Return faulty goods direct to manufacturer as not purchased at home

johanna.logan

I bought a pair of shoes last October and put them away until spring, when I got them out the box they have a fault on the toe. Am I able to return these direct to the manufacturer as they were purchased whilst visiting relatives who live 600 miles away? Thanks in advance.

marliepanda

Depending on what date in October you bought them you may have no right to return.

You can ask the manufacturer, but your rights are with the retailer and after 6 months they can require you to prove the fault was inherent.

vuvuzela

johanna.logan wrote: »

I bought a pair of shoes last October and put them away until spring, when I got them out the box they have a fault on the toe. Am I able to return these direct to the manufacturer as they were purchased whilst visiting relatives who live 600 miles away? Thanks in advance.

Unfortunately the manufacturer has no liability here. The fact you bought them and then didn't look at or wear them for 6 months might mean you have limited recourse to any remedy.

InsideInsurance

vuvuzela wrote: »

Unfortunately the manufacturer has no liability here. The fact you bought them and then didn't look at or wear them for 6 months might mean you have limited recourse to any remedy.

They may have no statutory rights that doesnt mean there is no other liabilities on the manufacturer, that would depend on what warranties etc are sold with it.

Even if there are no legal requirements for a manufacturer to deal with something doesnt mean they dont and sometimes are much quicker/ easier than dealing with the retailer. eg my first iPhone had a problem. The merchant wanted to post it off to their repairers for it to be inspected. I walked into an apple shop and 30 minutes later I had a brand new phone.

As in this case getting things back to the retailer is going to be a pain, I am assuming its not a chain based on the 600 miles comment, and so it may be worth speaking to the manufacturer

johanna.logan

I don't think the fault was obvious when I bought them, I think it has developed whilst they have been in the box. The leather has creased /softened into an indentation in the toe cap (that would not have be visible when they were purchased). Would this not come under not fit for purpose as it is obvious that they have not been worn when looking at the sole

LilElvis

johanna.logan wrote: »

I don't think the fault was obvious when I bought them, I think it has developed whilst they have been in the box. The leather has creased /softened into an indentation in the toe cap (that would not have be visible when they were purchased). Would this not come under not fit for purpose as it is obvious that they have not been worn when looking at the sole

Could the indentation have been caused by the way they were stored? For example if one heel was pushed into the toe of the other shoe. I can't think of any other way in which an indentation could be caused in an unworn pair of shoes.

Hintza

LilElvis wrote: »

Could the indentation have been caused by the way they were stored? For example if one heel was pushed into the toe of the other shoe. I can't think of any other way in which an indentation could be caused in an unworn pair of shoes.

I think this has hit the nail on the head, I doubt the op will get very far if this is the case.