Shoes split after 6 weeks

YORKSHIRELASS

Hi DS bought himself a pair of £50 casual suede trainers from a large sports retailer 6 weeks ago. They have been used for light wear, not playing sport in, and have split badly where the sole meets the upper.

Is it worth taking them back? We still have the receipt. Surely 6 weeks light wear from a £50 pair of trainers means they are not fit for purpose?

[Deleted User]

Of course it's "worth" taking them back!

Having the receipt is a bonus, but even without one, the product is obviously not fit for purpose.

Return them pronto!

shaun_from_Africa

YORKSHIRELASS wrote: »

Hi DS bought himself a pair of £50 casual suede trainers from a large sports retailer 6 weeks ago.

Sports Direct by any chance?
If it is then you should expect a bit of a fight to get them to accept that the shoes were faulty and not damaged through misuse.

YORKSHIRELASS

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Sports Direct by any chance?
If it is then you should expect a bit of a fight to get them to accept that the shoes were faulty and not damaged through misuse.

Yep you guessed it! That's why I asked, seem to remember reading something about them being difficult. If they had been £20 we would have chucked them in the bin and started again but £50 is a lot of money to DS when he earns £4 an hour!

paddyrg

SportsDirect are cheap, and by that I don't mean inexpensive.

Silver-Surfer_2

paddyrg wrote: »

SportsDirect are cheap, and by that I don't mean inexpensive.

But if the op bought a branded product and I don't mean one of their own, the shoes should have lasted longer.

[Deleted User]

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

But if the op bought a branded product and I don't mean one of their own, the shoes should have lasted longer.

Being a branded product is irrelevant. The products have to be "fit for purpose" regardless of the manufacturer.