Blacks on the blacklist

[GGTBod]

It is refreshing to get good customer service when it happens, i have had two astounding examples happen today, i bought a new highlander double midge net and it arrived yesterday but they sent a white one which i had purposefully tried not to buy as you can't see out once inside it, I emailed the seller and they sent me a replacement of the correct colour of green and black and told me to keep the other one. I also had sent an email a couple of days ago about a pair of wetsuit gloves that were not living up to expectations, I didn't even receive a reply to the email but i did receive a brand new pair in the post today.

Total cost of freebies is £49, the things that were replaced still work one of them is brand new never even taken properly out the pack it was posted in, anyone wanna buy a BNWT white highlander double midge net?

 

[Blaidd]

Regardless of the law, the companies we like to do business with are the ones with no quibble resolutions/lifelong guarantees. Leatherman will mend or replace a multitool free of charge because you tell them it broke. So people buy them. A lot. Depends on your business model I guess.

 

[Toddy]

Yeah, but leatherman sell leathermans....shops like Black's stock hundreds of different manufacturers.

M

 

[santaman2000]

Regardless of the law, the companies we like to do business with are the ones with no quibble resolutions/lifelong guarantees. Leatherman will mend or replace a multitool free of charge because you tell them it broke. So people buy them. A lot. Depends on your business model I guess.

Yes. And so does Maglite and dozens of other companies. But their warranty also specifies that you return it directly to them (or an authorized repairer) and NOT the vendor where you bought it.

 

[GGTBod]

American company policy there, in Europe we are covered by a totally different set of consumer laws

Please allow me to be specific

Your legal rights as a consumer and the companies responsibilities in this situation are very clearly laid out, according to the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 items purchased must be of satisfactory quality and as described, they must be fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time, this also applies to any item provided as a replacement for any item that does not qualify to the above mentioned standards.

Secondly your purchase was with Blacks not the manufacturer, their T&C's apply to their contract with Blacks not the consumer, the guarantee of quality and fit for purpose is with the company you bought from, definitely not the manufacturer or the supplier.

I worked in the online sales and customer service industry for over a decade on the front line for some of the worlds biggest multinational companies who conform to each countries specific consumer laws (USA has some of the weakest consumer protection there is sadly favouring industry)

In UK every time you buy something, be it a mobile phone from a friend or a week in Cuba from a travel agent, you make a contract with the seller. This means, both you and the other party agree to terms and conditions.

The seller has agreed to provide your statutory rights.

It doesn't matter if it's an iPod from a high street shop or a designer frock from a department store. If something's broken, torn, ripped or faulty, the seller has a legal duty to put it right as your contract is with them.

Please confirm this for yourselves in the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

the main clause is that it must be fit for purpose and last a reasonable amount of time, this is very clear, email the company stating this and your rights and you will get a result.

hope that helps, if you need to pick my brains pm me and if i can help i will

 

[santaman2000]

...... I worked in the online sales and customer service industry for over a decade on the front line for some of the worlds biggest multinational companies who conform to each countries specific consumer laws (USA has some of the weakest consumer protection there is sadly favouring industry).....

The strongest consumer protections have nothing to do with the law. Never have. Protection comes from the buyers' willingness to buy a product or not. Without consumer confidence any company will go out of business.

But that aside, the US laws (regarding consumer protection) are less about specific laws and more about huge sums awarded to disgruntled customers in lawsuits. Different system, same results.

 

[Quixoticgeek]

Just a small update:

I emailed blacks customer care at 22:20 last night, I got an automated reply saying they have got the email and will reply within 2 days. As yet, no further reply.

Julia

 

[GGTBod]

Agreed, here in the UK the individual purchase and purchaser is protected above all, the only reason companies here try and pull a fast one is 90% of people (including their staff) do not know their individual rights and so never demand them upheld, if you contact a company and state you know specifically which of your rights have been infringed upon, they usually do not know themselves and instantly google the specific acts of protection i mentioned above and then they buckle.

Happens to me on a monthly basis as i mentioned above a simple polite email gets all the results you need, like my new highlander midge net and wetsuit gloves for free, in one case all they had done was sent the wrong colour but i get to keep both items

 

[Dunx]

Curiously, a few have mentioned leathermans andf maglight.... Also in other threads victoriox replacing/repairing items.

Have you contacted the manufacturer for their view?

 

[santaman2000]

Agreed, here in the UK the individual purchase and purchaser is protected above all.....

And how many manufacturers have left the country?

