Faulty Clarkes shoes - desperate Mum needs help

baileybear.01

Hi guys,
I can really do with some help.

I bought my son a pair of Clarkes shoes Jan 2nd this year. He showed me this morning that the toe area on one shoe had completely fallen apart. (near stitches)

I took them straight to the shop from school today. With the receipt.

When I got to clarkes, the lady said she would have to measure his feet ??? Apparently he's half a size bigger. (even though he's very comfortable in the ones he has)
She then explained that I was over the 4 months (by a few weeks). As he has had adequate wear out of them all she will offer me is 25% off the next pair! Clarkes policy
I explained that they are obviously faulty, so I should get a refund or new pair. But as he'd had the whole 4 months wear, there was nothing she could do.

I've had work shoes that have lasted years!

I'm pretty upset as I've not budgeted to buy a pair of school shoes. So my son now has to go into school in trainers

Can someone give me some information to go back with.
x

mattyprice4004

Could he have played football or similar with that foot, causing the quick wear?

kitschkitty

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4610917

Anselm

Under Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended), there are sections that guarantee

s.14(2) - Satisfactory quality,
" (2A) - goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.
s.14(3) - fit for purpose.

So, in your case, as it is within 6 months, the burden of proof lies with the retailer and I would argue that 4 months use doesn't come under what a reasonable person would expect off a reputable brand like Clarkes.

Therefore, I'd press head office for a refund with either your receipt or bank statement, and you should hopefully get your money back.

My own, not too dissimilar story, is that I bought a pair of Loake shoes for £105, and at around 3 months the leather sole came through, I got them replaced by loake and paid for a rubber sole so I don't see why you should have any problems, personally.

Hintza

Try these instead

http://www.tougheesshoes.co.uk/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mYkrJnHk_0

kezzygirl

In Sept last year we bought our daughter some clarkes shoes for school. By January, the leather had worn off the front and the stitching had come apart, but the sole itself was still immaculate!!I took them back to the store adn the manager immediately replaced them with a pair we chose(had to pay 4quid extra as they were more expensive).

I think some stores know their consumer rights.I explained that I expected a pair of £36 school shoes to last longer than 4months,and she agreed.
hope you get yours replaced!!

baileybear.01

Thanks guys, I've asked a friend to come in with me. She has a better memory than me.
x

Techhead_2

Anselm wrote: »

Under Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended), there are sections that guarantee

s.14(2) - Satisfactory quality,
" (2A) - goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.
s.14(3) - fit for purpose.

So, in your case, as it is within 6 months, the burden of proof lies with the retailer and I would argue that 4 months use doesn't come under what a reasonable person would expect off a reputable brand like Clarkes.

Therefore, I'd press head office for a refund with either your receipt or bank statement, and you should hopefully get your money back.

My own, not too dissimilar story, is that I bought a pair of Loake shoes for £105, and at around 3 months the leather sole came through, I got them replaced by loake and paid for a rubber sole so I don't see why you should have any problems, personally.

That's all very well but the in the OP's case the retailer has examined the shoe and deemed it not to be a fault. The OP now has to prove it is a fault (rather than damage) and the shoes could reasonably last more than 4 months.

ThumbRemote

Techhead wrote: »

That's all very well but the in the OP's case the retailer has examined the shoe and deemed it not to be a fault. The OP now has to prove it is a fault (rather than damage) and the shoes could reasonably last more than 4 months.

Strictly, the retailer has claimed the expected lifespan of the shoes is only 4 months. The OP doesn't need to prove it's a fault; the debate is simply over whether 4 months is a reasonable time for a pair of shoes to last.

battleborn

I would say this is simply wear and tear, kids dont look after shoes, they play and fall over.

Just buy a new pair instead of complaining over something so incredibly ridiculous.

ThumbRemote

Of course it's wear and tear. The question is whether the shoes should be able to cope with that amount of wear and tear. Given Clarks try to position themselves as a premium brand, you would expect the shoes to cope better.

Clarks haven't claimed there was any misuse, they have stated that they only expect their shoes to last 4 months before falling apart.