Sketchers Leaking first time worn

kaggi

My da bought a pair of Sketchers from Schuh and the first time he wore them one of them leaked in the top at the laces. He took them back to Schuh as they are not fit for purchase and they said they were fashion shoes so there not to be worn in heavy rain! This seemed odd as only one of them leaked. He then contacted Sketchers who asked him to post them to them which he did. He has now received the same shoes back and a letter saying there is nothing wrong with them and they would recommend he purchases a waterproof spray for them. What can I do as he is on a fixed income and this seems shocking. Is trading standards my only course of action asthey are obviously not fit for purpose or does anyone have any other suggestions on how to get this resolved?

Hintza

Are they sold as waterproof?

PlymouthMaid

I would expect to get wet feet really in trainer type shoes.

pinkshoes

Which sketchers were they?

williham

Yeah they're not sold as water proof, I wouldn't expect them to be.

unholyangel

If they're not sold as waterproof I don't really think theres any claim that they don't conform to contract.

If he needs waterproof trainers and is on a budget, he should try karrimors. I started getting them a few years back after reading reviews about them online (was specifically looking for comfy walking shoes due to a foot injury). At the price I only expected them to last a month or two max (I walk several miles a day with the dogs over fields, marsh etc). The price can vary (if they're on special etc) between £15-30 but each pair lasts at least 6-8 months and they are indeed waterproof (they also seem to be mudproof and grass proof - nothing seems to stick to them! lol). I was actually very surprised as I've previously paid out a lot lot more money for walking shoes & boots that were nowhere near as good/comfy.

marliepanda

Most shoes let in water at the laces. There is nothing wrong with them.

kaggi

I have to say I am really surprised at these responses. They only let in on one of the shoes, the other was fine. They are not sold as waterproof but I would not expect my feet to get wet on the top from one shoe no matter what shoes I was wearing (with the obvious exception of shoes that are open on the top) - the fact the other is performing makes me think there is an issue. The foot didn't get slightly wet in a tirade of water, it got soaked in some light rain, surely there must be an issue with the shoe in this case.

Fosterdog

It's more likely to be his feet are slightly different sizes (completely normal, most people have one slightly bigger and one slightly smaller) so the fit is different. Add to that maybe one was laced up slightly tighter than the other, also it depends on how the trouser legs were resting against each foot differently, maybe one covering the whole lace area and the other slightly tucked in leaving it open to the rain.

Nearlyold

If you go to Trading standards I expect they will also tell you the same thing, that unless the shoes were sold as waterproof you don't have a case. Are they even made of a material that a reasonable person would expect to be waterproof?

cajef

kaggi wrote: »

I have to say I am really surprised at these responses.

Why?

If he had asked for waterproof shoes then there would be case for them being not fit for purpose, but as shoes if they cover the feet and are the correct size and fit they are fit for purpose as shoes.