Claiming for replacement wellies out of guarantee period

Maren75

I purchased a pair of Fencham Argo Wellington Boots on 29th January 2024 for my husband through the supplier Sabertackle via Ebay at a cost of £39.99. On the Fencham website it says
“Like all Fencham footwear, the Argo is designed to be supportive and protective plus, of course, 100% waterproof”. He only wears them in the garden when require it otherwise they are kept in the dry in his work room. Unfortunately, the rubber material has perished and crazed and as a consequence water is now getting in to the boots. I provided photographs of the problem to the supplier making a claim under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 9 3(b),(c) and (e)

The supplier has replied "Having reviewed the information and photographs provided, we are unable todetermine that the deterioration of the upper material is the result of an inherent manufacturing defect. The boots were purchased in January 2024 and have been in use for over two years, during which time materials can naturally degrade depending on factors such as
usage, environmental exposure, storage, and care.Having reviewed the information and photographs provided, we are unable to determine that the deterioration of the upper material is the result of an inherent manufacturing defect. The boots were purchased in January 2024 and have been in use for over two years, during which time materials can naturally degrade depending on factors such as usage, environmental exposure, storage, and care." so they won't replace or refund.

Is it worth me taking this further ie.small claims court, any help would be appreciated.

caprikid1

"Is it worth me taking this further ie.small claims court, any help would be appreciated."

On a £40 set of boots… no

Ayr_Rage

Over two years old, storage conditions unknown, time to walk on.

caprikid1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82044659#Comment_82044659

Just not through a stream…

Exodi

Maren75

I purchased a pair of Fencham Argo Wellington Boots on 29th January 2024 for my husband through the supplier Sabertackle via Ebay at a cost of £39.99.

To be clear, did you buy them from this seller: https://www.ebay.co.uk/str/fishingoutlet1?_tab=about ?

It's a very important detail to confirm, as eBay is comprised of both private sellers and business sellers, and your statutory rights depend on it being a business.

Maren75

“Like all Fencham footwear, the Argo is designed to be supportive and protective plus, of course, 100% waterproof”. He only wears them in the garden when require it otherwise they are kept in the dry in his work room. Unfortunately, the rubber material has perished and crazed and as a consequence water is now getting in to the boots. I provided photographs of the problem to the supplier making a claim under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 9 3(b),(c) and (e)

The supplier has replied "Having reviewed the information and photographs provided, we are unable todetermine that the deterioration of the upper material is the result of an inherent manufacturing defect. The boots were purchased in January 2024 and have been in use for over two years, during which time materials can naturally degrade depending on factors such as
usage, environmental exposure, storage, and care.Having reviewed the information and photographs provided, we are unable to determine that the deterioration of the upper material is the result of an inherent manufacturing defect. The boots were purchased in January 2024 and have been in use for over two years, during which time materials can naturally degrade depending on factors such as usage, environmental exposure, storage, and care." so they won't replace or refund.

Is it worth me taking this further ie.small claims court, any help would be appreciated.

You've jumped the gun a bit here. Under the CRA, claims for fault after 6 months of ownership require you to prove the fault was inherent. Their response was predictable given the circumstances.

In practice this doesn't mean a line in an email informing that they've been hardly used/carefully stored/etc but typically an independent report diagnosing the fault and probable cause. You are responsible for commissioning, paying for and providing this report to the seller - the fault is only deemed automatically inherent within the first six months (see CRA s19 subsection 14).

It is also up for interpretation how long a pair of wellington boots should reasonably last. 6 years is mentioned on this forum regularly in relation to consumer electronics, but I'd imagine it will be much less for something like footwear.

Hypothetically, if you did a commission an independent report and it did support your position that the fault was inherent, you would not be entitled to a full refund but only the pro-rata'd difference between how long the boots lasted compared to how long would have been reasonably expected or other equal remedies. E.g. if they should reasonably last 3 years but they only lasted 2 years, you'd expect a refund for 1/3rd of the price you paid (see CRA s24 subsection 8).

For the sake of maybe £10 or £20 if you're lucky (or likely a loss considering the cost to commission the report) it's certainly not worth pursuing in my opinion and you got 2 years of use out of them (which is what many people online seem to suggest is their reasonable life).

Of course, there are plenty of people willing to die on the sword of 'principle', personally I think life is too short. If they'd lasted 2 months, I'd be fully with you.

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82044662#Comment_82044662

Inn weather like today, in a stream sounds like a good idea to keep you feet cool 🤣

Cost is less that 1/2p a day.

One to let go I think.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82044766#Comment_82044766

Not that it matters but you have your decimal point in the wrong place if you're calculating a daily cost of ownership thus far, which is more like ~5p than ~0.5p!