SOGA or Consumer Rights Bill

arcon5

Scuffs from what? They don't appear from nowhere.
A 1 yr old too young to scuff shoes? My god ours would prove you wrong.

I'm struggling to see what the 'fault' is here.

Speak loudly if you want.
'My child has scuffed her shoes, I want my money back as I know my rights'
Not sure if this will put anybody off tbh

beefturnmail

Arcon - so you buy new shoes every week do you?

The fault is that the shoes have scuffed from normal use (i.e. a 1 one year old walking) afer 1 week. I reasonably expect shoes to last longer than that - she has not been misusing them - appreciate you can't see them but we are not talking slight scuffing, they have literally worn right through. This indicates cheap quality to me, but the shoes were £20 not e.g. £5.

Some of my other comments are of course in jest :rotfl:- this is clearly too subtle for some posters or perhaps is indicative with a general problem with customer service which still remains in some parts of the British retail sector.

System

Do you take them off when she is crawling to prevent scuffing and wear?

Fosterdog

I don't quite see how a scuff can be anything other than wear and tear/misuse it requires a physical abrasion to cause a scuff, it can't happen on its own.

Just a suggestion but as they were your daughters first pair of shoes and she has only just started walking you would have no way of knowing what her natural walking and wear pattern would be on shoes. It would be worth buying a cheap pair and trying them out for a week. If they also get badly scuffed you know it is not a fault. If they remain in almost pristine condition you'll know there was something not right with the first pair.

Then when you go back to the shop to complain you can show them the good condition of the cheaper shoes, they will be more likely to believe there is a fault and not just wear and tear.

Of course it also depends on what they are made of, some materials wear quicker and easier and others are more durable.

£20 is also hardly expensive when it comes to shoes, even for a 1 year old I've seen some for around £60-£100 (not that I'd ever personally spend that on baby shoes)

peachyprice

beefturnmail wrote: »

Arcon - so you buy new shoes every week do you?

The fault is that the shoes have scuffed from normal use (i.e. a 1 one year old walking) afer 1 week. I reasonably expect shoes to last longer than that - she has not been misusing them - appreciate you can't see them but we are not talking slight scuffing, they have literally worn right through. This indicates cheap quality to me, but the shoes were £20 not e.g. £5.

Some of my other comments are of course in jest :rotfl:- this is clearly too subtle for some posters or perhaps is indicative with a general problem with customer service which still remains in some parts of the British retail sector.

Start-Rite make good quality leather shoes, without any input from your child they would not have 'worn through'. Even £5 plastic shoes wouldn't wear through in a week without them being abused. Although, I'm surprised that you say they were only £20, Start-Rite proper shoes start at around £36, pre-walkers £26. Did you buy them from an authorised dealer? Or is she walking in pre-walkers?

So what has she been doing in them? Crawling? Dragging them along whilst in the pushchair? Shoes don't just get scuffed from normal walking, only the sole touches the floor, so something your daughter had done herself has led to the uppers coming into contact with the ground.

arcon5

beefturnmail wrote: »

Arcon - so you buy new shoes every week do you?

No because we take care of little ones shoes and which pair he wears depends on where we're going.

beefturnmail

I'm of the opinion that if you sell shoes suitable for a one year old they shouldn't wear completely through after one week of normal use. And by normal I mean normal use by a one year old - Both shoes have failed in the same (mirror image) location - even if it was caused by my daughter rubbing against something it is clearly a design flaw, as the shoes should be able to withstand a reasonable degree of use by a one year old without wearing out in a week - she hasn't been hiking mountains or walking on coals.

Anyway I got my refund, but it was a fight and the store did everything in their power to avoid giving a refund: lieing, saying they had no authority, manager was out, managers managers was out, could only refund if I had the card, had to send off to the manufacturer, changing their story when I made it clear I knew the SOGA. If they were so sure it was something my daughter had done, why did they need to lie to me?

I kept my temper until the very end (after I got the refund) when I told them what I thought of them as I was annoyed at having been messed about and lied to (annoyed at myself for this)

beefturnmail

arcon5 wrote: »

No because we take care of little ones shoes and which pair he wears depends on where we're going.

Well bully for you. How do you know I don't as well? Or are you omniscient?

beefturnmail

peachyprice wrote: »

Start-Rite make good quality leather shoes, without any input from your child they would not have 'worn through'. .

True, but when I buy shoes I intend my child to input into them by using them?

They were on half-price sale , so perhaps they had a known fault and they were trying to get rid of stock or something. Fact they were not the most expensive doesn't change the fact that I have a right for a refund though, as even a really cheap pair of £5 shoes I would expect to last longer than a week (but probably wouldn't persue a refund for this amount)

GreatBeyond

beefturnmail wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that if you sell shoes suitable for a one year old they shouldn't wear completely through after one week of normal use. And by normal I mean normal use by a one year old - Both shoes have failed in the same (mirror image) location - even if it was caused by my daughter rubbing against something it is clearly a design flaw, as the shoes should be able to withstand a reasonable degree of use by a one year old without wearing out in a week - she hasn't been hiking mountains or walking on coals.

Anyway I got my refund, but it was a fight and the store did everything in their power to avoid giving a refund: lieing, saying they had no authority, manager was out, managers managers was out, could only refund if I had the card, had to send off to the manufacturer, changing their story when I made it clear I knew the SOGA. If they were so sure it was something my daughter had done, why did they need to lie to me?

I kept my temper until the very end (after I got the refund) when I told them what I thought of them as I was annoyed at having been messed about and lied to (annoyed at myself for this)

What a hero. You do realise the person that you had a go at is someone who is just working within the confines of their company policy and for all you know thinks aspects of it are a daft as you did.

Really don't get why people seem to thrive on having a pop at people who work in customer services.

From reading this thread you have went in seeking confrontation, got that confrontation and couldn't resist a final pop even after you had got what you wanted.

Maybe read up about the psychological impact abusive customers can have on people who work in customer services and keep that in mind when dealing with people in the future.