Trainers 'faulty' after ~2 months

kuepper

Bought a pair of trainers £49.99.from TKMaxx at end of December and only use them in the gym. I go to the gym for a couple of hours, which has probably happened about 20 -30 times since I bought them so maybe 60 hours wear altogether  I noticed today that the padded area around the ankle was starting to fray slightly on each shoe so they're starting to look a bit scruffy and obviously will get worse. I can't prove they've had so little wear, but do ppl think this comes under being 'fit for purpose' AND 'last a reasonable length of time' and I'd get a refund if i took them back?

powerful_Rogue

kuepper said:

Bought a pair of trainers £49.99.from TKMaxx at end of December and only use them in the gym. I go to the gym for a couple of hours, which has probably happened about 20 -30 times since I bought them so maybe 60 hours wear altogether  I noticed today that the padded area around the ankle was starting to fray slightly on each shoe so they're starting to look a bit scruffy and obviously will get worse. I can't prove they've had so little wear, but do ppl think this comes under being 'fit for purpose' AND 'last a reasonable length of time' and I'd get a refund if i took them back?

Are they trainers designed for gym use?

Take them back/give them a call and see what they say, then come back and update us.

bris

It depends on different factors, amount of time, weight of the runner, surface been run on etc all have a bearing on how long they last but the average person can expect 300 to 500 miles for a decent pair designed for the job.

Fashion trainers tend to be less durable for punishment.

One thing is for sure though, thats the boxing match you need to go through to get Sports Direct to agree with you.

bris

bris said:

It depends on different factors, amount of time, weight of the runner, surface been run on etc all have a bearing on how long they last but the average person can expect 300 to 500 miles for a decent pair designed for the job.

Fashion trainers tend to be less durable for punishment.

One thing is for sure though, thats the boxing match you need to go through to get Sports Direct to agree with you.

OOPs no edit button, I meant Tkmax its not sports direct they might be better at customer service.

ellenvan

Use the contact us on TK Maxx website - customer service in the past for me has been really good - worth a try and will not cost you anything to query

HillStreetBlues

bris said:

OOPs no edit button

On a browser if you edit it once the edit button disappears, just refresh and it reappears, not sure if it's the same with the app.

cymruchris

I think it would depend on the specific shoe that you purchased. If it was a 'fashion' trainer, with intense use over the number of hours you've outlined, I'd expect to see some wear. If they were purposely designed for, and marketed for gym use/running, then maybe less so. Your 60 hours of use of course in a typical gym environment would be much heavier intense use than 60 hours of rambling around the shops or wandering your local high street. With treadmill use I'd certainly expect to see some kind of wear sooner than later. But in answer to your question, I'd approach them and see what they say. I wouldn't think 'wear' of this nature would make them faulty though - I'd class a fault as being something like a sole separating from the body of the shoe or something similar.

born_again

Clearly is going to depend on the type of gym use.

60 hours on a treadmill is going to be a good distance. While 60 hours bench press is going to be nothing other than walking to & from press.

So what type of gym use & what brand of trainers are you talking about?

Manxman_in_exile

powerful_Rogue said:

kuepper said:

Bought a pair of trainers £49.99.from TKMaxx at end of December and only use them in the gym. I go to the gym for a couple of hours, which has probably happened about 20 -30 times since I bought them so maybe 60 hours wear altogether  I noticed today that the padded area around the ankle was starting to fray slightly on each shoe so they're starting to look a bit scruffy and obviously will get worse. I can't prove they've had so little wear, but do ppl think this comes under being 'fit for purpose' AND 'last a reasonable length of time' and I'd get a refund if i took them back?

Are they trainers designed for gym use? ...

born_again said:

... So what type of gym use & what brand of trainers are you talking about?

Yes, and I'd be interested to know what brand and model of trainers they are too.

I'm afraid £49.99 probably won't buy much of a "trainer" these days.

(About 45 years ago at university I was introduced to a sport that was completely new to me - squash.  I was a runner and had just bought a relatively expensive pair of Nikes, a brand that was new in this country.  As I was still wearing them in, I decided to wear them on the squash court.  After 40 minutes I was wrecked and the shoes were utterly ruined.  An expensive lesson that you wear appropriate shoes for appropriate activities)

Alderbank

Manxman_in_exile said:

(About 45 years ago at university I was introduced to a sport that was completely new to me - squash.  I was a runner and had just bought a relatively expensive pair of Nikes, a brand that was new in this country.  As I was still wearing them in, I decided to wear them on the squash court.  After 40 minutes I was wrecked and the shoes were utterly ruined.  An expensive lesson that you wear appropriate shoes for appropriate activities)

I'm impressed that you persuaded them to let you play in Nike trainers!

Every squash court that I've ever played on has been obsessively picky about the right kind of soles touching their precious floor.
You were lucky they didn't claim their floor was wrecked as well

Manxman_in_exile

It was 45 years ago and the squash court was a feature of one of the university halls of residence at Cartwright Gardens in London.  It wasn't properly looked after and, like the tables in the snooker room, it was already in a shocking state before I played.  Still, the shoes were non-marking and the outsoles were white I think?