TK Maxx refusing return — boots caused severe pain after one wear

troubledcat

Hi everyone,

I bought a pair of boots from TK Maxx on 15th October. I only opened and wore them once, but they caused severe back, heel, and calf pain within a few hours. I’ve never had that kind of pain from footwear before, so I suspect there’s something off with their design or support.

The boots are a Chinese-manufactured product and look fine externally, but clearly not fit for purpose in my case. I tried returning them within the 28-day window (return date allowed until 12th November), but the store manager refused, saying they were “used.”

I understand that once footwear has been worn outdoors, stores can refuse on policy grounds — but I was hoping my situation might fall under “not fit for purpose” as defined by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

I’m not sure if it’s worth escalating this further or if I simply have to accept the loss. Has anyone had a similar experience with TK Maxx or successfully challenged a refusal like this? Any advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

Grumpy_chap

troubledcat said:

Hi everyone,

I bought a pair of boots from TK Maxx on 15th October. I only opened and wore them once, but they caused severe back, heel, and calf pain within a few hours. I’ve never had that kind of pain from footwear before, so I suspect there’s something off with their design or support.

The boots are a Chinese-manufactured product and look fine externally, but clearly not fit for purpose in my case. I tried returning them within the 28-day window (return date allowed until 12th November), but the store manager refused, saying they were “used.”

I understand that once footwear has been worn outdoors, stores can refuse on policy grounds — but I was hoping my situation might fall under “not fit for purpose” as defined by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

I’m not sure if it’s worth escalating this further or if I simply have to accept the loss. Has anyone had a similar experience with TK Maxx or successfully challenged a refusal like this? Any advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

Was this an in-store purchase, or online and delivery to you?

marcia_

 I doubt you can return them for a full refund if they've been worn outside 

Emmia

Footwear not fitting properly, causing rubbing, blisters or pain as you've experienced etc. is not a reason for refund if they've been tried in-store. I think you have to accept the loss.

Ergates

troubledcat said:

Hi everyone,

I bought a pair of boots from TK Maxx on 15th October. I only opened and wore them once, but they caused severe back, heel, and calf pain within a few hours. I’ve never had that kind of pain from footwear before, so I suspect there’s something off with their design or support.

The boots are a Chinese-manufactured product and look fine externally, but clearly not fit for purpose in my case. I tried returning them within the 28-day window (return date allowed until 12th November), but the store manager refused, saying they were “used.”

I understand that once footwear has been worn outdoors, stores can refuse on policy grounds — but I was hoping my situation might fall under “not fit for purpose” as defined by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

I’m not sure if it’s worth escalating this further or if I simply have to accept the loss. Has anyone had a similar experience with TK Maxx or successfully challenged a refusal like this? Any advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

"These boots aren't comfortable" isn't the same as "These boots aren't fit for purpose".   Different people have different body geometries, so they may well be fine for someone else.

swingaloo

'Clearly not fit for purpose in my case' is not the same as not fit for purpose at all.

Over time I have bought shoes or boots which seemed fine trying on but after a night or day out have left me with sore feet or blisters. Ive passed them on to my sister who has worn them with no trouble.

They are just not suitable for you. Could you sell them on?
 .

MyRealNameToo

Similarly have bought many boots (and shoes) that were very uncomfortable on first wear and left blisters etc but after several wears (generally done for short periods initially at home with extra socks) have broken in and become very comfortable for many subsequent years. 

Grumpy_chap

swingaloo said:

Over time I have bought shoes or boots which seemed fine trying on but after a night or day out have left me with sore feet or blisters. 
 .

I also have shoes / trainers which were fine on trying on, but then caused blisters on their first few outings.  After persevering and using the trainers for lighter duties, they moulded and are now perfectly fine for any use I wish.

In fact, I really do not consider it at all uncommon for shoes / boots to fit but need some wearing in.  It was always the case when having new school shoes as a boy.  It was the case when I purchased hiking boots as a teenager that the boots needed breaking in before trekking up a mountain.

The OP refers to a pair of boots, that can often mean a stiffer leather and the time wearing them round the house to break them in so they soften and mould to the individual's feet is probably higher.

Pollycat

Grumpy_chap said:

swingaloo said:

Over time I have bought shoes or boots which seemed fine trying on but after a night or day out have left me with sore feet or blisters. 
 .

I also have shoes / trainers which were fine on trying on, but then caused blisters on their first few outings.  After persevering and using the trainers for lighter duties, they moulded and are now perfectly fine for any use I wish.

Anybody who has bought a pair of DMs will understand this.

I can't wear toe-post sandals.
Nothing wrong with the design.
They are just not for me.