Paul Smith suit trousers - unreasonable wear & tear?

tomcarnaghan

Hi. I've done a cursory search of the forum and directgov and can't find a simple answer to my question.

I have a pair of Paul Smith trousers that were bought with a jacket (total cost £800) last May for my wedding. Since then (July) I wore them a couple of times and have only recently started wearing them regularly, which is about once or twice a week to work for the last 5 months.

Basically, they're falling apart! The seams at the pockets have ripped and the fabric around the top of the pocket has frayed where my (smooth) watch has rubbed on it!

I'd like to know what my warranty rights are here, what is defined as 'reasonable wear & tear' with this sort of consumer good? The trousers were tailored so they fit me perfectly and I haven't put on any weight. Neither have I done anything other than wear them to the office occasionally. I have the receipt, what should I do?

fluffnutter

Five months of regular use for a pair of work trousers...? I'd say that they'd probably be showing some signs of wear and tear. Work trousers get hammered. Unfortunately this is made worse by the fact that they were so expensive to start with but, tbh, I doubt you'd have much redress after this amount of use. Also I'm not sure how robust suit trousers actually are, regardless of cost. Some suits will only be worn occasionally.

But you could always give it a try...

tomcarnaghan

fluffnutter wrote: »

Five months of regular use for a pair of work trousers...? I'd say that they'd probably be showing some signs of wear and tear. Work trousers get hammered. Unfortunately this is made worse by the fact that they were so expensive to start with but, tbh, I doubt you'd have much redress after this amount of use.

But you could always give it a try...

Appreciate the response but I've been wearing a much cheaper pair from Zara for almost 4 years that are in a better state than these. Are there not any guidelines for what consumers should expect in terms of durability, clothes-wise?

crazyguy

I think clothes warranty's or whatever you may wish to call them are down to the individual company that makes them as you look at asda that offer between 90 and 120 days I think and then other stores show no sort of time scale probably because as a rule of thumb there is no time scale on these items and are more than likely like a sold as seen item and maybe if washed or one once or twice could get a refund or same item.

Could be worth while writing to them and telling them that you have only worn on a few occasions and that they are no good and see if they do anything out of goodwill for you, I dont think legaly there will be anything you can do.

fluffnutter

tomcarnaghan wrote: »

Appreciate the response but I've been wearing a much cheaper pair from Zara for almost 4 years that are in a better state than these. Are there not any guidelines for what consumers should expect in terms of durability, clothes-wise?

The SOGA is rather vague about expected durability unfortunately and it often comes down to whether you can argue your point successfully with the retailer. The cost *might* well act in your favour; typically more expensive items are expected to have greater durability. However, as you've seen, cost is no real indication of durability. With Paul Smith you're paying far more for the name than you probably are for the quality.

I think it's going to be up to you to convince them on this one. Being genned up on the SOGA will probably help although there's little you can specifically point to. Find it here.

fluffnutter

It might help to know what you're after. In this case, I'd argue that a replacement or a repair isn't particularly appropriate. It might be the case that you can get them to agree to a partial refund; they're perfectly entitled to deduct money for the use you've got out of them.

tomcarnaghan

fluffnutter wrote: »

The SOGA is rather vague about expected durability unfortunately and it often comes down to whether you can argue your point successfully with the retailer. The cost *might* well act in your favour; typically more expensive items are expected to have greater durability. However, as you've seen, cost is no real indication of durability. With Paul Smith you're paying far more for the name than you probably are for the quality.

I think it's going to be up to you to convince them on this one. Being genned up on the SOGA will probably help although there's little you can specifically point to. Find it here.

That's great, thank you very much for the comprehensive advice!

squeaky

This page in our FAQs should help...

How are partial refunds for price/age/usage calculated?

PZH

tomcarnaghan wrote: »

Appreciate the response but I've been wearing a much cheaper pair from Zara for almost 4 years that are in a better state than these. Are there not any guidelines for what consumers should expect in terms of durability, clothes-wise?

Unfortunately, price isn't always a good indicator of durability.

For instance - a cheap denim shirt would probably last longer in a work environment than say an expensive silk one ?

paddyrg

I would petition Paul Smith - they are a premium brand and take their brand image quite seriously. They may suggest some remedy beyond your legal ones, so approach them asking for their help and see what they suggest before getting vocal!