We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Faulty Shoes

Richardflair
Richardflair Posts: 39 Forumite
Fourth Anniversary 10 Posts Combo Breaker
edited 26 January 2018 at 2:53PM in Consumer rights
Hi,

Was given a nice pair of shoes as a Christmas gift. They came from River Island and have River Island printed in the sole of the shoe.

I've worn them 15-20 times since and the leather fabric shoe is coming away from the sole at the side of the big toe. The shoes are clearly used but are not worn in any way other than this area. This would alleviate the possibility of perception of them being well used.

My problem is, I don't have any type of receipt. Where do I stand with getting a replacement?

EDIT: Shoes were bought more than 30 days ago.

Comments

  • theonlywayisup
    theonlywayisup Posts: 16,032 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    You don't have any rights, the rights lay with the original purchaser. Can you refer the issue to them?
  • I can. I know them very well. What are their rights?
  • theonlywayisup
    theonlywayisup Posts: 16,032 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    It depends on when they were bought.
  • macman
    macman Posts: 53,129 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    She can reject them as not fit for purpose under CRA. Was the purchase made within 30 days? If so, she has to prove nothing, the fault will be presumed to pre-exist.
    No free lunch, and no free laptop ;)
  • They were a Christmas present but bought more than 30 days ago.
  • macman wrote: »
    She can reject them as not fit for purpose under CRA. Was the purchase made within 30 days? If so, she has to prove nothing, the fault will be presumed to pre-exist.
    No it won't.
    For the first 30 days when the short term right of rejection applies, any faults are not deemed to be inherent.
    It is only between the end of the first 30 days and up until 6 months that this is the case.
    When using the short term right of rejection, it is up to the consumer to prove that the fault was inherent.
  • theonlywayisup
    theonlywayisup Posts: 16,032 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    They were a Christmas present but bought more than 30 days ago.

    The key is when exactly they were purchased.

    If the purchase was less than 6 months (but over 30 days) the fault is deemed inherent and it is for the seller to prove otherwise. If the purchase was over 6 months then the buyer has to prove the fault was inherent.

    The 30 day info given by macman is incorrect.
  • Thanks all for your help & advice. Had the boots replaced without fuss.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.3K Life & Family
  • 258.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.