Quick questions on Consumer Rights

lexie_h

thanks for advice and thoughts
lesson? read the small print
(I guess you've all heard that before...)

sparkyrob

Hopefully an easy one to answer, more for my info than anything else as I have already resolved it myself for the sake of hassle.

- I bought a pair of Skechers in June 2015 for £62.
- I went travelling from November 2015 - June 2016, having worn them roughly 25-30 times in total.
- After coming back, I wore them once more and then upon putting them on for the second time the tongue came away completely in one shoe. This was obviously a quality issue, since the tongue was attached by around 6 weak stitches to the main shoe.
- Online customer services advised I go back to the shop, which I did.
- The shop offered me an exchange or a credit note. I picked a different pair of shoes which cost £57. I asked if they would refund the £5 difference from the previous amount too. They said "no, since you've had them for more than a year." and offered me £5 credit.
- I then asked if they would refund the whole amount instead. Again, same answer.
- In the end, I got the shoes and a £5 bottle of protective spray as I didn't want to argue since I wasn't entirely clear on my rights here.

My question - were they correct? Given the shoes were not "fit for purpose", since I'd barely worn them - I would consider 31 days of wear to be MINIMAL wear, was I entitled to either a full refund or an exchange and refund of the remainder? Or were they correct in stating that since a year had passed, I was only entitled to credit?

Hopefully this is an easy yes/no!

marliepanda

Without an independent report in your hand stating that they were inherently faulty when you bought them, you were entitled to absolutely nothing.

For all they knew you could have worn them all day everyday and yanked them on by the tongue everytime.

Theyve gone above and beyond their legal obligations.

sparkyrob

Thanks for the quick reply

In instances like this, how would a consumer hypothetically have any rights? Would the onus be on them to send the shoes off to ... a company? ... to be looked at?

marliepanda

sparkyrob wrote: »

Thanks for the quick reply

In instances like this, how would a consumer hypothetically have any rights? Would the onus be on them to send the shoes off to ... a company? ... to be looked at?

You could theoretically take them to a cobbler or someone who has some working knowledge of making shoes. Whether Skechers would accept that type of report I can't tell you. Usually people who write the reports charge for them, but if the report shows an inherent fault then Skechers would have to pay for the report.

If the stitching was very obviously poor and was bound to come off then thats some proof that no matter how you treated the shoes, the tongue would have come off.

Again, over 12 months down the line, getting someone to stick their neck out and say some shoes were badly stitched 12 months ago is going to be difficult, as shoes naturally have wear and tear and things become frayed and worn etc. After 6 months with something like clothing you're probably going to find it difficult.

wealdroam

sparkyrob wrote: »

Thanks for the quick reply

In instances like this, how would a consumer hypothetically have any rights? Would the onus be on them to send the shoes off to ... a company? ... to be looked at?

After six months it is the consumer's responsibility to prove that the goods were faulty when purchased. The law doesn't say how the consumer does this, but it seems to be generally accepted that the consumer needs to get some sort of report confirming that the problem is due to an inherent fault.

wealdroam

marliepanda wrote: »

You could theoretically take them to a cobbler or someone who has some working knowledge of making shoes. Whether Skechers would accept that type of report I can't tell you. Usually people who write the reports charge for them, but if the report shows an inherent fault then Skechers would have to pay for the report.

If the stitching was very obviously poor and was bound to come off then thats some proof that no matter how you treated the shoes, the tongue would have come off.

Again, over 12 months down the line, getting someone to stick their neck out and say some shoes were badly stitched 12 months ago is going to be difficult, as shoes naturally have wear and tear and things become frayed and worn etc. After 6 months with something like clothing you're probably going to find it difficult.

I notice you mention 'Sketchers' a couple of times in your first paragraph.

It is the shoe shop that sparkyrob used that are responsible, and I don't think we've been told that the shoes were bought direct from Sketchers.

I know you know this, I'm just making it clear for others.

sparkyrob

Thanks for all the replies peeps, makes sense. I guess I got lucky then!

FYI - they were bought at a Skechers store.

robatwork

sparkyrob wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies peeps, makes sense. I guess I got lucky then!

FYI - they were bought at a Skechers store.

Which store? I think you should name them as they come out of this with great credit. They had no idea how you treated the shoes, how many times you wore them, and could quite easily have told you they weren't prepared to do anything for you.

You got a great outcome.

nurse1972_2

Are you covered by Consumer Credit Act,Sale of Goods Act & The Consumer Contracts Regulations if you purchase made to order sofas with a credit agreement.I purchased a set,tried to cancel within 6 days & have been advised I cannot cancel them & am not entitled to a 14 day cancellation period.
Kind regards