brand new cica trainers broken - what should clarks do?

Quackers

Stompa wrote:

It's probably not very ethical, but you could go to your local store and buy a new identical pair at full price (and retain the receipt). Sometime later you return the faulty pair to the same store along with the full price receipt and ask for a full refund.

Stompa

A new identical pair would be the same price. Why would Clarks or any other retailer sell identical styles at different prices

I work for Clarks Ruthy Jo and have to be honest and say I think you got a fair deal there. I have to be honest and say its more than you would have got from me

After all, you were only entitled to a refund of the price you paid - it amazes me how people always expect back more than they gave to begin with.

I appreciate your point about car parking, time etc but - thats life!

ruthyjo

I take your point Quackers and maybe I have high expectations of clarks as with almost any other retailer I would have expected and asked for a straight refund. However I feel a bit differently about clarks. The reason I endure the mammoth waits in the childrens sections on a regular basis and then pay a premium on the shoes compared to other high street retailers is because I expect a different sort of service - I expect to leave the store with a well fitted serviceable pair of shoes. I generally pay full price for these as I can't control when my childrens feet grow. I felt that on this occasion clarks had let me down on my expectation and that for a company where excellent customer service is a major selling point they should demonstrate it - whether they are legally obliged to or not. I did not seek to make any profit - I expected to end up with what I had originally paid for i.e. a functioning pair of trainers.

Stompa

A new identical pair would be the same price. Why would Clarks or any other retailer sell identical styles at different prices

Ah, my apologies. I had assumed that they had been in the sale at a lower price and had now returned to their normal price. Must read more carefully next time!

Stompa

dawny10

This area does seem to get complicated when sale stock is involved. As I understand it though, you should not be placed in a worse position becuase of their failure to provide you with functional goods.

i.e. you pay £10 for something of a certian quality, it is faulty but the store does not have any more stock. If you then have to pay extra to get the item replaced with an item of similar quality (either at their store or another), you are worse off, at no fault of your own.

I certianly think this is something you could take up with your local trading standards. However, whether you think this is worth it for £6 is another matter.

I believe that if the store could not replace the item, you did not want a refund as you would have been unable to purchase similar quality shoes for that price, then they should have offered to get the shoes repaired, or transferred the same trainers from another store. Obviously this would have taken time, which may not have been convenient, but at least you wouldn't have been out of pocket.

RightRevBod

Not sure the legal possition here, but is there not something called "lack of bargain"?

I would be grateful if someone with the apropriate knowledge could explain this.

I would have thought that the apropriate thing for the shop to do if they did not have the identical trainers would be to supply an equivalent for the same price. This would have been good customer service at least.

Of course, while the shop is busy is the best time to complain. I have probably mentioned this before, but when I was contracting to "a large supermarket chain", I was working in the back office when the Customer Services Manager came in to get £50 out of petty cash to compensate a customer who was "making a scene" and "disuading customers"