Clarks shoes, brand new, rotting in their thousands - check your wardrobes now!

Doc_N

Pollycat wrote: »

So... the key issues.
Do you know how the other brands mentioned have 'dealt with this issue:?

Well, since all the complaints - and there are large numbers of them - are about Clarks that seems a reasonable assumption.

Pollycat

Doc_N wrote: »

Well, since all the complaints - and there are large numbers of them - are about Clarks that seems a reasonable assumption.

<sighs>

By 'all the complaints' you mean the people who contacted Watchdog (at some undated time specifically regarding Clarks).

I thought we'd established that it wasn't only Clarks shoes that disintegrated.
You talked about 'how well companies have dealt with this issue'.


So - how are Hotter dealing with the complaints?
Sp - how are Hush Puppies dealing with the complaints?
So - how are Ecco dealing with the complaints?

Are they doing this? (from your link)

“As both a manufacturer and a retailer, we carefully follow the guide lines set down by Trading Standards. As such, we give consideration to complaints on adult’s footwear up to six years after purchase, the period that Trading Standards deems reasonable for manufacturers to be held responsible for the breakdown or deterioration of products materials. However in this case, to ensure that we treat all of our customers fairly, we took the decision to offer a courtesy voucher to any customer who returns a product experiencing this issue regardless of the time that has passed since purchase and the absence of proof of purchase.”

Doc_N

Pollycat wrote: »

<sighs>

By 'all the complaints' you mean the people who contacted Watchdog (at some undated time specifically regarding Clarks).

I thought we'd established that it wasn't only Clarks shoes that disintegrated.

How are Hotter dealing with the complaints?
How are Hush Puppies dealing with the complaints?
How are Ecco dealing with the complaints?

Are they doing this? (from your link)

No I don't mean just the 'significant numbers of people' who contacted Watchdog - a few seconds on Google will show you that there are vast numbers of complaints about this from all over the world. You may not have been affected, but I have, so has my wife, and so have large numbers of others.

Hush Puppies, Hotter and Ecco don't feature online in the same way, so presumably they've kept their customers happy by playing fair with them.

Clarks refused to appear on Watchdog - why?

And I can tell you that the 'courtesy' vouchers they offer are trifling - a tiny fraction of the cost of the shoes.

Let's not forget - these are brand new, quite expensive shoes, left unused for a while and then found in a state of advance decomposition because Clarks chose to use cheap materials to boost their profits. A reputable company would have held its hands up and compensated people properly for their failure to use proper materials.

Clarks didn't - they expected their customers to suffer the loss. And one of the reasons Clarks is having so many problems now is that it's lost the trust of so many of its former customers whom they let down. Those customers (including this family) won't be back - and they do tend to like spreading the word to warn other potential customers how bad Clarks is at dealing with problems of its own making.

Pollycat

Doc_N wrote: »

No I don't mean just the 'significant numbers of people' who contacted Watchdog - a few seconds on Google will show you that there are vast numbers of complaints about this from all over the world. You may not have been affected, but I have, so has my wife, and so have large numbers of others.

Hush Puppies, Hotter and Ecco don't feature online in the same way, so presumably they've kept their customers happy by playing fair with them.

Clarks refused to appear on Watchdog - why?

And I can tell you that the 'courtesy' vouchers they offer are trifling - a tiny fraction of the cost of the shoes.

Let's not forget - these are brand new, quite expensive shoes, left unused for a while and then found in a state of advance decomposition because Clarks chose to use cheap materials to boost their profits. A reputable company would have held its hands up and compensated people properly for their failure to use proper materials.

Clarks didn't - they expected their customers to suffer the loss. And one of the reasons Clarks is having so many problems now is that it's lost the trust of so many of its former customers whom they let down. Those customers (including this family) won't be back - and they do tend to like spreading the word to warn other potential customers how bad Clarks is at dealing with problems of its own making.

I've googled 'disintegrating soles' for Clarks, Hotter, hush Puppies and Ecco and found lots of hits for all.

How have you counted this 'vast number of complaints' about Clarks shoes specifically?

Doc_N

Pollycat wrote: »

I've googled 'disintegrating soles' for Clarks, Hotter, hush Puppies and Ecco and found lots of hits for all.

How have you counted this 'vast number of complaints' about Clarks shoes specifically?

Clearly we’re not going to agree on this one, are we. You have your view of Clarks and I have mine.

It’s pointless arguing about it because there’s no way to establish the percentages of shoes affected from each manufacturer, or how they dealt with any claims.

What we do know though is that Clarks was the only one that got enough complaints for Watchdog to run a story, and that Clarks refused to put anybody up to be interviewed. That suggests to me that Clarks was the major culprit, and that they knew they couldn’t stand up to questioning on the issue.

Pollycat

Doc_N wrote: »

Clearly we’re not going to agree on this one, are we.

No, we're not.

I guess we'll be going round in circles again next time someone complains about any shoes disintegrating - as per the last 3 posters:
Herbie47, Grandmama & IvanOpinion. (all not Clarks).

And we now have added M&S, Saloman & Hawkshead to the ever-growing list of manufacturers.

[Deleted User]

The reason for Clark's problems is not just the way they make shoes, its the fact that their shoes aren't the cheapest and they have broken with the reasons why people returned again and again, prepared to pay for their shoes. They were somewhere I could go to find shoes that fitted my wide high arch feet. Then they cut the sizes available in stores, I stopped being able to find shoes I could wear. So I found other cheaper retailers. The assistants were well trained/informed, not so much now. Clarks gave away their USP. Its not just the sole problem (oh dear, I could make a pun but will resist).

Manxman_in_exile

Doc_N wrote: »

Clearly we’re not going to agree on this one, are we. You have your view of Clarks and I have mine.

It’s pointless arguing about it because there’s no way to establish the percentages of shoes affected from each manufacturer, or how they dealt with any claims.

What we do know though is that Clarks was the only one that got enough complaints for Watchdog to run a story, and that Clarks refused to put anybody up to be interviewed. That suggests to me that Clarks was the major culprit, and that they knew they couldn’t stand up to questioning on the issue.

Did Watchdog actually say those two things? I have no idea what criteria they use when deciding to run a report.