TK Maxx - Minimum Customer Service!

10past6

big_gay_kirk wrote: »

charity shops are greener and more moral.....

And have just as high salary fees as the “Capitalist”

You are aware I’m sure about some of Oxfam’s directors travelling first class to various parts of Africa, oh wait a minute, donations from Joe public have paid for those tickets.

To much to expect them to travel in economy I guess :rolleyes:

Edit: Apologies for taking this off topic, but I couldn’t let that post go without commenting on it.

FLUFFPINKKITTEN_2

Pound wrote: »

Actually a bank statement would be considered as acceptable proof of purchase if it went to court. A retailer should be able to verify from their records what the purchase was.

Yes, this is correct and I also returned the goods after the 14 days anyway......they were purchased on the 8/9/08. The boots were also in perfectly good condition on the uppers and sheepskin interior...........so some very careful bashing....I dont think.
I gave an estimate of 15 days wear.....surely to God, most girls have more than one pair of shoes and would understand this:D Even, in my opinion, if the boots were worn every day for the 6 weeks I had them (cost before reduction £80) it would be unreasonable to expect the soles only to wear at such a rate.

Ivory_Tinkler

Write to head office and explain your story to them. Surely if the boots wore through that quickly then it would be a faulty batch and not just your pair so they may be aware of a problem there. In my experience, TK Maxx only have a few of any one item so the store manager may have thought your story was not true because maybe others that have purchased the same boots haven't bothered to return them, hence his reaction (although not acceptable to be rude). Head Office may well ask you to return the boots to them so they can send them to the manufacturer for their opinion. It may take a little longer than you had wanted, but if it gets an end result you are better off than you are now.

Personally I think TK Maxx is an awful store but many people like it as it is cheap. Unfortunately, with the cheapness comes a poorer level of customer service than the likes of say M&S.

d.edna

Pound wrote: »

Actually a bank statement would be considered as acceptable proof of purchase if it went to court. A retailer should be able to verify from their records what the purchase was.

Has this ever been tried and won?

I certainly wouldn't accept a bank statement, thats like take used batteries back to currys with a bank statement with a £2k entry and asking for a refund!!

pulliptears

hollydays wrote: »

Can you blame him for not believing you,it sounds unlikely.

Holly, Im an Uggaholic, so when I saw these in TKMaxx I headed straight for them. They are inferior. The soles are nowhere near as thick as uggs and the rubber is quite soft and spongy.

Genuine Uggs had a problem with the toes wearing through after a few months, which Ugg rectified for most customers immediately, sounds like from fluffy's description this is what is happening on the heel of the boot.

d.edna

pulliptears wrote: »

Holly, Im an Uggaholic, so when I saw these in TKMaxx I headed straight for them. They are inferior. The soles are nowhere near as thick as uggs and the rubber is quite soft and spongy.

Genuine Uggs had a problem with the toes wearing through after a few months, which Ugg rectified for most customers immediately, sounds like from fluffy's description this is what is happening on the heel of the boot.

Since when has this thread been about Uggs?

And I bet you couldn't take a fake pair of Uggs anyway

pulliptears

d.edna wrote: »

Since when has this thread been about Uggs?

And I bet you couldn't take a fake pair of Uggs anyway

BearPaw are a type of Ugg boot (generic term). ok?

Given that they are a much inferior brand, and that even the genuine ones had problems. I am illustrating that it is perfectly possibly that these boots have worn.

d.edna

pulliptears wrote: »

BearPaw are a type of Ugg boot (generic term). ok?

Given that they are a much inferior brand, and that even the genuine ones had problems. I am illustrating that it is perfectly possibly that these boots have worn.

Are they actual Ugg boots though?

pulliptears

Yes and No. Ugg was a generic term for sheepskin boots until Deckers (the makers of Ugg Australia) managed to register the term as a trademark (causing uproar in Australia as the manufacturers of all brands could no longer use it).

Bearpaw are Ugg "style" sheepskin boots. Almost identical to Ugg Australia except for the brand name, and to some extent quality.

No_Future

It's almost shocking how people are unaware of their rights...

1. New shoes (even very cheap ones, e.g. from Primark) should reasonably be expected to last more than 14 days if used ''normally''. That these shoes were originally expensive suggests one would expect a higher standard of quality

2. That TK Maxx's policy for refunds is 14 days is irrelevant. This 14 day store policy applies if, for example you change your mind or something doesn't fit. However, if an item is faulty the store's own policy is I suppose, superseded by consumer law i.e. goods must be as described, last for ''reasonable'' period etc (I forget the exact wording)

3. A bank statement/credit card bill is as good as a receipt as a proof of purchase. Many stores would also be able to use the details to look up the transaction details on their computer system.