Expensive Boots - knackered soles

elliq

Two years ago I bought an expensive (for me) pair of boots from Dune in a House of Fraser store. I didn't wear them that much when I had them as was on mat leave but last winter wore them to work so maybe 2-3 times a week. Not heavy wear walk to bus stop in office kind of thing.

The leather is absolutely perfect on them not a mark or a break but the sole has split and the heels starting to wear down. I took them today to get fixed and the cobbler said that there was no way they can be fixed as they are a plastic moulded sole.

I took them back to HoF today (I do have my receipt although didn't have at the time) and they were very much well they have obviously been worn but I should contact Dune as they might help me. I spoke to Dune who were helpful but said I'd need to go back to HoF who sold them (which I will do).

I do appreciate that they are two years old and have had some wear but I really don't expect to get basically two season's wear for something I've paid 3 figures for (they were £140 but that was on a sale day so £165 normally). Surely the boots are faulty if the sole wears out before the rest does?

Was wondering if anyone had any advice - I appreciate two years have past but I have a pair of DM's I've been wearing for at least 4 years in hail, rain and snow and the soles are still perfect.

Master_Blaster

Why are they going back to HoF, so they can be returned to the manufacturer? You may find poor storage or something like diesel has had an effect of the sole. After two years I do not rate your chances with them.

frugal_mike

Dune are right to say that its House of Fraser's problem as they are the ones you have a contract with (unless the manufacturer offers a warranty). Under The Sale of Goods act you have the right to a remedy if the shoes are inherently faulty. That could be a repair (if it was possible), replacement or refund. The refund can be partial to account for your use.

However as it is more than 6 months since purchase House of Fraser can require you to prove that the fault is inherent. If you can't get them to offer you anything then you would need to get an independent report that claims the shoes are inherently faulty.

bris

It's called wear and tear, 2 years at 2-3 times a week will wear the soles and heels down.


Price is irrelevant when it come to fashion, you pay for the name like any designer will tell you.

stevemLS

frugal_mike wrote: »

Dune are right to say that its House of Fraser's problem as they are the ones you have a contract with (unless the manufacturer offers a warranty). Under The Sale of Goods act you have the right to a remedy if the shoes are inherently faulty. That could be a repair (if it was possible), replacement or refund. The refund can be partial to account for your use.

However as it is more than 6 months since purchase House of Fraser can require you to prove that the fault is inherent. If you can't get them to offer you anything then you would need to get an independent report that claims the shoes are inherently faulty.

But not after two years. What is a reasonable time for a pair of shoes to last?

shaun_from_Africa

stevemLS wrote: »

But not after two years. What is a reasonable time for a pair of shoes to last?

Provided that it hasn't been more than 6 years since purchase, the retailer can, in some cases still be legally obliged for providing a remedy for goods that are faulty due to an inherent fault.

All that the term "inherent fault" means is there was a fault present at the time of sale. This failt could have been hidden and not come to light for a long time afterwards.
Say for example, the chemical composition of the sole had been wrongly manufactured leading to it decomposing or going brittle after a couple of years.
This may be classed as acceptable on a £10 pair of trainers but not acceptable on a £140 pair of boots.

Goods sold by a business must be durable, and one of the factors used to define durability is the price paid.

I'm not saying that the retailer is liable, simply that they might be.
Ultimately it is down to the op to prove that the wear on the soles is due to faulty materials or bad manufacture, something that will be far from easy to accomplish.

InsideInsurance

elliq wrote: »

Surely the boots are faulty if the sole wears out before the rest does?

The work shoes I have on today are about 8 years on, I wear them twice a week on average and never on consecutive days. My new colleague mentioned today that she loves my "new shoes". The uppers are 8 years old but the soles are replaced every 2-3 years. Soles and uppers certainly dont last the same amount of time hence buying shoes with goodyear welting or similar so that they can be properly replaced. If they are molded soles you have to be careful to get them sorted earlier as all they can do is glue on a new top surface.

elliq wrote: »

Was wondering if anyone had any advice - I appreciate two years have past but I have a pair of DM's I've been wearing for at least 4 years in hail, rain and snow and the soles are still perfect.

Welcome to the difference between a fashion brand and a work boot brand.

Back in my day of wearing DMs I didnt look after them as I do my current footwear but with my DMs the uppers always died before the soles and that was after 4-6 years of near constant wear.

DMs you are paying for a basic looking hardwearing pair of footwear. They'll never win any beauty parade, you wont find them made of exotic skins etc but they will last.

Dune you are paying for something that looks pretty

Roaming

Just posted a similar issue I have just had with a pair of heels I bought from Dune only yesterday!! Soles look worn through after just an hour of wear at most - indoors - about 80% of which was on a a carpeted floor.

What do I do?

frugal_mike

stevemLS wrote: »

But not after two years. What is a reasonable time for a pair of shoes to last?

That depends entirely on why the shoes are in a poor state. If it is from fair wear and tear then by definition its not an inherent fault. My current work shoes are 6 years old (worn 5 days a week). They only cost about £40, and are only now at the point where I'm considering getting a new pair. I have a pair of Asics trainers that I go jogging in several times a week, and wear for everything outside of work. These also cost about £40-£50 (in a sale I think). I bought them in 2008 and other than being a bit dirty they don't look particularly worn.

Maybe I've been lucky, but I wouldn't be happy with only 2 years out of a shoe.

ess0two

frugal_mike wrote: »

That depends entirely on why the shoes are in a poor state. If it is from fair wear and tear then by definition its not an inherent fault. My current work shoes are 6 years old (worn 5 days a week). They only cost about £40, and are only now at the point where I'm considering getting a new pair. I have a pair of Asics trainers that I go jogging in several times a week, and wear for everything outside of work. These also cost about £40-£50 (in a sale I think). I bought them in 2008 and other than being a bit dirty they don't look particularly worn.

Maybe I've been lucky, but I wouldn't be happy with only 2 years out of a shoe.

You've done well to get 6 years from a pair of running shoes??

elsien

The moulded sole thing isn't unusual, unfortunately. I've started wearing walking shoes for general day to day stuff as I'm quite heavy footed and "normal" shoes and boots can wear through in a couple of months if I wear them every day.