Marks and Spencer refused refund with receipt!!

Fuzzy_2

I had a similar problem a few years ago, DS had the shoes for 6-8 weeks, and they fell apart. I took them to M&S with the receipt, and explained that he hadn't been wearing them for long (and yes only at school - won't be seen dead wearing them for anything else!). They were also a bit scuffed. I said that I wouldn't expect a full refund as we'd had some wear from them. They didn't seem to want to know, but they did send them off to get looked at, but still came back with the damage was down to normal wear and tear. So no refund, other shoes he had for school lasted much longer.

C_Ronaldo

wigginsmum wrote:

Personally I think you've got a cheek trying to return shoes after 2 months.

shoes should last for longer than 8 weeks,

wigginsmum

jen1 wrote:

Hi sorry to those who think that a £17 pair of shoes should only last a couple of months then your wrong either that or you have more money then sense!

No, neither of those patronising alternatives - we're realistic about how kids wear their shoes, and some of us save for a while because we consider it more important to buy higher quality shoes that last longer and we make those purchases a priority. Me, I'm happy to wear M&S shoes but they're just not good for kids. I'd rather go without something else to ensure that my stepkids have decent footwear which lasts for longer. I don't believe in false economy.

jen1

It shouldn't matter if you paid £10 for a pair of shoes or £50 i still would not expect the shoes to fall apart after a two months!!
The last pair of shoes i brought my daughter were £32.00 from clarks, Her boots that i have just brought early due to the shoes falling apart were £30.00 so if they fall apart after two months i should say never mind its only money!!!

davsidipp

no but buying a better quality shoe is paramount for young children ,i would never comprimise on cheaper shoes for young children as there feet are growing and forming very quickly so in my eyes it is false economy as well as you get what you pay for at 17quid marks obviously do not make them strong enough. my daughter when she was at school wore start rite which are dearer but did last really well until next growth spurt so were well worth it.

BargainJunky

I think its irrelevant how much you paid for the shoes they should not fall apart after 8 weeks wear by a seven year old. I would write to Head Office and see what they say.

A few years ago my mom had a pair of M&S shoes one of which let let water in - she had only worn them a few times. She tried to return them and was told sorry shoes are not waterproof! After a strong letter from me stating that she was over 60 and didnt walk along the road jumping in every puddle available she got a refund.

Clarks sale should start soon so take your money there next time. Will see you there with my two year old!

Anthillmob

aurora_borealis wrote:

I think that M&S are getting far less lenient with returns, generally.
I was in store the other day and a lady was trying to return at least 6 tops. All still labelled etc. There was a big fuss and argument because the assistant refused the refund saying she could smell cigarette smoke on them and they were therefore unsaleable.

Hugely embarrassed lady said that she couldn't understand why they would smell of smoke but M&S wouldn't budge at all. No refund.

my mum returned a fleece top she brought my middle nephew for crimbo. when she went to wrap it she decided it was too small but had ripped the price bit of the label off and had no receipt.

they did a straight swap.

maybe it depends on your branch.

mrcow

davsidipp wrote:

no but buying a better quality shoe is paramount for young children ,i would never comprimise on cheaper shoes for young children as there feet are growing and forming very quickly so in my eyes it is false economy as well as you get what you pay for at 17quid marks obviously do not make them strong enough.

:T

i.e they are faulty!

whambamboo

wigginsmum wrote:

No, neither of those patronising alternatives - we're realistic about how kids wear their shoes, and some of us save for a while because we consider it more important to buy higher quality shoes that last longer and we make those purchases a priority. Me, I'm happy to wear M&S shoes but they're just not good for kids. I'd rather go without something else to ensure that my stepkids have decent footwear which lasts for longer. I don't believe in false economy.

£17 is hardly economy is it. M&S is not an economy store either.

This would be economy:
http://www.woolworths.co.uk/ww_p2/product/index.jhtml?pid=50648926

If you go to Woolworths you know you're getting cheap & nasty, but M&S sell on quality.

You might feel that M&S is low-quality, but I'm sure M&S doesn't sell them that way. I've never noticed anything to indicate that it's a lower quality good.

Anyway, regardless of price, they should last more than 2 months. One might expect cheaper shoes to be of poorer quality material, less comfortable perhaps, but it's fundamental that they actually last more than a few weeks. It's quite clear that the shoes were not of satisifactory quality legally speaking, as shoes should last more than 2 months.

I'm sure I remember something like this happening with adult M&S shoes, and they refunded the money, and it was longer than 2 months....

whambamboo

wigginsmum wrote:

Personally I think you've got a cheek trying to return shoes after 2 months.

maybe if she just didn't like them yes, but if they were faulty then it's quite right.

How long do you think they should last?

If you bought a brand new car, and it broke down after 2 weeks, would you complain?