Blacks on the blacklist

[Quixoticgeek]

At the end of March I bought a pair of TNF Hedgehog GTX shoes from the Canterbury Blacks store. I spent about 45 mins trying lots of different shoes to find a pair that fit. The shoes have been really comfy and a joy to walk in. In the last couple of weeks tho, they have been showing abnormally high wear on the inside where the heal contacts on the right shoe. So I dug out the box and the receipt and walked into the Canterbury Blacks wearing the shoes hoping that I could get a replacement pair, they obviously weren't fit for purpose if they fall apart so soon.

So, with receipt and obviously faulty pair of shoes on the counter, would they do a replacement?

No.

They wanted to send them away for 2 weeks to the warehouse so they can be checked, before offering a replacement. I explained that I had walked in wearing them and kind need to walk out wearing a pair of shoes. They phoned their customer service department. Who said no. The guy even used the phrase "more than my jobs worth" when I asked if there was anything he could do. It's absolutely insane, any autonomy or even thinking seems to have been taken away from the staff working in the stores and put into some headoffice bean counter. They are beholden to a very inflexible system that doesn't seem to support the needs of their customers.

When I calm down enough to write a coherent email, I shall be contacting blacks customer service to see if there is anything they can do, If not will have to see what my choices are. I can't be without my only pair of shoes for 2 weeks in the summer just to appease some bean counter on a power trip.

This is certainly the last of anything I am buying from blacks. Which is going to make things interesting. The nearest rail accessible outdoor kit shop is London, which will make any returns awkward...

Ah well.

Julia

 

[ozzy1977]

Not the brightest move going in to the shop wearing something you want to return if you ask me, almost like taking an empty packet back to the super market saying the thing was off.

 

[Quixoticgeek]

Not the brightest move going in to the shop wearing something you want to return if you ask me, almost like taking an empty packet back to the super market saying the thing was off.

I wanted a like for like replacement. One pair, off the shelf, to replace the faulty pair. Pretty simple really.

Julia

 

[ozzy1977]

And what if they didn't have them?

It is pretty standard now for faulty goods to be sent away for inspection.

 

[Quixoticgeek]

And what if they didn't have them?

It is pretty standard now for faulty goods to be sent away for inspection.

Is it? Who do they send them to? My contract of sale is with the store, not a manufacturer. It's not fit for purpose, so it should be replaced, by them.

They didn't even check their local stock levels.

Julia

 

[rik_uk3]

The store offered to send them away for inspection which is perfectly reasonable IMHO, odds are you'd get a replacement pair. 'Its not fit for purpose' in your view but the staff are perhaps not trained or knowledgeable enough to go along with your opinion. Just take them back and tell us how you get on.

 

[decorum]

... I dug out the box and the receipt and walked into the Canterbury Blacks wearing the shoes hoping that I could get a replacement pair, ...

Probably best to phone prior to making a journey ~ even more so if you're making the trip primarily for one item or reason. For whatever reason their policy would appear to be to check out the cause of damage prior to making a swap or refund and making the call would have clued you in ~ or, possibly / potentially, allowed the company to make an allowance for your need to not be without a pair of boots.


I had something similar recently. I decided to splash out on some Under Armour kit and we have a stockist in town. Their (the stockist) web site is pretty good and having passed the store a time or two I knew it was a fair size ... I made the trip in just for that one shop only to discover that they had just two items from the entire Under Armour range ~ a single type (and colour) of shorts and the same for t-shirts .... Slightly irked doesn't get near to how I felt about the choice options. The (very helpful and sympathetic) clerk very smoothly and politely suggested that it's always worth the time making a phone call phoning ahead if there's anything specific that I want or need ~ and, fortunately for me, then ordered in what I was after .

 

[Gaudette]

Tricky one this. I don't think you have a leg to stand on. Shoes have a very short time frame within which to return for being faulty. The store could argue , and would probably win, that by wearing them to the store when you knew they were faulty means that you had accepted the fault. The best recourse you have is with the manufacturer I think.

 

[Steve27752]

I would not have worn them to the store, incase they were out of stock. To send them away for examination, is in my view fair.

 

[cbr6fs]

Have to agree with ozzy and Rik on this one.

The store requesting they be sent away to be checked is perfectly reasonable in my opinion.


The other thing is, i think it's extremely rude to wear shoes to somewhere where you expect the staff to check them.
Put yourself in their errrr shoes, would you want to be holding and checking a sweaty pair of shoes the person had just walked in with

What about if you had stepped in dog poop before you arrived


I have had what i considered to be faulty shoes and boots over the years, they were ALL returned to the manufactorer.
Took a few weeks to a few months in one case but in every case they replaced the shoes/boots.