 

[GGTBod]

Just a small update:

I emailed blacks customer care at 22:20 last night, I got an automated reply saying they have got the email and will reply within 2 days. As yet, no further reply.

Julia

When they reply tell them they have infringed on your consumer rights the way you have been treat, specifically the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. due to the item not being fit for purpose or lasting a reasonable amount of time

 

[Quixoticgeek]

When they reply tell them they have infringed on your consumer rights the way you have been treat, specifically the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. due to the item not being fit for purpose or lasting a reasonable amount of time

I mentioned those in my email, tho without citing specific legislation, just saying they have to last a reasonable length of time. Depending on their reply I'll start mentioning the laws...

Julia

 

[GGTBod]

And how many manufacturers have left the country?

What does that have to do with julia's rights here in this situation?

As stated before, your contract as a consumer in the UK is not with the manufacturer unless you bought from the manufacturer, there is no grey area it is black and white in UK.

 

[Coldfeet]

Yeah, but leatherman sell leathermans....shops like Black's stock hundreds of different manufacturers.

M

Yes, but Blacks either want happy customers who bring repeat business, or not. And in this instance it seems like they are willing to sacrifice that happy customer for the price of a piece of foot ware (shoes/boots/whatever). If I get bad customer service, perceived or otherwise, then I won't go back to that shop/company. If Blacks can't manage a single return of product by a customer to their satisfaction, and sort the issue out with the manufacturer/middleman/reseller from whom they bought the goods, then I shudder to think how poor their internal processes are.

 

[Toddy]

This all depends on the definition of reasonable use/reasonable time frame.
From what GB says about these shoes, they're not intended for everyday use, and therefore the guarantee though holding true isn't going to pay out for a new pair.
In that case, or one like it, it is totally unreasonable to expect any company, Black's or otherwise, to just hand over a brand new pair.
The staff could just have taken a look (once they got them off Julia's feet) and said, "Nope, it's your own fault", and either Julia would have accepted that, or she would have taken the issue to the manufacturer anyway. They didn't; they said that they would return them to the manufacturer and see what they said.

M

 

[widu13]

I haven't researched those shoes but it is normal for trail shoes to last 300-500 miles before being replaced. It is common for thru hikers on the large US trails to use 2/3 pairs of shoes. You mentioned running in them; are they running shoes or walking shoes as you seem to have used them for both regularly? Running shoes are not walking shoes and walking shoes are not running shoes. YES, it does make a difference!

My wife goes through the heels inside shoes very very quickly due to the shape of her heel(s). We just have to suck it up I'm afraid.

From the footwear we manufacture at work we would often replace but I always want to inspect the footwear first and customers send them back for inspection first. For borderline issues the customer wins, for clear neglect or unreasonableness in terms of use then I will not refund. On the two times we have dealt with "authorities" on these matters, both found in our favour.

 

[Quixoticgeek]

The staff could just have taken a look (once they got them off Julia's feet) and said, "Nope, it's your own fault", and either Julia would have accepted that, or she would have taken the issue to the manufacturer anyway. They didn't; they said that they would return them to the manufacturer and see what they said.

That's the thing, if they had said "it's your own fault" I would probably be moaning about poor quality from TNF and asking for recommendations of alternative footware. Probably Inov8's... But they didn't. They said "oh, we have to check".

I haven't researched those shoes but it is normal for trail shoes to last 300-500 miles before being replaced. It is common for thru hikers on the large US trails to use 2/3 pairs of shoes. You mentioned running in them; are they running shoes or walking shoes as you seem to have used them for both regularly? Running shoes are not walking shoes and walking shoes are not running shoes. YES, it does make a difference!

In this pair, I have not run in them. My previous pairs I have run in. Said previous pairs have lasted well over a year each, usually at least 2 years of my normal level of use.

My wife goes through the heels inside shoes very very quickly due to the shape of her heel(s). We just have to suck it up I'm afraid.

From the footwear we manufacture at work we would often replace but I always want to inspect the footwear first and customers send them back for inspection first. For borderline issues the customer wins, for clear neglect or unreasonableness in terms of use then I will not refund. On the two times we have dealt with "authorities" on these matters, both found in our favour.

Interesting. Which country is this in?

Like I say, have emailed blacks head office, I await their reply.

Julia

 

[widu13]

Which country is this in?

Julia

Within an hours or so drive from you!

 

[Quixoticgeek]

Within an hours or so drive from you!

So Belgium, France or Kent

J

 

[widu13]

So Belgium, France or Kent

J

I defy you to DRIVE anywhere abroad