Boots

[triskellian]

Talking of things I did back in August... as well as trying to document the music my head plays at me, I bought a lovely pair of red boots. Without really thinking about the practicalities of footwear in a city where you can't avoid doing lots of walking, I took them to Venice, because they were new, and I'd hardly worn them. I was lucky. They were tremendously comfortable, and although my feet were sometimes sore, I avoided blisters entirely.

Yesterday, I noticed that my lovely boots both have seriously split soles. I checked my wallet, and I still have the receipt - I bought them for fifty quid on 31 August. My immediate thought is, Venice or not, I expect fifty quid boots to last longer than two months.

The Citizens Advice Bureau says that goods should:

• be of satisfactory quality. This means that the goods should be of the quality that a reasonable person would expect given the description, price and any other relevant circumstances.
• be fit for the purpose. This means that you must be able to use them for the purposes that you would normally expect from this type of product

But that the trader isn't responsible if:

• you have damaged the goods yourself
• the problem is the result of normal wear and tear
• the goods have lasted for as long as could reasonably be expected.

Is split soles after two months of wear 'normal wear and tear'? Am I going to be laughed out of the shop when I go in later for a refund or replacement? Does the fact that I wore them for two weeks walking around Venice (which I'm not going to tell the guy in the shop) count as 'damaging them myself'? Would you go back and complain, or would you just shrug, try and fix them with glue, and/or just shell out for a new pair of boots?

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/elle_/]

Go back and complain - you have nothing to lose and everything to gain!!

Well, maybe not everything, but you see what I mean.

And they will hopefully be reasonable, because a good pair of boots should last for at least a year. 2 months is pretty crap.

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

Based on frax's experience with a suit that behaved in a similar manner (albeit under rather less pressure of use) I'd say you're most definitely in the right. frax did indeed get laughed out of the shop, as it were, but then proceeded to write a stinking letter of complaint outlining exactly which regulations the shop was in breach of. Needless to say, her money was refunded. I expect we could dig out the relevant paragraphs of the sale of goods act from her letter, if it would help.

Incidentally, I did a similar thing with some dodgy cards I got in a CCG booster pack, with almost exactly identical results - a snooty email which was then rebutted by my snootier reply, resulting in a refund and replacement. Generally speaking these guys will put up a bit of resistance in the hopes that you'll get lazy and give up, but cave if you look serious - it isn't worth the hassle for them, provided your demands are within the realm of the reasonable.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_alanna/]

I would complain. Two months isn't normal wear and tear. I'm assuming by 'shoes' you mean Doc Martin boots or something, and not delicate little sandles?

But make sure you have a believable story about how much you have worn them. Just saying that you 'wore them for the first time today and they split!' might not get you a refund...;o)

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

In this case I'd say you don't need a story - the truth is good enough. Venice isn't exactly the Himalayas, and 2 months isn't normal boot-lifespan.

[nixieq.livejournal.com]

two months? fifty quid? take 'em back and ask for either a replacement pair or a good-quality resole.

if you paid that much for them, you should get considerably more wear out of them. that's fucking ridiculous. i have a pair of pseudo-tank boots that i bought for about eighty bucks american (marked down from like $250 or $300, which is laughable, even though they ARE nice boots), and so far i've been wearing them for a year and they're barely showing it. that's the kind of wear i expect out of expensive footwear.

*ahem* sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. good luck!

[nixieq.livejournal.com]

oh, i meant to add, that my feeling when i'm paying that much for footwear is that i'm paying for overall quality. unfortunately, a lot of shoe stores seem to feel that you're simply paying for style rather than quality.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_corpse_/]

Take them back, definitely. 2 months is not reasonable for £50 boots. I have a pair of Paras I bought for £7.50, and they lasted almost daily wear for over five years!

[triskellian]

They're not Undergrounds, but thanks for the heads up - your dead boots sound rather nice, and entirely like the sort of thing I'd replace mine with...

I'm thinking I might try and swap them for New Rocks, actually. Cos I've already spent the fifty quid, so it's like I'm getting New Rocks for a huge discount ;-)

[kauket.livejournal.com]

Durability is part of what you can expect as a consumer, under the Sale of Goods Act. Also, fitness for purpose - they are shoes, you should expect to be able to wear them potentially every day and they not fall apart so quickly.

So yes, complain etc. :)

[frax.livejournal.com]

Experience suggests it is definately worth complaining. You want to be looking at sections 13 and 14 of the sale of goods act I believe.

If you would like some help making any complaint sound suitability legalistic I would be happy to help. I certainly managed to get a satisfactory result from M&S when I last complained, although as cardinalsin mentioned it took more than no effort.