Boots that cut ankles.

DCFC79

LadyDee wrote: »

I'm sure virtually everyone has at one time or another bought shoes that did not suit our feet. Went through boxes of plasters in the past, not gone crying on a forum demanding "my rights" - get a grip.

You haven't been ripped off, you made a bad choice.

tomtontom wrote: »

We've all got shoes that have ended up chucked in the cupboard because they cause blisters/ rubbing etc. Unless you go to a specialist that fits the shoes specifically for you, it's something that will happen at times. So is life.

Cant agree enough with these 2 comments.

Ive had shoes that have cut into me (not the ankles but close) and caused blisters.

Surely the OP not say some inner soles to raise the foot so the ankle isn't cut.

neilmcl

The OP just needs to persist in wearing them in. Wearing them whilst sitting in an office where "the amount of actual walking in them was minimal", even for 8 days, isn't going to do it I'm afraid. In fact that's the sort of thing that will emphasise the rubbing on his ankles.

George_Michael

RainbowBlue wrote: »

Like the manager of the store is going to admit others have said the same.

The store manager doesn't have to admit anything.
As already mentioned by others, the onus is on the OP to prove that there is a fault with the shoes if they wish to return them as faulty or not fit for purpose.

alfie196

Others have reported the same. I can't post links properly yet, but if you put it all together you will see.

timberlandonline co uk

/en/mens-grantly-chukka-A12HY.html?catID=men_footwear_boots_chukka&dwvar_color=214&dwvar_footwearSize=5085#BVRRWidgetID

beefturnmail

George_Michael wrote: »

The store manager doesn't have to admit anything.
As already mentioned by others, the onus is on the OP to prove that there is a fault with the shoes if they wish to return them as faulty or not fit for purpose.

I thought the onus was on the store to prove NOT faulty if returned within 6 months (before burden of proof shifts to consumer after 6 months)? Or is it different if exercising the short-term (30 day) right to reject?

This may also be complicated by the fact that the OP has agreed for the boots to be sent off to be inspected.

Given that none of us can see their feet\boots, I think the OP deserves the benefit of doubt and that this goes beyond the normal wearing in issues that are common with all shoes. They do also mention that 'they are not the first to report this' which could suggest a manufacturing issue.

neilmcl

beefturnmail wrote: »

I thought the onus was on the store to prove NOT faulty if returned within 6 months (before burden of proof shifts to consumer after 6 months)? Or is it different if exercising the short-term (30 day) right to reject?

This may also be complicated by the fact that the OP has agreed for the boots to be sent off to be inspected.

Given that none of us can see their feet\boots, I think the OP deserves the benefit of doubt and that this goes beyond the normal wearing in issues that are common with all shoes. They do also mention that 'they are not the first to report this' which could suggest a manufacturing issue.

The onus is on the buyer when exercising the short-term right to reject as I already mentioned in post #15.

This wont be complicated by the boots being sent off as effectively the 30 day period will be paused in the meantime.

DomRavioli

alfie196 wrote: »

How do you define not fitting?

The store manager admitted to me that you cannot tell if a boot fits correctly without going for a walk, something that cannot be done in store before you buy. You also cannot return a boot that has been worn outside, so if you go for a walk and find the boot does not fit properly you cannot return it anyway.

My above point seems to suggest even the store manager knows the policy can lead to customers being left out of pocket.

My actual issue is that I've been sold a product, that when used in that manner in which it was sold to me, causes deep cuts to my ankles. I'm not talking about a little rubbing here, these cuts will probably leave a scar. Now if you think that is acceptable from a some foot ware, I'm quite surprised you are reading a consumer rights forum.

So you wore shoes until they scarred you? Did you not think that when it started to hurt you should take them off?

And without any fault, they don't have to take them back and refund you for your own ignorance. You can walk in shoes in a shop, SoleTrader stores are not tiny and have room for you to move in the footwear; you chose not to, so you have zero recourse.

neilmcl

RainbowBlue wrote: »

All I see are original posters spouting off knowing it all!

And your contribution is what exactly?

susancs

It does mention on the Amazon.com reviews that the leather in the ankle area does sometimes take time to soften and can lead to raw ankles, if not protected, until they are broken in.
http://www.amazon.com/Timberland-Mens-Grantly-Chukka-Boot/product-reviews/B00RDZ5S66/ref=cm_cr_pr_btm_link_1?ie=UTF8&sortBy=recent

George_Michael

RainbowBlue wrote: »

All I see are original posters spouting off knowing it all!

By "spouting off", I take it that you mean replying to the questions and giving the correct information.
Even if this is not what the OP want's to hear, it doesn't make it any the less correct.