Repair Shoes lots in post. What (if anything) am I entitled as refund?

Greg_Smith

My local postman said this happened during the postal strikes in the lead up to x-mas when a load of temps were working. He thinks they were just left on the porch and stolen. 

So it seems as though I am going to be quite out of pocket (because the insurance wont cover a) £5 postage of shoes to repairs b) £55 cost of the repair work).

I will also then need to buy some more £125 shoes.

Greg_Smith

Update - if it is of interest to people. 

The shoe company have offered to reimburse me £20 from the £55.

So now I am looking at receiving £70 back after paying ~£60 (£5 post shoes, £55 repair). Then I need to buy the £125 shoes on top of it. 

DullGreyGuy

HillStreetBlues said:

DullGreyGuy said:

HillStreetBlues said:

If the repairer has lost the shoes (even if via delivery company they used)  you should be in the same position as if they were never lost.
So you should have the value of an unrepaid pair of shoes,  plus a refund of what you paid (£55)

Unrepaired damaged secondhand shoes to be accurate

Spelling typo, now corrected, unrepaired would be consider damaged.

I accept its being a little pedantic but the shoes I bought yesterday are also "unrepaired" namely because there is no damage to be repaired. Given you weren't explicit that it was the OP's unrepaired shoes but instead a generic "an unrepaired pair of shoes" it opened up the possible interpretation that the fact the OP's shoes were in some way damaged didnt absolutely certainly have to be factored into the pricing. They could have used a normal wear pair as the benchmark for the price not factoring the damage

SuzeQStan

£50 insurance is not enough to cover a £125 pair of shoes. RM will invalidate the insurance purely on that basis.

MalMonroe

Hi, 

First of all, please don't buy any more shoes costing £125 from that retailer!

Secondly, you have rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. A pair of shoes should last longer than 10 months. 

Under the CRA, goods should be fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time. Anyone paying £125 for a pair of shoes could reasonably expect them to last longer than 10 months. See info in this link -

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange/

You sent off your shoes for repair in all good faith. I'm assuming that the retailer is the same place as the shoe shop who supplied your shoes?

They somehow have lost your shoes. Doesn't matter how or where, you have not received them.

You can ask them for a better refund than £50 - and you can advise them that you know your rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

I am saying that because those shoes should have lasted a lot longer than they did and because they didn't, they have now been lost. But not by you, so why should you have to carry that cost?

If you originally bought the shoes with a credit or debit card, you can apply to your card provider for help with a refund. See info in the following link -

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases/

If all else fails, here's some info from Citizens Advice -

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/get-more-help/Solve-an-ongoing-consumer-problem/

I wouldn't give up quite just yet, though because it will cost you nothing to pursue a decent refund. 

Hope this helps - at least I'm attempting to offer a glimmer of hope!   

elsien

MalMonroe said:

Hi, 

First of all, please don't buy any more shoes costing £125 from that retailer!

Secondly, you have rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. A pair of shoes should last longer than 10 months. 

Under the CRA, goods should be fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time. Anyone paying £125 for a pair of shoes could reasonably expect them to last longer than 10 months. See info in this link -

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange/

You sent off your shoes for repair in all good faith. I'm assuming that the retailer is the same place as the shoe shop who supplied your shoes?

They somehow have lost your shoes. Doesn't matter how or where, you have not received them.

You can ask them for a better refund than £50 - and you can advise them that you know your rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

I am saying that because those shoes should have lasted a lot longer than they did and because they didn't, they have now been lost. But not by you, so why should you have to carry that cost?

If you originally bought the shoes with a credit or debit card, you can apply to your card provider for help with a refund. See info in the following link -

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases/

If all else fails, here's some info from Citizens Advice -

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/get-more-help/Solve-an-ongoing-consumer-problem/

I wouldn't give up quite just yet, though because it will cost you nothing to pursue a decent refund. 

Hope this helps - at least I'm attempting to offer a glimmer of hope!   

You are missing the point that the tracking shows they have not been delivered. They may well not have been, but that is all that the retailer needs to point at. 

Some £125 shoes are not particularly well-made because people are paying for the name. So it is possible that 10 months worth of daily wear could wear them out. And they are not going to get a full £125 refund for a 10 month old pair of shoes so I would suggest that going after the credit card on that basis is very much stretching a point.

