Shadestation - Faulty Sunglasses

AceRothstein

I purchased some Versace sunglasses for my wife’s Birthday in April this year from Shadestation; they cost £100 instead of £170 that they were on sale for elsewhere.

She wanted to keep them for best so did not wear them until our honeymoon in the Maldives in June. After 5-6 days of our honeymoon she noticed that one of the lenses was coming out of the frame at the top. She was disappointed but I did not think it would be a problem. I must add at this point that the service I had received from Shadestation prior to this could not be faulted.

Upon our return home I contacted Shadestation who asked me to return the sunglasses to them. I did so and they telephoned me a few days later stating that the sunglasses had been misused and that they would not do anything apart from post me the sunglasses back. They state that the frames have bent in the heat and that she must have worn them on top of her head which was classed as misuse. I dispute this fact but they are insistent.

I was pretty mad at this decision and so I e-mailed them pointing out the following:

• My wife did not & has not worn the sunglasses on top of her head; in fact she was extremely careful with them. She in fact wore them as per their design covering her eyes (it was too bright not to).
• Are sunglasses not meant for the heat? She wore them in the sun on her holidays which I'm pretty sure is a common use for sunglasses.
• I could understand quality issues if we had bought some £5 sunglasses off a market however, whilst these were cheaper than elsewhere, they still cost £100.
• I asked whether Versace used cheaper plastic than everyone else as I have never had a lens pop out of any pair of sunglasses (cheap or expensive) even with pairs that are 2-3 years old.
• Pointed out that their response was disgraceful - it just seems like they are fobbing customers off and this has changed my opinion of the company totally.
• They seem to presume that she wore them on her head (which I swear she did not) just the same way as I currently presume that they have sold me substandard sunglasses at a premium.

I cannot believe that we have purchased a pair of sunglasses by a world renowned designer and they were simply not fit for their purpose.

Where do we stand and what should my next action be? Not sure whether it helps but I paid for them on my credit card?

Thanks in advance for anyone who can help.
:beer:

mandi

This reminds me of the time I bought a swimsuit , which went transparent when it was wet , only to be told it was to sunbathe in, not swim in

Anyway Ace give trading standards a call , they will advise you of the best way forward

AceRothstein

mandi wrote: »

This reminds me of the time I bought a swimsuit , which went transparent when it was wet , only to be told it was to sunbathe in, not swim in

I feel like that's exactly what they're saying - sunglasses that shouldn't be exposed to heat!!

mandi

AceRothstein wrote: »

I feel like that's exactly what they're saying - sunglasses that shouldn't be exposed to heat!!

Its crazy & they dont have a leg to stand on . Good luck , Im sure you can get this sorted

AceRothstein

Would trading standards be my first port of call or should I try my credit card mentioning the Sales of Goods Act 1979?

Ivory_Tinkler

When did you actually report the fault? Under SOGA for the first 6 months after purchase it is up to the trader to prove that there was no inherent fault but once 6 months have passed then it is up to the consumer to prove this.

AceRothstein

I reported the fault at the beginning of July (just after arriving back from holiday) and posted them back to them mid July.

As they are still under 6 months old, does this mean that they need to prove there is no inherant fault with them? At the moment, they have just said they have been misused (with no proof obviously).

AceRothstein

By the way, they've now sent them back to me so I have a useless pair of sunglasses in my possession until this is resolved.