rans6andrew

I am completely dumfounded by the range of excuses for failing to give me a refund on some shoes which are unfit for purpose.

"they don't have a manufacturing defect, the water comes in because the leather is porous"

"the water gets in because the stitch holes are large, on this model, to allow them to be hand stitched. The large holes also make the soles more flexible"

these two gems are from the shop staff.

They then said I could take it up with the head office and provided a number to call.

I did.

"it has been an exceptionally wet July, you can't expect any shoe to survive the weather we have been having"

from head office customer services.

The problem is a pair of slush puppies that let in water in even fairly light rain. After about 10 minutes of rain the other evening my socks were quite wet. Not around the top where water might have soaked from the bottom of my trousers but under my foot and half an inch up the sides of both feet. I was walking on the pavement, which was well drained, not tramping through puddles. The shoes were purchased in January but not worn until recently, I have the box with the tissue paper packing and the receipt still in it.

When faced with this level of stupidity there is no reasoning to be had. What should I do next?

Rans6..........

Tableview

When I forced my ex to take back a pair of shoes which broke the first time she wore them, the shop clerk said : "Oh but you walked in them .......". True, she walked from the car to a a restaurant, about 100 metres, she didn't climb Table Mountain in them. She didn't want to 'make a fuss.'

AlpineSkier

I really think that's difficult. Leaving aside the time ( 10 minutes ) I don't think you could expect any shoe to be absolutely waterproof, expecially if it has a leather sole as I feel yours may have.

rans6andrew

leather upper, man made sole. Not particularly expensive, just ordinary shoes.

I have been wearing "sensible black leather shoes" for 50 years, I know when my feet get wet when they should not!

Rans6.....

gingernut

take it up with the boss

(Not Bruce Springstein, the Chief Exec).

You'll find who he is with a quick search. Tell him that you feel the need to let him know how you, the customer, has been treated. You're probably doing him a favour.

And mark the envelope private and confidential.

green granite

Take the shoes down to the local trading standards office and explain the problem and get them to sort it for you.

11Fan

Conscience issues notwithstanding, go back to the store where you purchased the detective shoes, wearing them of course.

Try on several other pairs. Choose a new pair you like.

Put the defective shows in the box the new shoes came in and off you go.

Saintsman

Or if you want a bit of fun, stand outside the shop and ask everyone who enters if they want to hear about the shoes you have just bought from them.

Then see how long it takes for the manager to sort out your problem.

ChrisVJ

Must say that is the nice thing about N America. We do that kind of guff, but not often, mostly they would refund on something like that without questioning it.

Whirlygig

Sale of Goods Act 1979 Section 14 - Goods must be of a merchantable quality.

Said in a loud voice in shop usually gets results.

Sale of Goods Act 1979

14.

(1) Except as provided by this section and section 15 below and subject to any other enactment, there is no implied [F11term] about the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale.
[F12
(2)Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality.


(2A)For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.


(2B)For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—
(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b)appearance and finish,
(c)freedom from minor defects,
(d)safety, and
(e)durability.


(2C)The term implied by subsection (2) above does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory—
(a)which is specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention before the contract is made,
(b)where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or
(c)in the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample.]




(2C)(b) is what they are trying on stating you should have known the shoes would let in water whilst you were examining them in a dry shop but you've got the rest of the Act on your side.


Cheers


Whirls

Flap 5

You mention that as an aside. If I were thinking of taking back some shoes that were over 6 months old I would at least be concerned the shop may not accept them back. Even if they were still boxed and looking brand new the time since purchase would still be a factor.

However they were not unused were they? You had clearly worn them to be able to find out they leaked. That now becomes a warranty issue.

If they are completely unfit for purpose such that it was due to a manufacturing or design fault then trading standards should be told. Clearly it would not then be only you who would have been sold a faulty product.

Espada III

I had a pair of M&S black leather lace up shoes with a plastic sole. After 18 months I noticed that my feet were very wet after a walk in a downpour I could not avoid. Having taken my shoes off that night I realised the sole had split. My wife took them back and got a full refund. Happy shopper!

Alloa Akbar

I think you will have to tread carefully on this one, since you are the sole complaint, the vendor appears to have the upper hand. Hopefully he can take some positive steps to heel the rift that has developed between you rather than go toe to toe with you legally. If you can persuade him that you are on equal footing you might be able to tie up and agreement, but watch out for any loop holes.

Fareastdriver

AA

Very clever. You must be incredibily bored thinking up that.

Sallyann1234

Presumably you examined the shoes before buying them, and saw that the soles were stitched on and the holes were unsealed.

Did it not occur to you that water will normally travel through holes?

Alloa Akbar

Fareastdriver - Yeah, work is a bit quiet today if I am honest..

Ancient Observer

I once bought a pair of Clarks shoes and took them back a couple of days later as the leather had not been flexible as the salesperson said it would. It was supposed to "stretch", but did not.
The manager would not re-fund me.
I stood outside for 20 minutes talking to each person that went in, saying what rubbish their shoes were, but I got fed up with this. It's a boring thing to do!!
I went home and e-mailed my whole contact list about how awful Clarks were, and how they lie to and generally hate their customers.

Any marketeer will tell you that a dis-satisfied customer tells at least 14 people about their dis-satisfaction. I made a point of telling 100s.

....and I continue to do so whenever I can.

OFSO

A colleague of mine stood outside a photography shop in Darmstadt (D) telling passers-by how the shop owner had ripped him off.

Shop owner called polizei.

Polizei told him to move on and stop being an arschloch.

He refused.

Polizei offered him the choice of moving on or going "home" with them.

He moved on.

In all fairness to the shop owner and the police, my colleague was a total pain in the....well, what the police called him, so they got that right.

flying lid

Get em repaired - here

vulcanised

Shop near here had a day-glo sign

COBBLERS TO ALL