To be fucking annoyed by Sports Direct?

[Absentmindedwoman]

Trainers fell apart within three months, holes in the heels and inner soles falling out. They're insisting this is completely normal. I'm insisting it's not and there's no way they are fit for the purpose of exercising. It's a reasonable expectation that trainers last 400 miles, not 150.

How can it be legal to sell shit faulty goods like this?

ARGHHH I'M SO ANNOYED!

Hmm, they can be rubbish but they can also be OK, I've had differing experiences.

We need more info to know what you should have expected in this case. As others have said if theyw were cheap you probably shouldn't expect too much

Sports Direct are absolute arses. Ordered a load of stuff, it never arrived. Contacted them to say this, they insisted it had and had been signed for at my address. This wasn't true and no neighbours had signed for it. Either Sports Direct are scamming liars or their delivery drivers are scamming liars. I didn't have the energy to fight for my £30 something quid (which I cannot afford to loose!) due to exhaustion (toddler + chronic illness + strong and hideous medication) but shall vote with my wallet and would never shop there again. Try M&M Direct. Can't fault them.

It's not illegal to sell shoddy quality goods. However as a consumer you have a legal right to reject them and get a refund within 30 days (now past so not relevant) or repair or replacement within a reasonable time if the goods are not of satisfactory quality or not fit for the purpose for which they were purchased.

When assessing "satisfactory quality " the retailer can take the price and the reputation of the brand into account. So if the trainers were very cheap or a brand which is known to be low quality then then the maxim "you get what you pay for" would still apply and it might be correct for SD to say that the trainers would never have lasted longer than the time that you have worn them for. On the other hand if they were £150 quid top of the range Nikes then you''re on stronger ground.

Once the first 30 days have passed your right to a repair or replacement is "within a reasonable time" Any question as to what is a reasonable time is to be determined taking account of—

(a)the nature of the goods, and

(b)the purpose for which the goods were acquired.

Here you'd rely on the argument that good trainers should not have fallen apart within 3 months/150 miles of use. You might want to look at running sites for independent info about how long trainers should last.

All these rights derive from the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Look at the Which? website for more detail.

radiatorvalves the Sale of Goods Act was repealed and replaced by the Consumer Rights Act on 1 October 2015.

Mummyme which law that says that you can always get a refund within 6 months?

Mrsjayy if the goods are seconds that would have to be made clear to the customer at the time of purchase.

I argued with M&S about a pair of shoes that fell to bits halfway into term apparently they were not for walking the distance dd walked to school 3.5 miles a day so M&S sell shoes not meant for walking

Their shops are horrible, customer service is crap, their returns policy is crap and they allegedly treat their staff really badly.

I know all this but yet I'm still lured to in because they are cheaper than their counterparts.

DD works for them and loves working for them so far.

I bought DS a pair of skechers before christmas, he wore them 3 times (twice indoors) before the front fell off, and they looked like shite. Skechers told me they were fashion trainers and shouldn't be used for running only short walks???? that's crap customer service.

The customer service at SD is notoriously crap. 3 months is nothing though, they should have offered you a replacement.

Shop elsewhere!

I hate SD. Their service is appalling, and they try to clutter up my house with their MASSIVE MUGS.

After the hooha in M&S I got dd skechers black trainers for school lasted all year so thats crud fashion trainers tut

SD is crazy, but I have to admit we've done very well there with football/cricket/tennis/summer sandals/etc gear for the DCs.

I did buy a pair of black school shoes from Debenhams once that DS needed solely to get through the Summer Term at school last year. They lasted 4 weeks of school days/hours only, no biking, scootering, extra wear. Completely destroyed. I pulled them out of the bag at the sales counter and they landed with an embarrassing thud (for them) in front of the salespeople when I brought them back to complain. They were horrified at the state of them after such a short amount of time and refunded us quickly.

Channel 4 did a programme on them a year ago. Seems they treat their staff very badly as well www.channel4.com/info/press/news/sports-direct-investigation-reveals-harsh-working-conditions

I hate hate hate SD. Never any staff anywhere to help - after my second ever visit, I swore I would never go there again. Would rather stick pins in my eyes. We have a Decathlon near us - great prices, fascinating, wide ranging stock and lots of staff who (surprise!) actually know about their stock and where to find it. I am utterly flummoxed by how SD managed to stay in business. Completely awful.

