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

JP08

Whilst the speed of decay seems to be far shortened this is not a new thing.

I was issued, back in 1990 when I joined London Underground, a pair of workshop shoes and a pair of track boots (oh and a belt that now no longer fits me on the last hole whereas when issued fitted on the first ... )

After 15 years of very intermittent wear (mainly for heavier gardening projects) I went to put the workshop shoes on and the soles just disintegrated. Just fell apart into 1-2cm chunks of rubber. Uppers were still fine.

Oddly the track boots which appear to have similar soles and which have had a harder gardening life (and even been used as walking boots - I must have public sector shaped feet as they are the most comfortable boots I own) are still soldiering on.

Brilliant things - 3mm thick leather, padded round the ankles, steel toecapped strong enough to cope with a track rail being dropped on them, thick rubber over the toecaps and hefty thick soles that were designed as lifesavers when working around 630v DC traction. Wouldn't want to go swimming in them tho ...

PhylPho

Tales of disintegrating shoes with 'man made' soles have been doing the rounds for several years. Significantly, they don't seem confined to just one manufacturer / supplier. This blog from an American writer dates back to 2011:

http://www.phlmetropolis.com/2011/11/the-case-of-the-crumbling-shoes.php

whilst this from a sellers' thread on eBay USA had this to say about Clarks back in 2013:

http://community.ebay.com/t5/Archive-Clothing-Shoes/Good-News-About-Disintegrating-Soles-in-Clark-s-Shoes/td-p/3061143?rmvSB=true

It would seem the industry, and not merely Clarks, is well aware of the problem of chemical reaction in shoes with composite soles.

On one internet thread a disgruntled consumer pointed out that if shoes with non-leather soles are 'perishable ' -- as indeed, they intrinsically seem to be -- then all such goods should have a sell-by date on the box. Nice idea, though it'll never happen.

As to shoes being 'fit for purpose', that's an interesting conundrum, because shoe retailers will contend that their products are bought (and sold) for the purpose of being worn. Not stored. From which it's clear m'learned friends would make a nice little earner out of any civil action arising.

In our family, shoes are bought and stored as well as worn, so storage conditions are important (hence why we keep ours in their original boxes with the silica moisture absorbers.) We've experienced no melt-downs so far -- but that doesn't mean such will never happen: chemical processes are pretty much impossible to predict.:(

Pennywise

Thing is that Clarks are expensive and like to market themselves as quality, hence the price, but these days they're just as crap as cheaper shoes from supermarkets, M&S etc.

The materials are cheap rubbish. Even what they pass off as leather uppers get scuffed, torn, etc far too easily for a supposedly premium brand.

But even worse are the inconsistent sizings. A few years ago, sizes would be consistent between different shoes. Now they're not even consistent with two supposedly identical shoes. I buy shoes regularly as I tend to wear the same pair for work until they need replacing. I went in to buy an identical pair to those I was wearing, same size etc., but they just didn't fit. When I compared them side by side, it was blatantly obvious they were different lengths despite the same label/size.

We've also had loads of problems with school shoes bought for my son, such as stitching coming apart after just a few days of wear, etc.

As a life long Clarks customer, I've given up with them now - they're nothing but cheap, carply made imports now.

Doc_N

Pennywise wrote: »

Thing is that Clarks are expensive and like to market themselves as quality, hence the price, but these days they're just as crap as cheaper shoes from supermarkets, M&S etc.

The materials are cheap rubbish. Even what they pass off as leather uppers get scuffed, torn, etc far too easily for a supposedly premium brand.


We've also had loads of problems with school shoes bought for my son, such as stitching coming apart after just a few days of wear, etc.

As a life long Clarks customer, I've given up with them now - they're nothing but cheap, carply made imports now.

Likewise - Clarks used to be worth the premium they charge for the brand, but that was when they were made in the UK, mainly at Street in Somerset.

Now it's all imported rubbish with a Clarks label stuck on it to 'justify' the daft price.

This issue isn't just about the rotting shoes themselves, though - it's more about the way that companies deal with complaints.

A decent company would see its customers right (given that it wasn't the customer that chose to use the defective materials) but Clarks are taking the line that their unfortunate customers can just s*d off.

Well, you and I (and doubtless countless others) are unhappy with that inadequate and cavalier response - and it's Clarks that can s*d off. And the more people that realise what rubbish Clarks now push out, and what a cynical attitude Clarks have towards the poor fools that still think it's a decent company the better.

