Crumbling shoe / boot soles - 'sole hydrolysis'

hazel_davey

Hi,

I've had a look here and can't see anything more recent about this.
I've had two pairs of Ecco boots with crumbling soles, and now a pair of very expensive Meindl hiking boots (after little wear).
I know Watchdog did a programme on Clarks in relation to this in 2017, but judging by the number of complaints about Clarks and crumbling soles online, it's got worse, not better.

It appears to be the use of PU or polyurethane soles - now industry standard - that's causing the issue across a range of brands. These are prone to 'sole hydolysis' which results in them crumbling after 5 yrs approx.

The mitigating advice is to wear them regularly, but manufacturers know you're not going to wear your summer sandals in the winter, or your winter boots in the summer (!!) so this is just blatant built-in obsolescence (when you consider I and many others have boots 20 yrs old plus that show no issues whatsoever).

Some manufacturers are giving away vouchers, but nothing like the £100+ some of these boots cost originally and I suspect many customers are just becoming accustomed to throwing £100 boots away after 5 years - it's another 'new normal'.

This is hardly eco-friendly either, let alone the damage to my wallet!

Where do we stand in terms of consumer rights on this? Is anyone doing anything about this? 

RefluentBeans

The CRA says your products should be of satisfactory quality and this is where the time frame comes in. After 6 months you have to prove the fault is inherent - meaning it was there when you purchased it and it has just taken this long to become apparent. 

I think the broader issue is how long fashion products should last. The CRA has a limit of 6 years on it - but some products should last longer (like a car) whilst others should last less time. Fashion products fall, in my opinion, in the latter. For example, a £2 tee-shirt from Primark will not last as long as 6 years. Customers have different expectations of products depending on their price point, and how much that price point is to them.

Meindl produce a wide variety of products - some are budget (£100 for walking boots I’m afraid to say is budget) and some are high end. Wearing budget shoes for a long time will wear them out, and they will be made with cheaper materials. On the more premium end will have products with vibram soles, and soles that can be replaced, but these cost more (often >£200). The other thing is to say how expensive boots were ‘back in the day’ as a comparison to cost of living - meaning if you bought a boot for 25% of your monthly salary 20 years ago, those boots now would likely cost >£300. Unfortunately, when costs decrease, the quality does and so does the longevity. 

All this is to say that you have protections in the CRA, but you have to show that you’ve used the product for the intended purpose, that you’ve looked after the product as recommended, and that the product was inherently faulty - which can be longevity based. The older the product, the harder it is to make a longevity claim, especially for budget products. 

As for ‘is anyone doing anything about this?’ - the simple answer is probably no. Outdoor clothing and apparel is a niche market. And most places (including Meindl) have a warranty that consumers can claim. 

ArbitraryRandom

Ignoring rights for a moment, I sympathise entirely. 

I'm difficult when it comes to boots/shoes - There have been maybe 3 pairs of boots I've owned in my life that I have 'loved', and for a while I was in the habit of buying a couple of pairs of the same boot in a couple of colours, used to the idea that they would last about a year/18 months before the sole would break... until I came to get my next pair out to use and the sole had crumbled to nothing in the box.  

As you say, it seems to just be an inherent characteristic of the material. 

mikb

ArbitraryRandom said:

As you say, it seems to just be an inherent characteristic of the material. 

But how long does it have to be before it becomes obvious that the material being used, having this inherent characteristic, is not fit for the purpose?

You could argue that outdoor walking boots made of cardboard that fall apart on first use are just displaying an inherent characteristic of the material, but that wouldn't absolve the manufacturers/retailers from selling total junk.

I've had this happen with shoes/boots too, and it is very annoying and wasteful. It's also a "recent invention" because shoes never used to do this, whether leather soles OR man-made. They were man-made-properly, not man-made-to-fall-apart.

hazel_davey

RefluentBeans said:

The CRA says your products should be of satisfactory quality and this is where the time frame comes in. After 6 months you have to prove the fault is inherent - meaning it was there when you purchased it and it has just taken this long to become apparent. 

I think the broader issue is how long fashion products should last. The CRA has a limit of 6 years on it - but some products should last longer (like a car) whilst others should last less time. Fashion products fall, in my opinion, in the latter. For example, a £2 tee-shirt from Primark will not last as long as 6 years. Customers have different expectations of products depending on their price point, and how much that price point is to them.

Meindl produce a wide variety of products - some are budget (£100 for walking boots I’m afraid to say is budget) and some are high end. Wearing budget shoes for a long time will wear them out, and they will be made with cheaper materials. On the more premium end will have products with vibram soles, and soles that can be replaced, but these cost more (often >£200). The other thing is to say how expensive boots were ‘back in the day’ as a comparison to cost of living - meaning if you bought a boot for 25% of your monthly salary 20 years ago, those boots now would likely cost >£300. Unfortunately, when costs decrease, the quality does and so does the longevity. 

All this is to say that you have protections in the CRA, but you have to show that you’ve used the product for the intended purpose, that you’ve looked after the product as recommended, and that the product was inherently faulty - which can be longevity based. The older the product, the harder it is to make a longevity claim, especially for budget products. 

As for ‘is anyone doing anything about this?’ - the simple answer is probably no. Outdoor clothing and apparel is a niche market. And most places (including Meindl) have a warranty that consumers can claim. 

This wasn't just Meindl - I linked to the WatchDog programme on Clarks and listed 2 pairs of Ecco boots that have this issue. A quick search on t'internet shows this is a very widespread issue across several brands. 

I've spoken to a company that offer a resole service; many of the Vibram soles are made with PU now too.
I bought that Meindl pair over 10 years ago at around £120 - £150 so no, not 'budget' back then. Daft thing, is, I've had 'budget' pairs last longer, with more wear...

I'm quite happy to re-sole pairs, and have done so several times,. This is about the midsole crumbling away, so there's nothing to re-sole to. There are lots of stories online of people with similar experiences. 

This is about an industry wholesale moving towards a cheaper material that they **know** has a shelf life of approx. 5 years, regardless of how much you've paid for it and how you're treated it.

DullGreyGuy

hazel_davey said:
I'm quite happy to re-sole pairs, and have done so several times,. This is about the midsole crumbling away, so there's nothing to re-sole to. 

I'm confused as to which part has gone thus resoling not being possible? Or by "resoling" do you mean just gluing on a secondary sole?

Proper resoling, for example with Goodyear Welted shoes, removes the old outsole and welt from the uppers, the insole and cork bed may or may not be removed depending on the state, a new welt is applied and then a new outsole to the welt. 

hazel_davey

DullGreyGuy said:

hazel_davey said:
I'm quite happy to re-sole pairs, and have done so several times,. This is about the midsole crumbling away, so there's nothing to re-sole to. 

I'm confused as to which part has gone thus resoling not being possible? Or by "resoling" do you mean just gluing on a secondary sole?

Proper resoling, for example with Goodyear Welted shoes, removes the old outsole and welt from the uppers, the insole and cork bed may or may not be removed depending on the state, a new welt is applied and then a new outsole to the welt. 

Gluing a new outersole on. The midsole is the element that has crumbled. Yes, it's possible to get the whole sole unit replaced (depending on the original manufacture process used), but in the UK that starts at £90, which is not far off the full new cost of a pair of Clarks or Ecco boots.
For families on a budget, it's buy 'cheap' shoes, and bin them after a year or two.
Instead of wearing mid-budget shoes for 10 - 15 years, as I used to do, those with PU sole units are now lasting just 5 years or so. :-C