Section 75 - Trainers (JD Sports)

darkcloudi

Need some advise, my wife purchased some trainers 'Nike VaporMax' from JD Sports on 16th Feb 2019.

Now I sent these out for inspection to JD on 31st May since the rear of the trainers is wearing out. They reported that due to forcing the feet into the trainers has resulted in the wear.

I dispute this as the trainers had very little usage and I should not expect trainers where you spend £170 should wear out in 3 months.

Can this be claimed under Section 75 on my credit card? As I don't believe the product is fit for purpose. Especially for this short duration.

I was hoping to do a chargeback (only have 10 days left) but apparently need an independent trainer report and I am unsure how this can be done, in Birmingham. But guessing this will also result in me being out of pocket as I cannot claim this back from JD Sports. Not sure if Section 75 would require the same, but since the product is less than 4 months am I required to provide evidence? Its clearly obvious if the wear has happened so quickly its the trainers at fault?

Thanks for responses

eskbanker

In debatable cases like this (as opposed to something cut and dried like, say, non-delivery) card companies will usually insist on an independent expert report to determine whether the reported fault justifies action, as they can't be expected to intervene in a dispute without having suitable evidence, i.e. even though you feel it's obvious, they aren't in a position to agree or disagree yet.

However, if your claim succeeds then the cost of the report can be added to it.

If you exceed the window for a chargeback claim against your card company then you still have the option of s75....

Ben8282

Surely the responsibility lies with the manufacturer not the retailer? JD Sports simply sell the products provided to them by the manufacturer. Did any form of guarantee accompany the trainers?
If this is internal wear and tear of the trainers, how can anybody prove one way or another than this is not caused by feet being forced into them as claimed and rubbing against the back? How can anybody prove if they have been worn or not? What does 'very little usage' actually mean? How do you establish average usage? Not sure where you would obtain such a report either. A cobbler?

eco_warrior

darkcloudi wrote: »

Need some advise, my wife purchased some trainers 'Nike VaporMax' from JD Sports on 16th Feb 2019.

Now I sent these out for inspection to JD on 31st May since the rear of the trainers is wearing out. They reported that due to forcing the feet into the trainers has resulted in the wear.

I dispute this as the trainers had very little usage and I should not expect trainers where you spend £170 should wear out in 3 months.

Can this be claimed under Section 75 on my credit card? As I don't believe the product is fit for purpose. Especially for this short duration.

I was hoping to do a chargeback (only have 10 days left) but apparently need an independent trainer report and I am unsure how this can be done, in Birmingham. But guessing this will also result in me being out of pocket as I cannot claim this back from JD Sports. Not sure if Section 75 would require the same, but since the product is less than 4 months am I required to provide evidence? Its clearly obvious if the wear has happened so quickly its the trainers at fault?

Thanks for responses

S75 would require a report as well.

Firstly, the bank can do the first chargeback without a report if you are pushed for time. It’s not strictly required unless the merchant challenges, which you have to assume they will based on their current stance. At this stage a report would be required.

Secondly, to me the main problem is substantiating your claim. Getting a 3rd party to confirm the usage of the trainers shouldn’t have caused them to wear so badly is probably going to be nigh-on impossible. For one they only have your word to go by in regards to usage. It’s not like a mechanic knowing how many miles an engine has done and saying it shouldn’t have broken down and why it happened.

Lastly, I’ve never known a S75 claim for trainers, it’s extremely rare for chargebacks as well, at least a successful one. And the above point is probably why. It’s probably too difficult to substantiate. Maybe push them to attempt the chargeback less the report. If they refuse then I’ve no doubt at all that FOS would overturn the decision and you’d get your money that way. Seen it countless times.

Ergates

Ben8282 wrote: »

Surely the responsibility lies with the manufacturer not the retailer? JD Sports simply sell the products provided to them by the manufacturer. Did any form of guarantee accompany the trainers?

No, your contract was with the retailer, not the manufacturer. If the goods are faulty, then you deal with the shop and the shop deals with the manufacturer.

Ben8282 wrote: »

If this is internal wear and tear of the trainers, how can anybody prove one way or another than this is not caused by feet being forced into them as claimed and rubbing against the back? How can anybody prove if they have been worn or not? What does 'very little usage' actually mean? How do you establish average usage? Not sure where you would obtain such a report either. A cobbler?

A customer should be able to expect goods to last a reasonable amount of time. Shoes showing wear within 3 months wouldn't seem to fit that - though obviously none of us know what the OP means by "wearing out". It shouldn't be up to the customer to prove that their use is "normal", it should be on the shop to prove it wasn't.

eco_warrior

Ergates wrote: »

No, your contract was with the retailer, not the manufacturer. If the goods are faulty, then you deal with the shop and the shop deals with the manufacturer.


A customer should be able to expect goods to last a reasonable amount of time. Shoes showing wear within 3 months wouldn't seem to fit that - though obviously none of us know what the OP means by "wearing out". It shouldn't be up to the customer to prove that their use is "normal", it should be on the shop to prove it wasn't.

When claiming through a card provider it is though. Only s75 and chargeback apply so the burden of proof lies with the customer, even if other laws say otherwise.

darkcloudi

Thanks for the responses guys (here is a photo of the wear, none of my wifes previous trainers have done this and this is the first to occur over this period):

https://ibb.co/ygRSdNt

Annoying thing is she didn't let me know earlier else would have chased it up much sooner.

fifeken

It certainly looks like she'd been forcing her foot in as normal use won't wear them out in that position.

A £1 plastic shoehorn may be a good investment.

eskbanker

darkcloudi wrote: »

Thanks for the responses guys (here is a photo of the wear, none of my wifes previous trainers have done this and this is the first to occur over this period):

https://ibb.co/ygRSdNt

Annoying thing is she didn't let me know earlier else would have chased it up much sooner.

As you concede, the problem is wear-related so I think you'd have your work cut out to establish that this is a fundamental product defect that was present at the time of purchase, especially when the wear is on a surface that wouldn't be expected to encounter friction in normal use, i.e. it would be different if the sole had worn through, for example.

Not saying it'll be impossible to do make a case, but as a neutral layman seeing that photo for the first time, my immediate reaction certainly isn't that it's obvious that the product isn't fit for purpose....

darkcloudi

Thanks guys, will let the missus know about the shoehorn.

bengalknights

Gotta agree with fifeken on this looks like the feet are forcefully being pushed in on the heel, my wife used to do the same on her trainfers which caused the backend to collapse in on itself until i showed her how to use the laces!