Boots - surely we have to walk on them and not fly?

Alcmene

Hi all

I bought some boots on the 11th March 2009. They were from Shoe Zone. I went in yesterday because the heels on them have practically worn off and now the actually boot is been worn away. I spoke to the shop assistant who was not listening to me at all and kept repeating that they are "fashion boots" and as such are not meant to be worn very often!!!!! I told her I had only worn them 3 times and surely they should be lasting longer than 3 weeks. She then started spouting on about how when she had bought some shoes from Clark's for £50 she had had to have them resoled because the same thing happened - at which stage I told her that she was a fool and should have taken them back.

Anyway, she pointly refused to be of any assistant, even when I told her that as she refused to help me I would be obliged to contact their head office, she wouldn't give me their details.

Is it reasonable of me to expect not to have to pay out £7 to have these boots reheeled when I have only used them a couple of times over 3 weeks? They cost £16.99.

Thanks for your advice.

Hailz86

No its not reasonable at all and if I were you I would write to head office complaining about the boots and about the girl in the store too, cheeky little cow she seems like xx

Alcmene

Hailz86 wrote: »

No its not reasonable at all and if I were you I would write to head office complaining about the boots and about the girl in the store too, cheeky little cow she seems like xx

phew am glad it's not just me thinking that! I wouldn't expect them to last forever but still...3 weeks????

Do you know if there is anything specific I should be saying in the letter?

If it helps I paid with my visa card. I cannot find the receipt for the item but I do have my Visa statement.

missymugwump

Sale of Goods Act 1979. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.

These are the acts that apply

Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale)
So your boots met this requirement they were deffect free at purchase

Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.
Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose.
If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)


Now they are fit for purpose they are boots you have worn them however "reasonable time" is not defined and quality in relation to price paid is allowed

I personally think that the time elapsed entitles you to a full refund
Depending on the store policy (dictated often from area manager head office)
You may find yourself banging your head against a brick wall

I would ask for the manager insist on a refund
If they refuse
Put the request in writing give them 7 days if they do not pay up start an online claim against them in the smal claims court,they will pay quick then including your costs


Its more common than you would think sadly

isplumm

My attitude is .... go back, 10 minutes before closing & demand your money back - refuse to move until done .... stand outside shop & point out to everyone condition of boots .... take direct action!!!

Mark

missymugwump

As for the receipt as long as you have "proof of purchase" ie your Visa statement you are covered by law

hollydays

You should have only dealt with the Manager.

Alcmene

isplumm wrote: »

My attitude is .... go back, 10 minutes before closing & demand your money back - refuse to move until done .... stand outside shop & point out to everyone condition of boots .... take direct action!!!

Mark

Oh My I don't think I could do that!

Alcmene

hollydays wrote: »

You should have only dealt with the Manager.

I agree, however I think she WAS the manager, as in the only person in the store!

hollydays

Ok, But you don't know for sure,but I find it hard to believe she didn't know she has to give you the head office details,as a Manager.

Mark_Hewitt

Alcmene wrote: »

They cost £16.99.

Thanks for your advice.

Cheap for boots, but even so. I get £10 trainers from them and they generally last about 6 months before they drop to bits. So still good value.

A friend of mine reckons that however much your shoes cost in pounds, that's how many times you should wear them at least. So for you it's 17 times!