DownstairsMixUp - SD sell branded trainers including Nike, they aren't fakes. I've had branded trainers from there that have lastest as you'd expect and my children have had countless pairs of branded sports shoes for different sports and they've never had a problem.

If you want your air maxs to be this season you might not get them there but you can certainly get them, My budget doesn't stretch to paying the price to get them from the nike website.

Sorry - have not read all replies yet - but wanted to answer a couple of recurring questions. They are New Balance (a brand my sister has used for ages and always gets great quality from, she does a lot of sports) and cost £30 reduced from £60.

So, they were cheap and on sale but in my innocence I believed I was getting trainers that were as good quality as £60, but just not fashionable or whatever ie last year's style or something, which I couldn't give a shit about.

Average use for the shoes was 5k on the treadmill 3 times a week during the three months I had them.

Going back to read thread properly now, but to my mind they should last far longer!

I hate sd - only buy walking sandals for dd from there (just for everyday tho not huge walks) and me if I can find the right size because they have a baffling system of if you return something you don't get your money back you get a credit note. But some of them don't have changing rooms so not sure how you're expected to know if something is right before you buy it. So I don't. For running trainers you would be better off spending a bit more and going to a shop which can offer advice on the best fit for your running style etc I think.

Just read your last post - I would expect new balance to last longer than that so would be worth pursuing I would think.

I've never had any trouble buying from SD, bought loads of trainers to try and sent them all back, refunded within a couple of days of them going back. Bought clothes from them and sent them back without issue as well.

As for your trainers, it's not SDs fault they fell apart - they don't make new balance trainers, they only sell them.

I don't think it matters how much you pay for stuff - price has little bearing on quality especially when these things are made in their millions in Taiwan or wherever and cost pennies to make. I have had my Nike trainers for about a year now, they were £30 and I go to the gym most weeks and they are still fine. I only wear them to the gym though, don't go out in them otherwise.

I'd contact New Balance with a polite email and ask for their view about whether the model you bought should last longer than the use that you have had from them. You still have to get the replacement from SD but an official statement from NB about quality should help. Tell NB you're not trying to get a refund from them and understand your recourse is to SD. They might intervene on a goodwill basis if you're lucky.

peggyundercrackers

I don't think it matters how much you pay for stuff - price has little bearing on quality

The law does however think that price may matter - see section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act:

QUOTE

(2)The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of— .
(a)any description of the goods, .
(b)the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant), and .
(c)all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5)). .
(3)The quality of goods includes their state and condition; and the following aspects (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods— .
(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are usually supplied; .
(b)appearance and finish; .
(c)freedom from minor defects; .
(d)safety; .
(e)durability. .
(4)The term mentioned in subsection (1) does not cover anything which makes the quality of the goods unsatisfactory— .
(a)which is specifically drawn to the consumer’s attention before the contract is made, .
(b)where the consumer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or .
(c)in the case of a contract to supply goods by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample. .
(5)The relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2)(c) include any public statement about the specific characteristics of the goods made by the trader, the producer or any representative of the trader or the producer.

UNQUOTE

I agree that price is not determinative in any way and may indeed be less relevant in the context of trainers mass-manufactured in China and bought in a discount store, but it can be relevant in some instances. I'd be looking at the full value price though as my reference, not the discounted price as they were not discounted to reflect quality they were discounted to reflect SD's willingness to make a lower margin on the sale.

Ah, I would expect New Balance to do better. But then i also expect SD to be realistic about it, so I would take it further with both tbh.

Thank you for all replies.

I wasn't even looking for a refund. I just thought I must have got a freak dud pair, and in the first instance asked SD to exchange them for another pair of the same price.

It's the principal of the thing. I feel like I've been hoodwinked.

I also think their 'customer service' policy seems to rely on stonewalling you when you complain and counting on you giving up. Well, they have no idea how stubborn and persistent I can be IF there is any hope of getting shoe justice here I will make sure it happens!

*principle, even!