Zinger549

elsien said:

MalMonroe said:

Hi, 

First of all, please don't buy any more shoes costing £125 from that retailer!

Secondly, you have rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. A pair of shoes should last longer than 10 months. 

Under the CRA, goods should be fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time. Anyone paying £125 for a pair of shoes could reasonably expect them to last longer than 10 months. See info in this link -

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange/

You sent off your shoes for repair in all good faith. I'm assuming that the retailer is the same place as the shoe shop who supplied your shoes?

They somehow have lost your shoes. Doesn't matter how or where, you have not received them.

You can ask them for a better refund than £50 - and you can advise them that you know your rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

I am saying that because those shoes should have lasted a lot longer than they did and because they didn't, they have now been lost. But not by you, so why should you have to carry that cost?

If you originally bought the shoes with a credit or debit card, you can apply to your card provider for help with a refund. See info in the following link -

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases/

If all else fails, here's some info from Citizens Advice -

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/get-more-help/Solve-an-ongoing-consumer-problem/

I wouldn't give up quite just yet, though because it will cost you nothing to pursue a decent refund. 

Hope this helps - at least I'm attempting to offer a glimmer of hope!   

You are missing the point that the tracking shows they have not been delivered. They may well not have been, but that is all that the retailer needs to point at. 

Some £125 shoes are not particularly well-made because people are paying for the name. So it is possible that 10 months worth of daily wear could wear them out. And they are not going to get a full £125 refund for a 10 month old pair of shoes so I would suggest that going after the credit card on that basis is very much stretching a point.

I wouldn't bother with that poster. They have been told many times about posting incorrect information but they don't listen.

powerful_Rogue

Zinger549 said:

elsien said:

MalMonroe said:

Hi, 

First of all, please don't buy any more shoes costing £125 from that retailer!

Secondly, you have rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. A pair of shoes should last longer than 10 months. 

Under the CRA, goods should be fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time. Anyone paying £125 for a pair of shoes could reasonably expect them to last longer than 10 months. See info in this link -

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange/

You sent off your shoes for repair in all good faith. I'm assuming that the retailer is the same place as the shoe shop who supplied your shoes?

They somehow have lost your shoes. Doesn't matter how or where, you have not received them.

You can ask them for a better refund than £50 - and you can advise them that you know your rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

I am saying that because those shoes should have lasted a lot longer than they did and because they didn't, they have now been lost. But not by you, so why should you have to carry that cost?

If you originally bought the shoes with a credit or debit card, you can apply to your card provider for help with a refund. See info in the following link -

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases/

If all else fails, here's some info from Citizens Advice -

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/get-more-help/Solve-an-ongoing-consumer-problem/

I wouldn't give up quite just yet, though because it will cost you nothing to pursue a decent refund. 

Hope this helps - at least I'm attempting to offer a glimmer of hope!   

You are missing the point that the tracking shows they have not been delivered. They may well not have been, but that is all that the retailer needs to point at. 

Some £125 shoes are not particularly well-made because people are paying for the name. So it is possible that 10 months worth of daily wear could wear them out. And they are not going to get a full £125 refund for a 10 month old pair of shoes so I would suggest that going after the credit card on that basis is very much stretching a point.

I wouldn't bother with that poster. They have been told many times about posting incorrect information but they don't listen.

100%. So much wrong with that post, but they never listen so no point correcting. Just easier to tell OP's not to take that advice onboard.

DullGreyGuy

SuzeQStan said:

£50 insurance is not enough to cover a £125 pair of shoes. RM will invalidate the insurance purely on that basis.

Under which clause? 

They aren't a £125 pair of shoes... they are a pair of shoes that were £125 when brand new but now are almost a year old and repaired. They are unlikely to be worth half their original value post repair unless the op got something exceptional 

Manxman_in_exile

@Greg_Smith -  if you don't mind my asking, why did you send them away to be repaired?  Couldn't you have got them done locally, or did they need some kind of special repair by the manufacturer or by a specialist shoe repairer?

I assume that as you were paying for the repair, it wasn't because they were faulty(?)