7roland8

CRUMBLING CLARKS SOLES
Same here - always bought Clarks for comfort and quality. Went to wedding the other day and wore my 'newish' sandals - only worn once before I think - horrified when I got home to see all the heel crumbled away and large chunks out of the sole.


Admittedly I have had then a few years - but 'best' sandals are not meant to be worn daily and we do not get much summer weather anyway.

I have complained to then but they are quoting the 6 year rule and without a receipt have offered me a £10 voucher. But it makes me wary of even buying more Clarks products if they are so liable to disintegration.


I threw an everyday pair out last year but just thought it was age that made the sole split - now I'm not so sure.

Doc_N

7roland8 wrote: »

CRUMBLING CLARKS SOLES
Same here - always bought Clarks for comfort and quality. Went to wedding the other day and wore my 'newish' sandals - only worn once before I think - horrified when I got home to see all the heel crumbled away and large chunks out of the sole.


Admittedly I have had then a few years - but 'best' sandals are not meant to be worn daily and we do not get much summer weather anyway.

I have complained to then but they are quoting the 6 year rule and without a receipt have offered me a £10 voucher. But it makes me wary of even buying more Clarks products if they are so liable to disintegration.


I threw an everyday pair out last year but just thought it was age that made the sole split - now I'm not so sure.

Yet another one - sorry you've encountered the 'rotting' problem - and the Clarks standard 'go away' offer.

Trouble is, people think their Clarks shoes are all fine - until they get a pair out, try to use them, and then find they're leaving a sticky mess all over the floor.

Clarks must have weighed up the comparative costs of paying out compensation and taking a reputational hit. You have to assume that there must be millions of shoes out there affected and as yet undiscovered for them to be prepared to put up with the damage to their name rather than pay up for the faulty materials they used.

meer53

I think £10 is a good offer from Clarks, if you've had the shoes for more than 6 years and not worn them i think they're being fair. They don't have a lifetime guarantee.

Doc_N

meer53 wrote: »

I think £10 is a good offer from Clarks, if you've had the shoes for more than 6 years and not worn them i think they're being fair. They don't have a lifetime guarantee.

£10 for a pair of shoes that would probably cost getting on for £100 to replace and wouldn't have needed to be replaced at all but for the defective materials used in manufacture?

That's not remotely 'fair' - and lifetime guarantee or not, shoes left unused should not just rot all on their own. That never happened to shoes prior to this defective material being used (you'll find shoes in museums centuries old!) and to expect customers just to accept the situation is ridiculous.

7roland8

Doc_N wrote: »

£10 for a pair of shoes that would probably cost getting on for £100 to replace and wouldn't have needed to be replaced at all but for the defective materials used in manufacture?

That's not remotely 'fair' - and lifetime guarantee or not, shoes left unused should not just rot all on their own. That never happened to shoes prior to this defective material being used (you'll find shoes in museums centuries old!) and to expect customers just to accept the situation is ridiculous.

Quite agree. You don't expect them to last forever if you are wearing them but if kept stored in a box they should last more than 6 years.

I'm lucky that I do not spend a lot on shoes or buy loads of pairs - but many women do have dozens and dozens of pairs - it seems now its not worth buying shoes until you have an event to go to.

The old 'K' and Clarks quality had now gone for good by the look of it. Might as well buy your shoes at the supermarket!

As said if its not being worn and just stored it should last more than 6 years - the same as with a handbag or coat. People ofetn have funeral coats that only come out maybe once a year but they don't just dissolve and fall apart.


No idea where all my heel sections went too - got driven to wedding and didn't walk mush as disabled anyway - but glad I didn't notice till I got home!

meer53

Doc_N wrote: »

£10 for a pair of shoes that would probably cost getting on for £100 to replace and wouldn't have needed to be replaced at all but for the defective materials used in manufacture?

That's not remotely 'fair' - and lifetime guarantee or not, shoes left unused should not just rot all on their own. That never happened to shoes prior to this defective material being used (you'll find shoes in museums centuries old!) and to expect customers just to accept the situation is ridiculous.

The materials can't be classed as defective, they're perishable, the shoes found in museums would have been made from natural materials so less likely to perish, comparing them to mass produced goods using man made materials is a silly comparison.

I think the offer is fair as Clarks have no idea where or how those shoes have been stored/cared for, for the past 6 years. They could have been sat in a damp cupboard or in direct sunlight, who knows ?