Shoes ruined in 4 weeks

carolineb23

I've no advice but would like to wish you good luck, there is no way that shoes can be fit for purpose if only worn 4 times in 4 weeks and it's good to see you standing up for yourself!

Dr.Rock

jgallcash wrote: »

Update

They have returned them and attributed the damage to wear and tear (worn four times in four weeks).

This is them essentially admitting that the shoes were not of acceptable quality. I would use this in any claim you make through small claims court, and mention it in your response to the retailer and Consumer Direct.
If you don't get anywhere then why not be public-spirited and, next time you're passing the store, pop in and advise all customers in the store on the quality of the products they are purchasing.

Lifeisbutadream

Do let us know how you get on OP.

bbelt

Dr.Rock wrote: »

This is them essentially admitting that the shoes were not of acceptable quality. I would use this in any claim you make through small claims court, and mention it in your response to the retailer and Consumer Direct.
If you don't get anywhere then why not be public-spirited and, next time you're passing the store, pop in and advise all customers in the store on the quality of the products they are purchasing.

no its not.

its essentially them saying it was customer misuse that caused the damage.

dont follow the second paragraph either, unless you want to get done for breach of the peace AND look like a complete toolbag!

follow the advice from consumer direct, small claims action should only be raised as a last resort, if you can show the sheriff that you have taken all reasonable steps prior to raising the action, im sure this woudl work in your favour.

jgallcash

Ok so here is my draft letter which I'm hoping to send today. Notice the red writing: I am hoping that a local cobbler will be able to write his opinion on headed paper to add some power to it. this may or may not happen depending on if i can find one wher I work. Please let me know youre thoughts. cheers for all of the support on this one.

Further to your letter dated 10th March and received by be on 13th March 2010. I am writing to request a full refund for the shoes that I purchased from you on the following grounds:

I purchased the shoes from your Milton Keynes store on Sunday 31st 2010 for an amount of £91.79 (receipts attached). In hindsight there was no generic or specific care advice given for the product at the point of sale.

I wore the shoes on four occasions in a period of less than four weeks. Specifically I wore the shoes on Monday 1st, Wednesday 10th, Thursday 11th and Monday 22nd February, which can be corroborated by work colleagues.

On the afternoon of Monday 22nd February I noticed that there was a crack in the leather of one of the shoes that ran not only close to the sole but across the front of the shoe also. I immediately stopped wearing the shoes and prepared them to be returned to the store for an inspection and hopeful exchange.

I returned the shoes to the Carnaby Street store in central London on Saturday 27th February 2010 and after waiting 15 minutes to actually speak to someone that could help with my problem, I found the member of staff to be abrupt and unhelpful. Expecting the shoes to be sent to head office for inspection, I actually had to argue the case for this as the member of staff said that the damage had been caused by me after purchase.

More worryingly when I quoted the sales of goods act and the need for items to last a reasonable length of time as well as being of satisfactory quality, the member of staff in question said that these rules did not apply as I…. ‘could buy a pair of shoes today, go outside and ruin them and return them tomorrow’. Aside from the suggestion that I had not taken care of the product despite the very minimal use, I am horrified that a member of your staff with supervisory or management responsibilities is either unaware or is dismissive of the Sales of Goods Act.

In response to your letter dated 10th March I absolutely refute your comment that the damage to the shoes has ‘been attributed to wear and tear’. Surely your consideration of wear and tear is a period of less than four weeks is acceptance that the shoes themselves were not of satisfactory quality. To this point I have asked a local independent cobbler to inspect the shoes and to give his opinion of the damage (enclosed)

The sale of goods act clearly states that any item should be of ‘satisfactory quality’ and ‘reasonably durable’. Given that these shoes were worn on four occasions in a period of less than four weeks, it is clear that they were not reasonably durable and subsequently they were not of satisfactory quality. If you refute this I would like you to justify why you feel that an item which costs £91.79 and lasts such a short period can be considered to be reasonably durable or of a satisfactory quality.

After seeking independent advice I am writing to inform you that should I not be refunded the full amount of £91.79 for this item, I will be perusing this matter through the small claims court for this amount plus any further costs that I incur.

I look forward to your response within 14 days of receipt of this letter, which has been sent via recorded delivery.

Dr.Rock

bbelt wrote: »

no its not.

its essentially them saying it was customer misuse that caused the damage.

dont follow the second paragraph either, unless you want to get done for breach of the peace AND look like a complete toolbag!

follow the advice from consumer direct, small claims action should only be raised as a last resort, if you can show the sheriff that you have taken all reasonable steps prior to raising the action, im sure this woudl work in your favour.

