New boots that are causing wet feet?

HLXPAX

Mrs HLXPAX recently bought some new boots (within last 2 weeks) this week in the rather wet and cold weather we have had they were letting in water and causing her to have wet feet all day.

Today she took them back to the shop to explain that they were faulty as her feet were wet when it rained and they said that because they were "Fashion Boots, not made of leather and not waterproof" and because of this were not faulty thus no refund would be given
These boots weren't particularly expensive £14.99 but seen as these are advertised as boots sure they are not fit for purpose and the money should be refunded.
Where does she stand with regards to her statutory rights?

Thoughts welcome

HLXPAX

Sagz_2

Sorry not got a definitive answer - but how about dropping trading standards an email (or call on Monday).

Personally I wouldn't expect fashion boots to be totally waterproof, like welly boots, but you should be able to walk in a shower and expect your feet to be kept dry.

Kavanne

Er does it say they have gortex or are waterproof?

I wouldn't expect boots from New Look/etc to be waterproof, but if they were from Blacks and were advertised as walking boots then I would expect them to be.

For example: I paid £60 for my Ecco boots which have the gortex label on and are advertised on the box as waterproof. But I paid £20 for boots from M&S which are clearly not going to be waterproof and in no way were advertised as such, if they had been, then I would complain. If not, meh.

honeypop

HLXPAX wrote: »

These boots weren't particularly expensive £14.99 but seen as these are advertised as boots sure they are not fit for purpose and the money should be refunded.

From the Cambridge Dictionary: "Boot - a type of shoe that covers the whole foot and the lower part of the leg". So they were advertised as 'boots' and that is what she got. They do for the purpose intended, they protect her feet from the floor when walking.

For someone to assume £14.99 boots not made of leather or marked as waterproof would be waterproof is a little silly imo. Like has already been said, if they were advertised as waterproof or walking boots or similar, something that it is reasonable to assume they would stop your feet from getting wet, then you have cause for complaint, but not for this from the information we have been given.

hollydays

Shoes are notoriously problematic.
I agree Fashion boots are just that,for show.!,If you want weather protection,buy something else

HLXPAX

honeypop wrote: »

From the Cambridge Dictionary: "Boot - a type of shoe that covers the whole foot and the lower part of the leg". So they were advertised as 'boots' and that is what she got. They do for the purpose intended, they protect her feet from the floor when walking.

For someone to assume £14.99 boots not made of leather or marked as waterproof would be waterproof is a little silly imo. Like has already been said, if they were advertised as waterproof or walking boots or similar, something that it is reasonable to assume they would stop your feet from getting wet, then you have cause for complaint, but not for this from the information we have been given.

Honeypop - Think she is a bit peeved that she were them twice and now they are ruined.
As for assuming that just because they are £14.99 and they wouldn't be waterproof in today's financial climate anything is possible and the shop they are sold at doesn't general have big sign's saying "waterproof " boots here "non waterproof" somewhere else.

All

Guess the moral of the story is you get what you pay for !

She has since had to buy a "proper" pair of boots this week at twice the price (in the sale)in our local Clarks

HLXPAX

shirlgirl2004

I agree that the boots shouldn't enable your OH to paddle in puddles but was she just walking in the rain? If I walk in the rain then I walk around puddles, if your OH was doing the same then I would expect that she shouldn't get wet feet. I've bought cheap boots before and never had them leak but then I don't go paddling! I would speak to trading standards if your OH has been sensible with the boots.

CRANKY40

My work shoes cost £9.99 and they don't let in. I wouldn't expect to be able to go paddling in them and still have dry feet, but given the average British weather, I have always expected my footwear to keep any but the most torrential rain out.

Unless they're sandals, I thought most footwear would be expected to keep your feet dry.

hollydays

CRANKY40 wrote: »

My work shoes cost £9.99 and they don't let in. I wouldn't expect to be able to go paddling in them and still have dry feet, but given the average British weather, I have always expected my footwear to keep any but the most torrential rain out.

Unless they're sandals, I thought most footwear would be expected to keep your feet dry.

You are a man,aren't you?:D

baddiebasher

The problem comes down to this: What is the nature of the footware?

A few view have been expressed. They range from fashion (basically,, something that lookds pretty) to the definitive dictionary definition.

The question is this:

What would one normally expect of footware of this type, bearing in mind their description, presentation, price and required usage?

If the answer is something to do purely with the cosmetic, then one cannot really expect much in the way of the practicalities.

If one asked for footware suitable for a hike up Everest or thorugh Manchester on a relatively damp day, then one would expect nothing less than !!!! would need to keep the tide at bay.

I think the fact they are advertised as fashion boots indicates that one shoudl not expect too much protection from the elements. Their main function is to look good, as opposed to be functional.

That does not mean tah they should leak more than the Titanic. But to what extent is dependant on more factors than can be answered here, and on an opinion of a judge who might not read these pages, or here evidence supporting one view or another.

baddiebasher

Just btw, the !!!! was meant to be something sounding like KANOOT, is an a king who turned back tides.

The nanny state is alive and well