Advanced search

Well, I'm not [wink] but is the shop about these boots?

(15 Posts)
MittzyTheVampishVixen Fri 21-Oct-11 17:51:36

I bought DD some boots from MandCo. We don't have much choice in out town.
She has had them 5 weeks and they are unwearable, so I returned them.

The shop did exchange them but said they wouldn't do it again as they are a clothes shop and only sell shoes and boots as 'fashion' accessories hmmconfused and therefore are not obligated to exchange or refund as they are not meant for general wear.
There are no signs in the shop (or none obvious enough to make it clear).

I sort of concurred politely but was actually thinking that it sounds like a big load of bollocks. Well, that bit might be U of me but I have a headache.

The young girl was very lovely about it all and I presume only spouting relaying shop policy.

LydiaWickham Fri 21-Oct-11 17:54:40

WTF - fashion accessories, not actually for wearing on your feet outside and walking in?

YANBU - write to head office and ask for clarification.

FlossieFromCrapstonVillas Fri 21-Oct-11 17:55:07

I'm not sure I know what you mean by unwearable. Were they too high? Maybe 5 weeks is pushing it a little bit. I dunno!

woollyideas Fri 21-Oct-11 17:56:20

It IS a big load of bollocks. Clarks tried the 'fashion shoes' line on me, too. Just quote the Sale of Goods Act to them.

minipie Fri 21-Oct-11 17:58:48

What does unwearable mean?

Shop are only obliged to refund/exchange goods if they are faulty. Their policy does sound a bit illogical but tbh they don't have to give a reason at all, they can just refuse to refund/exchange. (And they gave you an exchange anyway?)

SardineQueen Fri 21-Oct-11 18:03:55

I've had this in a shoe shop as well - "Oh you idiot these shoes aren't actually for walking in you plank, what did you expect if you wore them on your feet and stood up of course they have fallen apart".

Well they didn't put it quite like that, but that was the gist.

It's a load of rubbish.

MittzyTheVampishVixen Fri 21-Oct-11 18:08:25

Stitching was coming apart and the zip on one of them was coming away from the seam. They were a flat boot, mid calf, sort of biker style.

It was good of the store and I appreciate what they did if it goes against company policy, but it is the policy I have an issue with.

She wore them quite a bit but certainly not constantly.

FlossieFromCrapstonVillas Fri 21-Oct-11 18:12:26

They sound faulty, how ridiculous! They shouldn't have quibbled at all.

frownieface Fri 21-Oct-11 18:21:01

Yeah that is complete and utter bollocks. Next time quote the sale of goods act it says that an item must be fit for purpose, so they are selling boots and shoes for the purpose of being boots and shoes you know worn on feet, outside shock.(unless there is a specific label on the boots that says for ornamental use only)

If the boots fall apart again go back and get a refund. If they refuse go straight to trading standards. And cc the customer services dept. grin

MittzyTheVampishVixen Fri 21-Oct-11 18:34:29

I chuckled at 'ornamental use' frownie.....
I thought it seemed a bit bizarre...

I might check their website to see if they state it as policy anywhere.

Kbear Fri 21-Oct-11 18:36:00

OFFICE once told me a pair of Vans (£40) (like Converse) were "supposed to split". DD had worn them for one afternoon. The manager wouldn't even speak to me properly, she just dismissed me with a wave of the hand and said again "they are supposed to split". Of course, I kept calm, swept out of the shop, emailed OFFICE head office the next day and expressed my outrage and they told me to return to the shop that night for a full refund, which I did.


harassedandherbug Fri 21-Oct-11 18:37:34

Oooh can I take them back next time???!!

If they fall apart that quickly then they're clearly not fit for purpose and contravene the Sale of Goods Act. Fashion accessory??? What a load of rubbish....

Make sure you hang on to all your receipts just in case.

minipie Fri 21-Oct-11 18:38:20

Ah I see.

In that case I'd say they were faulty and the shop has a legal obligation to replace them or refund you. They were sold as SHOES ffs. They are supposed to be fit for purpose and the purpose of shoes is wearing them on your feet.

I have in the past bought shoes (ballet flat type shoes) that had a label on saying not for outdoor use, but sounds like you didn't have anything like that.

prioneyes Fri 21-Oct-11 18:47:13

M&S quibbled when I returned a bra which I'd bought 7 weeks previously. The underwire had popped out. I'd worn in maybe 7 or 8 times and washed it 3 or 4. Because it had bobbled around the chest she got snooty and said it looked "well worn". When I pointed out that I didn't see how a 7 week old bra could possibly be well worn unless I'd worn and washed it daily she honestly sneered at me and said "oh yes, well worn". Then exchanged it "as a goodwill gesture". If she was going to do that anyway I have no idea why she needed to make such a fuss.

It really bugs me that shops sell any old rubbish and make you out to be a chancer if you expect better. angry Complain complain complain.

rhondajean Fri 21-Oct-11 20:22:06

this thread reminds me of the stories a few weeks ago about Jimmy Choos - didnt they say they were "not meant for walking in" or something equally ludicrous?

I kinda get in some ways what MandCo mean - I wouldnt expect a pair of boots from there to necessarily last as well or as long as some other boots but 5 weeks is ridiculous. I can get quite petty about the Sale of Goods thing - my pet hate is when assistants quote to you that you ar not entitled to return goods when you buy - I always feel like saying, and sometimes do say "I presume you mean unless they are faulty or fit for purpose, in line with my legislated rights?" It depends how nice they have been up until that point!

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: