Advanced search

To expect a pair of shoes to last more than four months?

(19 Posts)
Rafaella Sun 18-Oct-09 18:35:27

Sorry, boring description but need to set the scene! I bought my DD a pair of leather brogues from Faith online for £36 on 6 June. They are her school shoes so were worn for a month, then worn again from Sept to now (walks to and from school, 25 mins each way). A couple of weeks after she first started wearing them the head of a nail in the bottom of the shoes rose up under each sole of her heels but rather than bother to send them back then I pushed the nails back down and bought insoles so she could carry on wearing them. Now, both toes of the shoes have worn away from the soles at the front, leaving two gaping holes. The leather has also worn away in various small patches on the surface of the shoes.
Finally I drove half an hour to the nearest Faith to ask for a refund or vouchers. The manager said: 1. they were not 'school shoes' so weren't meant to last, 2. the shoes had been mistreated - my DD had obviously been scuffing her toes to wear them away (DD is 13, not 6, strolls along chatting to mates, not scraping the tops of her shoes along the road) 3. if I'd brought them back earlier with the nail problem she might have taken them back but wasn't going to now.
So, AIBU - is she right - if you buy a pair of shoes from Faith they are fashion shoes so not expected to last more than 4 months or cope with a 50min walk per school day?
If I am BU, please can you tell me where I can buy school shoes for a 13yo that she will wear but are sturdy enough not to fall apart for under £50.
If I am not BU, what can I do next? I don't want to spend £6 sending the shoes back to Faith head office, only to be told that it's my fault for buying crap shoes in the first place.

missingtheaction Sun 18-Oct-09 18:43:38

A tricky one, but surely the shoes should be fit for purpose and the purpose of a shoe is to be walked on? I do think the stance the manager took - that they aren't meant to last, that your DD has been mistreating them - is pretty pathetic though and I would be tempted to take it up the line. Gently but firmly.

On the other hand, looking at Faith I wouldn't expect their shoes to last long, whatever the price. They're just not that sort of shop.

Have you tried Ladies Clarks? I eventally managed to drag my 15 year old and bought her some really nice shoes that she found comfortable and had a decently high heel. Did virtually have to drug her to get her in though.

PixiNanny Sun 18-Oct-09 18:45:27

YANBU. I brought a pair of Etnies last year for £50. I've never had problems with skate shoes before so thought that they would last me and suit my job well (walking about in them a lot as an instructor) but they broke within a couple of weeks.

It's f-ing ridiculous. Can you try the Faith website for their returns policy? Surely you could send them back that way?

PixiNanny Sun 18-Oct-09 18:46:22

Btw, try TK Maxx, you can by brand name and good quality shoes from there, I still have the pair I brought last year to replace the Etnies and they're in brilliant condition still!

HeSaysSheSays Sun 18-Oct-09 18:52:03

No, they are fashion shoes and are not meant to be worn daily like that. It may seem silly or unfair but they are simply not made for it.

In law shoes only have to ladt three months from date of purchase to be considered fit for the purpose so, even if we ignore the summer holidays, they have outlasted their legal requirement.

LissyGlitter Sun 18-Oct-09 18:57:47

I practically live in my etnies and I have had no problem, btw.

By far my best lasting shoes have been my DMs. Bought second hand off ebay for £20 a good five years ago and still looking like new. Not school shoes though I'm afraid.

ruddynorah Sun 18-Oct-09 19:07:21


or these

both say suitable for everyday.

PixiNanny Sun 18-Oct-09 19:17:18

I didn't know that law about shoes, how silly a law!

My incident with the Etnies and the attitude of the guy in the shop have put me off of the brand I must admit, my Roxy's have been good to me

I must admit, shoes that I have brought in shoe zone (or another cheapy shoe store!) last me until this year when the pins in the bottom dislodged, uncomfortable to wear regularly now but okay for special occasions!

HeSaysSheSays Sun 18-Oct-09 19:20:27

I am not sure it is a Law as such or a trading standards thing but either way 3 months is the expectation, a shop should replace if they fail before then but, as usual, they are not required to refund in most instances. I would say you can insist if they have been replaced a few times already though!

Rafaella Sun 18-Oct-09 19:22:33

thanks for clarifying hesaysshesays - I didn't know the law on this. And thanks for looking ruddynorah - have shown DD a selection of shoes on Clarks website and she does teenage face at all of them - anyone with a teen DD got any other ideas - must be flatish and black and not pumps?

clam Sun 18-Oct-09 19:24:41

I've got the exact-same problem with Clark's, though, and my DD, but after a much shorter time-frame. First time I took them back after 4 weeks. They sniffed and muttered about them not being everyday school shoes, but did at least replace them. She's had the new ones just ver a week and the same thing is happening - leather peeling away from the heel and toe. But she's 11, and not kicking a ball around all day, just walking around in them. Just as I would have done as an adult.

Don't feel comfortable about taking them back AGAIN. But she needs shoes and, annoyingly, these were the only style we agreed upon.

Romanarama Sun 18-Oct-09 19:25:17

Yanbu, I bought some canvas slip-ons from Boden for my ds. He loved them and wore them most days for about 3 months, then the rubber split, detaching the sole from one shoe. I emailed them to explain what had happened and that I no longer had the receipt. They replied 10mins later with an apology, and refunded my credit card with the entire purchase price on the same day.

HeSaysSheSays Sun 18-Oct-09 19:29:14

Clam take them back, tell them you are well aware that Trading Standards require that they last three months and you want them replaced. If it happens again (and keep a close eye incase you don't notice it until just after 3 months) take them back and tell themit is the third time, you have been more than reasonable about it, you want your money back.

Rafella, my teen dds get sketchers, they do a plain black pump style shoe with a single strap (but much more robust than a proper pump), I have seen quite a lot of girls wearing them at school!

Romanarama Sun 18-Oct-09 19:30:06

what is this nonsense about shoes for children not being 'everyday' shoes though. I can't buy lots of different pairs for my 3 as I'd always be buying shoes. I actually expect them to last through 3 children: Geox do. Try those. Might be a bit more pricey, but the quality seems very good.

Firawla Sun 18-Oct-09 19:35:53

I think yabu a bit im not suprised they haven't taken them back, you used them til they wore out then wanted a refund? should have taken them when the nail thing happened as the shop assistant said..

HeSaysSheSays Sun 18-Oct-09 19:36:54

This is a teen buying shoes from a fashion shop though. WRT the poster with a problem at clark's, well clarks have dedicated school shoes, if they are not from that range then it is reasonable to say they are not school shoes! (if they are you are from the school range then she is dealing with a rubbishy customer service situation and should consider complaining to head office IMO)!

thesecondcoming Sun 18-Oct-09 19:40:07

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

clam Sun 18-Oct-09 19:50:14

Well, in my case, they were not from the school range. But even so, supposing I'd bought them for me, as an adult, I can't imagine I'd have been any lighter on my feet in them than DD. They're clearly not fit for purpose - any purpose, school or otherwise.

HeSaysSheSays Sun 18-Oct-09 19:57:15

DMs come with a warrenty on the sole, they build their name on durability so I would not have been surprised that they did that. THe point is not what some places will do it is what all places have to do IYSWIM.

Clam, you are right, morally and sensibly you are quite right, however this is not the case when you go to a legal viewpoint.

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: