Marks and Spencer refused refund with receipt!!

uktim29

mrcow wrote:

Says who? Or do you work for a footware quality testing lab that you haven't disclosed?

A fault has now developed after 8 weeks. There is no way of knowing if it's genuine or misuse because of the 8 week period.

The fault could be due to the above reason. Normally faulty clothing becomes apparent much sooner after first being worn.

Why would I need to work for a footware quality testing lab to know that?

ohreally

I believe the issue here is one of fit for purpose.In terms of getting a short service life from the shoes i'd be inclined to argue that they were not fit for purpose,manufacturing fault or not, and as such you should expect M&S to reconsider your request to refund or consider esculating a more formal complaint including how the store staff has dealt with a valued customer.

beca

Just found this under the "Look behind the Label" information on the M & S website (I was curious!):

" We believe in selling clothes that will last and we want our customers to be sure that the products they buy from us really survive the test of time, keeping their colour, shape and softness no matter how many times they are worn and washed.

We put all our clothes through stringent tests to make sure they won’t bobble, fade and become threadbare before their time. We use over 350 testing centres worldwide to conduct up to 100 durability tests on samples of all our clothes before they appear in our stores. That means stretching, tearing, soaking and washing them again and again.

It’s because of this approach that we believe we have one of the highest durability standards of any retailer in the world. It’s all part of our determination to sell products that meet the highest standards of quality and provide good value for our customers.

And it doesn’t just apply to clothes. We take just as much trouble testing the durability of our other products as we do with our cardigans and coats. "


hhmmm - over to you Phil_C !!

UniqueEarthling

whambamboo wrote:

£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....

Cheap, maybe but I have to disagree with nasty. I bought both my children's shoes there this year because the shops I usually choose were sold out of their sizes.

Since I usually pay in the region of £35/40 for school shoes, I expected to be replacing the Woolworths £8 shoes within a few weeks.

But, to my surprise, they are still going strong (and my kids have been known to kill a pair of Doc Martins in a month).

I, for one, will be checking out the Woolworths range first next time. Maybe I've just been lucky this time but, even in the event that they only last a few months next time, at least I won't have wasted what I usually spend.

Back to the original query though, I agree with you on that. It is definitely not unreasonable to expect a pair of school shoes to last more than 8 weeks, regardless of where they were bought.

andyrules

Just had to add my bit here. I think it's sad that so many people think it's OK that children's school shoes bought from a reputable store should barely last for 8 weeks. I think other posters have pointed out that the actual wearing time would be less than this. As consumers, we shouldn't accept that school shoes which last for such a short time are 'fit for purpose', that is not fair play.

Thanks to Beca for solving the mystery that phil c posed before he disappeared, think that adds weight to the argument for the OP.

I would add this question to phil c for his statement (if he ever returns!) -
Secondly - apologies on behalf on M&S for the alledged poor service that you received, what you describe is certainly not what our service style is about; which reminds me - with reference to service going down - yes I am not saying things are perfect, but a lot of money has been invested into this area and big improvements have/are being made. In my opinion there are not many other retailers in the same league as M&S than even come close to providing the high level of service that we do.
why have M&S invested a lot of money into CS when they used to have one of the best CS reputations on the high street? They didn't need to spend anything! If indeed they felt they were too lax and generous, did they have to impose such drastic changes that they now arguably have one of the worst reputations? I can speak personally from their now draconian Customer Service, as many people on here have experienced. As for other retailers not being in the same league, Next have a 'no-quibble' returns service, and their assistants are courteous. M&S are currently spending a fortune on advertising - in the past when their reputation was king, I don't remember a single advert!

OP, persevere with this for everyone's sake, this shoddy service demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the consumer. Please do as others have said and contact Trading Standards. Let's try and get at least some of the old M&S back that so many of us loved and patronised!

I'm sure you are aware of this, but here's the link to the 1979 Sale of Goods Act.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/fact-sheets/page24700.html

Good luck and keep us posted!

needmoney

beca wrote:

Just found this under the "Look behind the Label" information on the M & S website (I was curious!):

" We believe in selling clothes that will last and we want our customers to be sure that the products they buy from us really survive the test of time, keeping their colour, shape and softness no matter how many times they are worn and washed.

We put all our clothes through stringent tests to make sure they won’t bobble, fade and become threadbare before their time. We use over 350 testing centres worldwide to conduct up to 100 durability tests on samples of all our clothes before they appear in our stores. That means stretching, tearing, soaking and washing them again and again.

It’s because of this approach that we believe we have one of the highest durability standards of any retailer in the world. It’s all part of our determination to sell products that meet the highest standards of quality and provide good value for our customers.

And it doesn’t just apply to clothes. We take just as much trouble testing the durability of our other products as we do with our cardigans and coats. "


hhmmm - over to you Phil_C !!

Thanks beca for giving us the information.
The bit I've highlighted is exactly what happened to an expensive top I bought from the Per Una range, complete dissapointment, tops from Primark have lasted far better.
Phill_C - better tell M&S to try much harder.

hollydays

Was i right in thinking you said they were labelled or advertised as school shoes?

looby75

phil_c wrote:

what more is there to say?!

That this campaign/scheme/system obviously isn't working, no matter how much M&S would like to think it is, maybe?

mrcow

Well let's start with:

a. No one had heard of this campaign until someone Googled it
b. A pair of M&S shoes fell apart after 40 wears

And you think the campaign and the quality testing is working?

looby75

if it clearly does then how come so many people have similar experiences of shoddy goods bought from M&S and such bad examples of customer care?