Shoes not lasting as long as expected - no receipt

spo2

I visited a chain shoestore today to have my son’s feet measured. While I was in I mentioned that I was unhappy about how quickly the upper section of his old shoes wore out. I did not have my receipt (I suspect they were probably paid cash) so the manager offered me the exact same shoe in the same size which I accepted as his feet were still measuring the size of the damaged ones.

The shop assistant then looked and said that they did not have those ones in stock, nor did any other store, so there was nothing more they could do.

Is this correct? I feel it is unfair that my son cannot get damaged shoes replaced because they are not in stock. It is obvious that he has not had them long as there is very little wear to the sole, and the shoes are in the same size as he is currently being measured at, so obviously has not had them long.

bris

No receipt, paid cash, no rights without proof of purchase. They don't know you didn't find them in a bin. So yes it is correct.


Shoes are used as brakes on the bike, kicking stones in the playground, playing football, who knows what punishment they have taken.

BJV

bris wrote: »

No receipt, paid cash, no rights without proof of purchase. They don't know you didn't find them in a bin. So yes it is correct.


Shoes are used as brakes on the bike, kicking stones in the playground, playing football, who knows what punishment they have taken.

Sorry Op but this is abosutely correct. I know my two never manage to wear their shoes out. Football in school playground, running etc. Kids !

spo2

Ok thanks, didn't think of the "could have found them in a bin" option. I was thinking that as they were branded shoes that they would have only come from their shops.

However, the way they were worn is obviously not through abuse, they have kind of split at the top (hard to explain) whereas the rest of the shoe is in very good condition

steampowered

If the shoe was faulty, then I think they should replace them or refund you (perhaps with a deduction to take account of the use they had).

Fosterdog

steampowered wrote: »

If the shoe was faulty, then I think they should replace them or refund you (perhaps with a deduction to take account of the use they had).

The problem is OP has no proof of purchase. As mentioned they could have been found in a bin, been stolen or even bought three years ago. The shop is under no obligation to do anything at all without proof of purchase. They were at least willing to offer an exchange if they had the same ones but they don't. Add to that it could even be user damage, kids wreck shoes, the fact they are broken on the top rather than the bottom would suggest something has happened to them.

OP if they were willing to swap for the same ones without question it may be worth asking if they can be changed to a different pair, even if you have to pay the difference for more expensive ones or forfeit some of the initial money for a cheaper pair. They don't have to do it but they may if you ask nicely.

macman

You'd still have been given a receipt whether you'd paid by cash or card. Proof of purchase doesn't mean a receipt-a credit card or bank statement would suffice, had you used a card.

System

How long had he had the shoes?

iammumtoone

Is it clarks?

I have found them to be very good my son had a pair of shoes that broke at the strap after only a few weeks like you I had lost the receipt They replaced them no question as they could clearly see they weren't very worn. I did get the same style/size so this might be why you are struggling.

It appears they have a goodwill policy of replacing like for like only. I can see why this is as otherwise you could get some unscrupulous person deliberately damaging a shoe just because they no longer like the style.

spo2

Thanks for the replies. He hadn't had them that long, although I'm not sure when they were bought. As they were a second pair to school shoes, they were only worn on weekends and didn't have much wear. The styles change regularly so the shop were able to see that they weren't years old. I wasn't expecting anything or wanting anything, I just mentioned in conversation that they had split earlier than I would expect. My problem was more that they had offered a goodwill gesture and then said that as they were unable to fulfill this that there was nothing they could do.

There were other reasons that I wasn't impressed with that particular shop assistant, otherwise I might have just let it go. However I emailed head office and they confirmed that the assistant should have offered something else (with me paying the difference) as they didn't have that one in stock. So I will print this off before returning!

spo2

Update (obviously this was a while back so just in case it helps anyone) - spoke to the manager and she confirmed that the shop assistant was in the wrong and should have offered a different shoe to the same value as their standard goodwill gesture