I meant speak to each customer individually and warn them, not make a scene in the store.
Wear and tear and misuse are very different things. Misuse is deliberately or maliciously damaging something or allowing damage to be caused to something through negligence. Wear and tear is the deterioration in condition of something that should be reasonably expected given proper use over time. I certainly don't think that wearign a pair of shoes on 4 occasions should reasonably be expected to cause that type of damage; and if you do then I wish I owned the store where you buy your shoes.

Dr.Rock

Looks very good. Covers everything clearly and factually.
Change "be" in the first line to "myself" and probably no need for any text to be bold. The actual dates of wear are probably too much detail. Also either send copies of the receipts, or keep copies for yourself if you send the originals. It's also Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act that covers qualityand fitness for purpose (no real need to include that but you may wish to).

jgallcash wrote: »

Ok so here is my draft letter which I'm hoping to send today. Notice the red writing: I am hoping that a local cobbler will be able to write his opinion on headed paper to add some power to it. this may or may not happen depending on if i can find one wher I work. Please let me know youre thoughts. cheers for all of the support on this one.

Further to your letter dated 10th March and received by be on 13th March 2010. I am writing to request a full refund for the shoes that I purchased from you on the following grounds:

I purchased the shoes from your Milton Keynes store on Sunday 31st 2010 for an amount of £91.79 (receipts attached). In hindsight there was no generic or specific care advice given for the product at the point of sale.

I wore the shoes on four occasions in a period of less than four weeks. Specifically I wore the shoes on Monday 1st, Wednesday 10th, Thursday 11th and Monday 22nd February, which can be corroborated by work colleagues.

On the afternoon of Monday 22nd February I noticed that there was a crack in the leather of one of the shoes that ran not only close to the sole but across the front of the shoe also. I immediately stopped wearing the shoes and prepared them to be returned to the store for an inspection and hopeful exchange.

I returned the shoes to the Carnaby Street store in central London on Saturday 27th February 2010 and after waiting 15 minutes to actually speak to someone that could help with my problem, I found the member of staff to be abrupt and unhelpful. Expecting the shoes to be sent to head office for inspection, I actually had to argue the case for this as the member of staff said that the damage had been caused by me after purchase.

More worryingly when I quoted the sales of goods act and the need for items to last a reasonable length of time as well as being of satisfactory quality, the member of staff in question said that these rules did not apply as I…. ‘could buy a pair of shoes today, go outside and ruin them and return them tomorrow’. Aside from the suggestion that I had not taken care of the product despite the very minimal use, I am horrified that a member of your staff with supervisory or management responsibilities is either unaware or is dismissive of the Sales of Goods Act.

In response to your letter dated 10th March I absolutely refute your comment that the damage to the shoes has ‘been attributed to wear and tear’. Surely your consideration of wear and tear is a period of less than four weeks is acceptance that the shoes themselves were not of satisfactory quality. To this point I have asked a local independent cobbler to inspect the shoes and to give his opinion of the damage (enclosed)

The sale of goods act clearly states that any item should be of ‘satisfactory quality’ and ‘reasonably durable’. Given that these shoes were worn on four occasions in a period of less than four weeks, it is clear that they were not reasonably durable and subsequently they were not of satisfactory quality. If you refute this I would like you to justify why you feel that an item which costs £91.79 and lasts such a short period can be considered to be reasonably durable or of a satisfactory quality.

After seeking independent advice I am writing to inform you that should I not be refunded the full amount of £91.79 for this item, I will be perusing this matter through the small claims court for this amount plus any further costs that I incur.

I look forward to your response within 14 days of receipt of this letter, which has been sent via recorded delivery.

Equaliser123

Small point - you will be "pursuing" through the small claims court not "perusing".

For added effect, why not send them a draft copy of the proceedings?

jgallcash

Dr.Rock wrote: »

Looks very good. Covers everything clearly and factually.
Change "be" in the first line to "myself" and probably no need for any text to be bold. The actual dates of wear are probably too much detail. Also either send copies of the receipts, or keep copies for yourself if you send the originals. It's also Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act that covers qualityand fitness for purpose (no real need to include that but you may wish to).

Thanks for that - I will include the section.

I would rather be anal about the dates as it is infuriating me that they think four occasions in less than 4 weeks is ok.

Thanks for the help with this all.

jgallcash

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Small point - you will be "pursuing" through the small claims court not "perusing".

For added effect, why not send them a draft copy of the proceedings?

Small point but big difference - thanks.

What do you mean by the proceedings? Can i get to this point in the claim without paying the fee?

i would like to show them i'm not bluffing.