 

[Nice65]

It's down to the retailer to sort the problem, but the fact you wore them to the shop my be seen as you "accepting" the goods. The retailer is behaving entirely rationally in asking the manufacturer to make the decision on whether the shoes are replaced.

There's a lot of info, plus a printout of your rights here:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange

And information for retailers here:

https://www.gov.uk/accepting-returns-and-giving-refunds

 

[Bluffer]

From previous posts on this forum, you've written that you put in a fair few miles and so if these are your only pair of shoes, wouldn't it be a case of 'fair wear and tear' over the period of time you've worn them?

My experience of most retail staff is generally very positive, I'd be apprehensive about naming and shaming specific stores unless I was 100% certain that they had seen me off for real?

 

[Coldfeet]

Personally, I wouldn't have worn them to the shop, however I would expect them to either replace them or refund them. Anything else would have been unsatisfactory from my point of view. What they then do once they have them back, is up to them and their policies; I, as a customer, should not be negatively affected by them.

 

[Fraxinus]

Things started to go downhill in that store when Millets closed and descended further when that other outdoor store down past the Butter market closed, so I resorted to buying online from other companies (less expensive too! )
I expect my work boots to last more than two years of constant daily wear, my hiking boots normally last several years more due to intermittent use, the soles wear flat/smooth usually before I buy new ones ;-)
For yours to last just a few months is, in my opinion, a fault.
Your wearing them to the store is possibly a "faux pas" but as I understand the sales of goods act the store is liable and has to take matters up with the manufacturer themselves as they were sold the goods originally and profited from said sale. The staff's attitude and that of the head office person does nothing to engender confidence in potential customers and does nowt to improve my opinion of them.
Rob.

 

[Bluffer]

Before anyone can judge whether the staff were right or wrong, we really need to see the damage/fault/excessive wear.

To give some context?

 

[Dunx]

Personally i dont see what they did wrong?

You wore the boots there and had been wearing them for a few months. So they must of been ok to use and therefore fit for purpose? The wearing issue may be due to a fault in which case it seems reasonable to test them before exchanging / refunding, if they were fine it may be how you walk.... I find that my boots/shoes wear more on one side of heel due to this very reason. Most shops have a standard 28 day policy on refunds which youd of been outside of anyway.

 

[Quixoticgeek]

Wow, lots of replies on various sides. The links to money saving expert are really useful.

The key point here is:

"Fit for purpose AND last a reasonable length of time"

If a pair of shoes fails after what is less than 4 months of use, that is not really a reasonable length of time. Considering the previous pair lasted over 2 years, and the pair before 18 months.

I currently don't have a camera on my phone so can't upload photos, but will do when I have a chance.

This isn't about accepting the goods or the standard return within 28 days stuff that we all get for unused products. This is a product that is not lasting a reasonable length of time. The reason I had to wear them to the store was simple: it was that or bare foot.

Julia

 

[brambles]

Personally i dont see what they did wrong?

You wore the boots there and had been wearing them for a few months. So they must of been ok to use and therefore fit for purpose? The wearing issue may be due to a fault in which case it seems reasonable to test them before exchanging / refunding, if they were fine it may be how you walk.... I find that my boots/shoes wear more on one side of heel due to this very reason. Most shops have a standard 28 day policy on refunds which youd of been outside of anyway.

Most shops post policies which are wholly different to your statutory consumer rights ( and often actually an offence for them to state ) and hope you will not notice. It is not about acceptance of the items making them fit for purpose, it is about whether or not they are fit for the intended purpose and no-one buys shoes expecting them to fall apart within a very short period of time and where the problem here is on one of a pair only it tends to demonstrate prima facie that there is a manufacturing fault. Shop staff tend to be kept deliberately ignorant of the law on returns and refunds by the store as it is not in the store's immediate financial interest to comply with the law and a lot of people wrongly turned away never come back!

 

[mountainm]

I took a pait of karrimor trainers back to mountain warehouse a few years back. They sent them away for inspection. A week later I got a full refund and a gift voucher for an apology.

Walking into a shop "using" the faulty item is a bit daft, they're either fit for purpose or they're not. If you're still using them for that purpose then you could argue you still deem them fit for purpose.

 

[Quixoticgeek]

So if a car had issues that made it not fit for purpose, you wouldn't drive it back to the garage you bought it from ?

Julia