Rugby Boots

wirralite

I purchased a pair of Canterbury Rugby Boots from Sports Direct last October. Soon after purchase one of the tongues because detached; This week one of the sides of one of the shows has torn, rendering the shoe unwearable.

I have messaged both Canterbury and sports Direct, and this morning I received a reply from Canterbury the manufacturer...

"Thank you for your e-mail.

We're really sorry to hear that you feel your Canterbury product is not up to scratch. Unfortunately we can only deal with the return of goods purchased online at Canterbury.com, so if you have a faulty product you will need to return it to the store you bought it from, as your contract of sale lies directly with them.

Your rights are against the retailer, the company that has sold you the product, not the manufacturer, therefore you must make any claim against the retailer. Whilst we are unable to intervene directly, if you feel the retailer has not dealt with your complaint satisfactorily, we would be grateful to hear from you again so that we can access whether they have taken the appropriate action.

As a trusted brand that's been producing high-quality gear for many years, our reputation for quality is very important to us, so we seek to ensure, as far as possible, that all our retailers offer acceptable standards of after-sale service.

We thank you for bringing this to our attention and hope this isolated case does not deter you from enjoying Canterbury products in the future."

-- are they correct? Does the manufacturer have no liability? I have yet to receive a response from Sports Direct.

BoGoF

Yes thay are correct. Your consumer rights are with the retailer.

powerful_Rogue

Not to put a downer on things, but don't hold out for Sports Direct to do anything either. After six months, you will need to prove the fault was inherent at time of purchase.

wirralite

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Not to put a downer on things, but don't hold out for Sports Direct to do anything either. After six months, you will need to prove the fault was inherent at time of purchase.

Yes I am thinking that myself. Is there not a statutory period of time that a product such as a rugby boot should last for it to be considered fit (or unfit) for purpose? I would have thought they should at least last 12 months. Isn't there some sort of EU regulation that can be quoted?

powerful_Rogue

wirralite wrote: »

Yes I am thinking that myself. Is there not a statutory period of time that a product such as a rugby boot should last for it to be considered fit (or unfit) for purpose? I would have thought they should at least last 12 months. Isn't there some sort of EU regulation that can be quoted?

After six months it's up to the purchaser to prove to the retailer that the item is faulty.

See here > https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange/


As for EU regulations, our consumer rights are much better then that. If you think you've heard about a magical 2 year warranty, then it's just a myth. >> https://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2010/12/the-eu-goods-must-last-a-minimum-two-years-rule-is-a-myth/

Aylesbury_Duck

wirralite wrote: »

Yes I am thinking that myself. Is there not a statutory period of time that a product such as a rugby boot should last for it to be considered fit (or unfit) for purpose? I would have thought they should at least last 12 months. Isn't there some sort of EU regulation that can be quoted?

It would be practically difficult to put a defined lifespan on products, not least because rugby boots worn four times a week by a higher-level player will wear much more than those worn once a week by a beginner. As others have correctly advised, after six months the onus is on you to prove they are inherently unfit for purpose.

wirralite

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

It would be practically difficult to put a defined lifespan on products, not least because rugby boots worn four times a week by a higher-level player will wear much more than those worn once a week by a beginner. As others have correctly advised, after six months the onus is on you to prove they are inherently unfit for purpose.

Yeah. bin em' and move on is pretty much my train of thought at the moment. Thanks