clear either, but I think the intention is that the 'good' end of the collar should have a flared opening to allow it to safely engage with the nose of the krab body, thus allowing it to lock the gate securely.

Yeh looks like a google translation from French to English!

I'd say some of the looking collars have been assembled upside down stopping the collar screw all the way up to cover the nose. Should be easy enough to identify in reality. Thing that's as worrying is that according to the notice is over a a 7 month spread of sales. That's quite a while to identify an obvious product assembly defect, unless of course it is very rare, as they say!

Saw on another forum in not that long ago, the guy bought one from Decathlon, and from further communication with them, they said it was the first time they heard and that only that one in the store that had been incorrectly assembled. Probably (at least I hope!) Simond found out just from that. So I would say it is pretty rare, but definitely check if you got some!

And yes, Simond / Decathlon do seem to rely on Google Translate exclusively for their non-French websites and comms

It's exactly as you wrote - some of them had been assembled with the locking collar reversed, not screwing all the way. Simple to check and pretty obvious. The flared part of the collar should be near the keylock (and obvs. cover it when locked), in some it's the other way around.

If thats true then ‘As part of our quality and safety processes, Simond teams have identified a potential risk’ sounds like a load of self back-patting B.S

Might be totally unrelated though. It was just a second-hand forum post I saw. They might have had already noticed before the report and an investigation might have been already underway. Or not.