AIBU to expect a pair of £60 boots from Russell and Bromley to last for more than 3 wears?

[Inertia]

Bought DD a pair of Boots from Russell and Bromley. After 3 wears, they were scuffed at the toes- which I accept is going to happen, they can be polished- but the sole underneath the toes was completely crumbled away. Though the sole initially appeared normal, it is clear that any wear at all exposes the sole as soft, dry and crumbly.

We bought DD a replacement pair from Clarks , in a style similar to ones she's had before and which have lasted through the winter with barely any wear. Shop offered a replacement, which I didn't want as I believe the boots are not fit for purpose; they wouldn't give a credit note, and the head office refused to accept that there was a material or manufacturing fault.

So, AIBU in thinking that if the soles of a pair of boots disintegrates that easily, the material is not fit for purpose and the shop should give a refund?

YANBU. Not fit - refund. I would be quoting the sale of goods act and being a PITA.

Surprised - have found R&B difficult over exchanges in the shop but a letter and returned good to head office usually does the trick.

Moaning- am quoting sale of goods act in follow-up letter, glad to hear others agree.

Married- TBH I was surprised that the shop were awkward about it, but even more surprised at HO response. Their loss of custom.

Am a bit confused. You said the Russell & Bromley boots fell apart after 3 wears, then you went straight to Clarks and bought another pair, which also fell apart after 3 wears, Clarks offered a replacement which you refused? Shouldn't you have taken the first pair back to R & B straight away? They might have replaced them or given you a refund, then you might not have needed to buy another pair.
You are probably YANBU, no boots should fall apart after 3 wears esp if costing £60 but just trying to understand what happened.

The two are separate if I have read it correctly : -

The R & B ones are the ones you want a refund on due to the sole wear. If she scuffed the toe did she by any chance go on swings, ride a bike etc in those 3 wears ? You were offered a replacement pair but had already bought Clarks ones so want a refund/credit note. tbh I think you'll have a hard job getting a refund now but Trading Standards may help you word a letter if you want to pursue it.

Aaah, so in paragraph 2 where you said "Shop offered a replacement", you mean Russell & Bromley not Clarks ... OK I'm with you now. Yes I agree with other posters, you probably won't get a refund from R&B now, probably best not to buy from them again.
I think generally though if something is faulty you have to go back to the shop where you bought it straight away and not buy a replacement somewhere else. Good luck with Trading Standards though. At £60 those boots should be made to last!

YANBU to expect the boots to have lasted more than 3 wears, but (by my understanding of the Sales of Goods Act) you may struggle to get a refund at this point - IIRC under these circumstances the vendor has a duty to "repair, replace or refund", but it is the vendor's choice which of those they will choose to do. They have offered you a replacement and so can argue they have fulfilled their duty under the Act. If you had accepted the replacement and the same had happened then you would have been in a much stronger position to demand a refund.