Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to take these shoes back to clarks?

19 replies

gilmoregirl · 02/03/2011 22:30

I bought DS (5) some shoes in clarks on 30 October.

He has worn them a fair amount but by no means everyday as he wore boots for most of December and January and has other shoes and wellies.

I had previously noticed that a bit of the front rubber scuff gaurd bit was peeling off but was not overly concerned.

Today I noticed a rip in the body of the shoe between where the stiching is for the velcro fastening and the front of the shoe.

Given that they cost £34 I would expect them to not start to fall apart in five months, but I am just not sure I have the strength to go into battle with clarks.....

A similiar fault happened to a previous pair of shoes DS had and clarks were awful - it is worth it?

OP posts:
Beamur · 02/03/2011 22:32

I think you've left it too late, TBH.
I've had middling quality shoes from Clarks too. I did take one pair back as they were falling apart, but this was within days and they were fine about changing them.

KatyMac · 02/03/2011 22:35

At that age I was lucky if shoes lasted 6 - 8 weeks

5 months is amazing imo

redfairy · 02/03/2011 22:35

TBH I think five months is pretty good going for a pair of shoes - even Clarks. I dont think I would go back and try to argue...
I have had to take shoes back to Clarks for my daughter as things have fallen off within days etc but I think five months is pushing it.

pooka · 02/03/2011 22:38

Agree with other posters that 5 months is pushing it.

I wouldn't expect a 5 year old's shoes to last 5 months. Fair enough, he hasn't worn them constantly. But if I were CLarks manager, I would have no way of knowing whether this was the case, and would be unlikely to agree to replacement/refund.

PrincessWellington · 02/03/2011 22:39

If Clarks were awful last time then vote with your feet and shop elsewhere. However, 5 months is reasonable for kids shoes.

Primafacie · 02/03/2011 22:40

I hate Clarks, buy Kickers instead, they last forever.

PrincessWellington · 02/03/2011 22:41

If you want forever, Doc Martens are your friend

Original poster
gilmoregirl · 02/03/2011 22:46

Thanks guys that is what I thought.

I grudgingly bought them in the first place as found it neigh on impossible to find any navy blue shoes anywhere and they are just not good quality - feel very synthetic as DS gets v sweaty feet although they say they are leather.

I expect the shoes to last till he outgrows them but guess that is just unrealistic!

OP posts:
foreverondiet · 02/03/2011 23:00

I think 5 months is a reasonable length of time although annoying if they still fit. I have been buying start-rite schools for school, a little more expensive but much better made and last longer.

DD had start rite in reception, they lasted until she outgrew after 9-10 months.

DS1 (in reception) has geox trainers, worn every single day since June 2010, the soles are worn in the corners but still fit and totally sold. I thought they were expensive at the time, but have had money's worth. Annoyingly will have to get something else school have no trainer policy from september.

FabbyChic · 02/03/2011 23:02

My son when he was younger used to have shoes per term. The eldests would last a year. Just depends on the child.

Original poster
gilmoregirl · 02/03/2011 23:12

oh dear I cannot count. It would actually be FOUR months, Nov, Dec, Jan and Feb not five, so actually only two months full wear as not worn over winter.

Does that make a different mumsnet jury?

They do still fit annoyingly. I had hoped they would last a couple more months.

I agree re startrite, that is what I wanted but no navy ones past size 8.5 for some reason.

OP posts:
Tryharder · 02/03/2011 23:21

My mum bought DS1 some shoes from Clarks that fell apart after a month and we took them back and exchanged them. I don't think they will give you a refund but they may replace.

I second GEOX. Expensive but literally only a few pounds more than Clarks and infinitely nicer, sturdier, trendier. I hate Clarks.

Heroine · 02/03/2011 23:32

If the soles are worn out (eg tread gone) probably no chance, but if not, then worth photos and a letter to head office about is this what you should expect, previous good customer, but have things changed re quality etc - then they have the option to be good about it and might help

sale of goods act means you should expect reasonable use - I had a pair of naturalistas I wore almost every day for a summer then one of about 5 pairs afterwards and are still going strong apart from a new stuck on sole Blush upper is still stiched and whole, and my last clarks, worn reasonably rarely, but phases mean I do wear daily for periods are still good over a year.. and I'm an adult! more care but greater forces!!

Kids shoes are variable, but clarks have a reputation for quality to keep up!

Original poster
gilmoregirl · 02/03/2011 23:42

the soles are a bit worn - but they are definitely not worn out by any means.

I just expect things to last which I guess is just not the case. I have plenty of shoes/boots that I have had for years and I walk miles every day, whereas DS wanders to school and back!

Maybe I should just try them and see what they say?

At the moment I am not keen to ever buy another pair of clarks so cannot really lose!

Thanks for input.

OP posts:
begonyabampot · 02/03/2011 23:50

I took some back that were quite worn and old but still had wear left. the heel had collapsed due to those silly toys - they gave 15 or 20 quid off the new pair - it can be worth a try. But have also taken shoes back to Next and said they were too uncomfortable to wear and had ruined some nights out - got a refund - you just need to ask or you'll never know.

Original poster
gilmoregirl · 04/03/2011 09:55

Well, hats off to clarks in this case.

I decided I had nothing to lose and took them back, explaining they were four months old and had been worn a fair amount but that I was disappointed they had a rip as they still fitted DS.

The two sales assistants could not have been more pleasant or helpful. Within about five minutes I had a full refund! I was not expected that at all, after the battle I had with the staff last time when in my opinion the fault was worse and the shoes less worn. So clarks have definitely gone up in my estimations now.

OP posts:
begonyabampot · 04/03/2011 10:01

well done, 'those who dare' and all that! You did better than me with a similar situation. Though I was pleased with about 15 quid of the new pair I bought.

Heroine · 04/03/2011 14:09

yay! perhaps those assistants subscribe to mumsnet :) (or perhaps a all shop bulletin: 'mumsnetter on the way: for the next two weeks all stores are instructed to give refunds for any ripped child's navy blue shoes no question because of the risk of national campaign)muah ha ha

Beamur · 04/03/2011 19:13

That's great!

New posts on this thread. Refresh page