Hello
Guest

Sponsored Links


Topic: Consumer Rights Advice  (Read 1564 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

  • *
  • Posts: 438

  • Liked: 114
  • Joined: Sep 2012
  • Location: Austin, TX -> Salisbury, UK
Consumer Rights Advice
« on: August 15, 2018, 08:33:40 PM »
Mods: I wasn't sure where to post this, so please feel free to move as needed.

Mostly I'm just irritated right now, but some advice would also be appreciated.

I bought some footwear from a national chain.  Tried a pair on in store, but ultimately purchased them from their website so I could order a size up.  Shoes were physically received on 04th July.

Long story short, one of the shoes broke yesterday when I was putting them on (42 days from point of purchase).  They were worn maybe a maximum of 3 times per week in the meantime, to work, in an office.

Question 1: Does this seem like excessive wear and tear?  Or more like a potentially faulty product?

As far as I understand it, my statutory rights as a consumer are as follows:

1. Can request a refund in full within 30 days.
2. Can request a replacement, repair, or refund (in part or full) if over 30 days but under 6 months.
3. Still have consumer rights for a period of up to 6 years, but the burden of proof is on me (as the consumer) to prove anything if over 6 months.

All of the above would apply assuming the product is either unfit for purpose, not as described, or has not lasted a "reasonable" amount of time (or any combination thereof).

I understand on point 2 above that I cannot request a replacement if a repair had instead been offered (and vice versa).

Question 2: Is 42 days a reasonable amount of time for footwear?  This is obviously subject to interpretation.

Fast forward to today - have contacted the company's customer service Facebook messenger thing - even sent them pictures - and I  am being refused a replacement unless I take the shoes in (or return by post) for "inspection of manufacturing faults."  To my knowledge, my contract is with the retailer, not with the manufacturer, and it is therefore the retailer's responsibility to set things right.

Question 3: Do they have the right to refuse a remedy on this basis?
Question 4: If not, do I have to comply? (For the record, there is nothing in their company returns policy about having to return faulty goods for inspection.)

The customer service has been less than impressive and has basically culminated in them point blank refusing me anything unless I return the shoes.  Partially my fault, I'm sure, as I am rather annoyed about this whole situation.

I am not sure what to do from here until I can ring the trading standards and/or CAB for advice - and, admittedly, I am trying to decide if I value my time or my principles more.  You all are a bunch of geniuses so I thought I'd see what you make of the whole situation.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk



  • *
  • Posts: 189

  • Liked: 41
  • Joined: Apr 2016
Re: Consumer Rights Advice
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2018, 09:00:31 PM »
Send in the boys...

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk



  • *
  • Posts: 17751

  • Liked: 6110
  • Joined: Sep 2010
Re: Consumer Rights Advice
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2018, 09:23:14 PM »
If you used a credit card to pay for them, you will have the extra protection which comes from that and should call the card company for their assistance.


  • *
  • Posts: 438

  • Liked: 114
  • Joined: Sep 2012
  • Location: Austin, TX -> Salisbury, UK
Re: Consumer Rights Advice
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2018, 09:40:45 PM »
If you used a credit card to pay for them, you will have the extra protection which comes from that and should call the card company for their assistance.
Thank you - that is definitely on my list of things to try, and it may be we have to pursue that option.  I just read (Which? CAB? I can't even remember where now...) that it's best to try and sort things with the retailer first.

That's not likely to happen, though. They have some made-up policy that I have to return my product to them to be physically inspected, and apparently they are doing me a "favor" by even entertaining the idea of taking back a worn product as they only accept unused products for returns/refunds.

Ummmm...

