Effect on warranty of rubber-soling leather-soled shoes

jk451

The problem: I generally don't like to buy leather-soled shoes for the simple reason that the sole wears through so quickly (3 to 5 months for me) and replacing it costs at least half the price of the actual shoes. Note that I have tried many tricks to increase the longevity but ultimately I don't have a car so I walk every day and as you can imagine I can't avoid wet surfaces (especially now that I have moved to Scotland). That's just reality. But I still want to buy some leather-sole shoes because I like their look in general.

My solution: What I am doing now (done it with one pair so far) is bring them new straight to a cobbler and have some rubber out-soles glued on. I have found this work reasonably well (I guess so long the rubber outsoles and workmanship is of a decent quelity).

The question: Does this invalidate the 6-month warranty under SOGA? Say 3 months after purchase, a hole occurs in the stitching, not on the bottom of the sole, but (what happened to me previously) between the sole and the uppers. Have I lost my right to have the shoe repaired or exchanged for a new one by the seller because I have had the rubber outsoles put on? If you answer I would be grateful if you can say what you are basing your answer on/where would be the authoritative place to find out/refer to (CAB maybe?)

Fosterdog

It would depend on what caused the hole, if by fitting the rubber soles it reduced the flexibility of the shoe which in turn caused stress where there wouldn't have been before which then made the stitching come apart then I wouldn't expect a remedy.

If the sole had no affect at all on the area of the shoe that is faulty then I would expect it to be covered

unholyangel

Fosterdogs advice is correct.

From OFTs unfair contract terms guidance:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284426/oft311.pdf

Even where goods have been legally 'accepted', for example, by being
used repeatedly or modified in some way, the supplier remains liable to provide redress if they subsequently prove to have been defective
when sold.

LilElvis

Why not wear cheaper, rubber soled shoes for your walk to work and then change into your better ones when you get there? That way you don't have to ruin your shoes by sticking rubber on them and the leather soles will last much longer. Thousands of New Yorker's can't be (entirely) wrong

paddyrg

Just a noteworthy point, some shoe manufacturers like Ducker & Son won't do repair on their shoes if they've previously been repaired elsewhere - it's a bit like a service history on a car!

I like a leather sole, but practicality says to wear cheap boots to cover the miles and nice ones for when I'm more static or on carpet!

InsideInsurance

jk451 wrote: »

The problem: I generally don't like to buy leather-soled shoes for the simple reason that the sole wears through so quickly (3 to 5 months for me) and replacing it costs at least half the price of the actual shoes. Note that I have tried many tricks to increase the longevity but ultimately I don't have a car so I walk every day and as you can imagine I can't avoid wet surfaces (especially now that I have moved to Scotland). That's just reality. But I still want to buy some leather-sole shoes because I like their look in general.

My solution: What I am doing now (done it with one pair so far) is bring them new straight to a cobbler and have some rubber out-soles glued on. I have found this work reasonably well (I guess so long the rubber outsoles and workmanship is of a decent quelity).

The question: Does this invalidate the 6-month warranty under SOGA? Say 3 months after purchase, a hole occurs in the stitching, not on the bottom of the sole, but (what happened to me previously) between the sole and the uppers. Have I lost my right to have the shoe repaired or exchanged for a new one by the seller because I have had the rubber outsoles put on? If you answer I would be grateful if you can say what you are basing your answer on/where would be the authoritative place to find out/refer to (CAB maybe?)

First of all, learn never to wear leather shoes until they have fully dried out again. On a dry days these means never wearing them two days in a row. On wet days its at least two days gap if not three. Secondly, never try to dry shoes using heat sources, slow is always better.

I used to have exactly the same problem and got increasingly frustrated. I eventually bit the bullet and bought 3 pairs of much more expensive shoes but with the idea of cycling them. 4 years on I am still wearing the same 3 pairs of shoes and only one have had to had their soles replaced. Now part of it may be to better quality soles but I think the allowing to dry out is more important.

My plan when I bought the more expensive shoes was to replace the soles with dainite rubber soles when they wore out but I've been happy enough not to bother to do this.

As to the impact of gluing terrible rubber soles on top of the leather soles. Technically it doesnt automatically invalidate your rights but if the vendor can show that your actions caused the problem then they could repudiate the damage as caused by your actions.

jk451

unholyangel wrote: »

Fosterdogs advice is correct.

From OFTs unfair contract terms guidance:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284426/oft311.pdf

Thanks for the replies. Does this mean that within the first 6 months, the burden of proof is still on the seller to show that the good was not faulty at the time of sale?

As for the suggestions focusing on wearing leather-soled shoes only in the office - that doesn't really work for me. I am no longer working in an office where I would have to wear dress shoes, so when I talk about using leather shoes, it's mostly things you would wear outside the office like stylish leather chukka boots and such. So there isn't a point in me having those shoes for not walking outside with them.

@InsideInsurance: I do cycle through shoes, although after buying shoes I tend to wear them very frequently because that surfaces any faults the shoes have within the 6 month period where I can get the faults rectified by the seller.

I understand that if the rubber soles are glued on in a particularly damaging way than obviously my warranty is void. What I am more concerned about is sellers using the rubber soles as an excuse for not addressing problems that do not seem to be caused at all by the rubber sole. Yes, even if the rubber soles are reasonable, they could be putting extra strain on places on the shoe far away from the actual soles, but the problem is you could say the same about different people's foot shape and such. There is just no way of knowing where the exact impact stops without measuring it in a physics lab...

unholyangel

jk451 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. Does this mean that within the first 6 months, the burden of proof is still on the seller to show that the good was not faulty at the time of sale?

SoGA says:
(3)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.
(4)Subsection (3) above does not apply if—
(a)it is established that the goods did so conform at that date;
(b)its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.

InsideInsurance

jk451 wrote: »

@InsideInsurance: I do cycle through shoes, although after buying shoes I tend to wear them very frequently because that surfaces any faults the shoes have within the 6 month period where I can get the faults rectified by the seller.

I understand that if the rubber soles are glued on in a particularly damaging way than obviously my warranty is void. What I am more concerned about is sellers using the rubber soles as an excuse for not addressing problems that do not seem to be caused at all by the rubber sole. Yes, even if the rubber soles are reasonable, they could be putting extra strain on places on the shoe far away from the actual soles, but the problem is you could say the same about different people's foot shape and such. There is just no way of knowing where the exact impact stops without measuring it in a physics lab...

When you first have shoes is when they are most prone to damage and so is when you should be wearing them the least if you want them to last long term.

The difference between feet and soles is that shoes have been sold to have feet put in them, if they arent suitable for people with particularly high arches then the merchant would have to say so otherwise they have to take their customers as they find them.

Putting soles on is modifying the shoe from how it was designed to be, most people only put the sole on the front of the shoe and not the heel which changes the balance/ angle of the shoe which allegedly can cause damage. Never done this personally so cannot say from first hand experience.

Personally I leave the leather soles as they are with the plan to replace them with dainite rubber soles as and when they wear out but so far only one pairs needed replacing and it was the on the most formal pair and I wanted to keep them as leather soles.

People have already answered your query. Of cause the vendor may use the rubber soles as the excuse for the damage but it is up to them to prove that in the first 6 months, after 6 months its up to you to prove its inherent and not due to your action or acceptable wear.

Of cause they may say that its the cause and not be willing to back down in which case you are left with the courts to resolve it. Personally, if you like rubber soles, buy shoes with them. If you want leather soles, buy decent ones and look after them properly. I used to go through £75 M&S shoes in under 6 months, now 3 pairs have last almost 4 years with only one needing resoling since learning to cycle them, dry out, use shoe trees etc.