ETA: Have checked the credit card policy and don't believe I'm covered for purchase protection as my claim is under £50.  Not covered for refund protection as item has been worn.  May try giving the CAB consumer helpline a ring, but this will unfortunately be at my own expense.  How far am I willing to take this? *sigh*

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: August 16, 2018, 07:07:53 AM by heyjay »


  • *
  • Posts: 4174

  • Liked: 533
  • Joined: Jul 2005
Re: Consumer Rights Advice
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2018, 07:33:49 AM »
Well, the issue here seems to be whether the seller can require the inspection. Reading the statute, it looks like the seller must not introduce an undue burden on the consumer, but that they do have one opportunity to fix the problem. An inspection would seem necessary to determine whether this is possible.

My personal opinion regarding statutory remedies to long-existing issues like this (consumer rights) is that they come about as a result of a failure in common law. Contract originated in a time before mass consumerism, and courts are by nature very slow to adapt. It is almost as if courts abdicate responsibility to politicians sometimes.

At first glance it would seem that shoes should obviously, unless they were costume shoes or something, last more than 42 days. It looks like the statute requires the seller to cover postage and such, but is it worth the trouble?


I just hope that more people will ignore the fatalism of the argument that we are beyond repair. We are not beyond repair. We are never beyond repair. - AOC


  • *
  • Posts: 6584

  • Liked: 1891
  • Joined: Sep 2015
Re: Consumer Rights Advice
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2018, 08:01:08 AM »
I'd consider raising a stink on Twitter, that seems to be one way to get companies to pay attention. 



  • *
  • Posts: 4174

  • Liked: 533
  • Joined: Jul 2005
Re: Consumer Rights Advice
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2018, 08:05:00 AM »
I'd consider raising a stink on Twitter, that seems to be one way to get companies to pay attention. 

When in doubt, raise hell.
I just hope that more people will ignore the fatalism of the argument that we are beyond repair. We are not beyond repair. We are never beyond repair. - AOC


  • *
  • Posts: 438

  • Liked: 114
  • Joined: Sep 2012
  • Location: Austin, TX -> Salisbury, UK
Re: Consumer Rights Advice
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2018, 09:04:54 AM »


Well, the issue here seems to be whether the seller can require the inspection. Reading the statute, it looks like the seller must not introduce an undue burden on the consumer, but that they do have one opportunity to fix the problem. An inspection would seem necessary to determine whether this is possible.

My personal opinion regarding statutory remedies to long-existing issues like this (consumer rights) is that they come about as a result of a failure in common law. Contract originated in a time before mass consumerism, and courts are by nature very slow to adapt. It is almost as if courts abdicate responsibility to politicians sometimes.

At first glance it would seem that shoes should obviously, unless they were costume shoes or something, last more than 42 days. It looks like the statute requires the seller to cover postage and such, but is it worth the trouble?

My concern is that they will try to wriggle out of any statutory requirements for remedy by inspecting the shoes and claiming the breakage was due to unnecessary force or normal wear and tear.  They have offered to pay for shipping should I choose to return them by post, by my question is how much do I honestly care?

On one hand, I'd like to just chalk it up as a loss, buy some new shoes, and move on with my life.  I don't enjoy confrontation.  It's just, do I enjoy my principles being trampled on even less?

One of the issues I have at the moment (and I told this to the customer service advisor) is that I have not been explicitly told the shoes need to be inspected to see if a repair is possible.  It is within my rights to ask for a repair, a replacement, or a refund (if neither of the former are possible/cost-effective).  Had they made it clear they wanted to see if the shoes could be repaired first, I'd have complied.  But they only say the shoes need to enter inspected for manufacturing faults.

Admittedly, I am probably doubly angry this time around because this is the second pair (different shoes entirely) that have worn out in what I consider to be an unreasonable amount of time (approx. 3 months for the first pair).  These just broke in half the time.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk



  • *
  • Posts: 438

  • Liked: 114
  • Joined: Sep 2012
  • Location: Austin, TX -> Salisbury, UK
Re: Consumer Rights Advice
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2018, 09:05:17 AM »
When in doubt, raise hell.
Always a viable Plan B, in my opinion!

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk



  • *
  • Posts: 18235

  • Liked: 4985
  • Joined: Jun 2012
  • Location: Wokingham
Re: Consumer Rights Advice
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2018, 09:15:55 AM »
I have a bit of experience with this!

My husband is really tough on his shoes.  He's had several faults on his shoes since we've met and I've started making him take them back.  At first he thought I was insane, but they've always replaced them or given him a credit towards a new pair of shoes.  Schuh was great when he had a weird split on the sole of a pair of shoes and then a few months later, the next pair did the same.  So he picked a different brand with his credit.

Sole Trader was also good.  And I know Clarks has a guarantee.

So yes, definitely worth pursuing.  Is it a complete pain in the ass to take them into the store?


  • *
  • Posts: 6174

  • Liked: 1327
  • Joined: Aug 2012
  • Location: End of the M4 and then a bit more.
Re: Consumer Rights Advice
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2018, 09:24:12 AM »
I would photograph the shoes from every conceivable angle in good light and without glare or flash to document the amount of wear and tear (to show it wasn't excessive), and the actual fault (to show it wasn't caused by a deliberate act).  Be sure to photograph the soles.  Then I would submit the shoes for inspection.

If you're willing to just walk away without pursuing it at all, then you have nothing to lose by sending the shoes in at the manufacturer's expense and hopefully getting a refund.  And if they respond with something about how you used the shoes improperly and caused the fault, you have photographs of their condition to refute what they say.
9/1/2013 - "fiancée" (marriage) visa issued
4/6/2013 - married (certificate issued same-day)
5/6/2013 - FLR(M)#1 in person -- approved!
8/1/2016 - FLR(M)#2 by post -- approved!
8/5/2018 - ILR in person -- approved!
22/11/2018 - Citizenship (online, with NDRS+JCAP) -- approved!
14/12/2018 - I became a British citizen.  :)


  • *
  • Posts: 438

  • Liked: 114
  • Joined: Sep 2012
  • Location: Austin, TX -> Salisbury, UK
Re: Consumer Rights Advice
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2018, 10:20:30 AM »
I have a bit of experience with this!

My husband is really tough on his shoes.  He's had several faults on his shoes since we've met and I've started making him take them back.  At first he thought I was insane, but they've always replaced them or given him a credit towards a new pair of shoes.  Schuh was great when he had a weird split on the sole of a pair of shoes and then a few months later, the next pair did the same.  So he picked a different brand with his credit.

Sole Trader was also good.  And I know Clarks has a guarantee.

So yes, definitely worth pursuing.  Is it a complete pain in the ass to take them into the store?
Thanks for the information - that's helpful.

A colleague of mine said he tried to return some shoes to one of the companies you mentioned and was told the shoes had been ruined due to the way he walked.  They would not entertain reimbursement of any sort.

It's not a total pain in the ass to go into the store, but my working hours do not allow me to go on a weekday during their opening times when they are already on my way home.  This means I need to go in on a Saturday, and I would really prefer to not have to do that because that means paying another £7 for a return bus ticket.  Doubt this qualifies as "undue inconvenience."

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk



  • *
  • Posts: 438

  • Liked: 114
  • Joined: Sep 2012
  • Location: Austin, TX -> Salisbury, UK
Re: Consumer Rights Advice
« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2018, 10:22:57 AM »


I would photograph the shoes from every conceivable angle in good light and without glare or flash to document the amount of wear and tear (to show it wasn't excessive), and the actual fault (to show it wasn't caused by a deliberate act).  Be sure to photograph the soles.  Then I would submit the shoes for inspection.

If you're willing to just walk away without pursuing it at all, then you have nothing to lose by sending the shoes in at the manufacturer's expense and hopefully getting a refund.  And if they respond with something about how you used the shoes improperly and caused the fault, you have photographs of their condition to refute what they say.

A reasonable plan of action, I think.  I might just ask for a return label and ship everything off to them.  Refunds take up to 15 working days, I'm told, if I do it that way.  But I really want to just wash my hands of it all.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk



Sponsored Links