Was the shoe shop BU?

[StartWrong]

Bought startrite shoes for DS (7) at start of September. He wears them four days a week.

Two weeks ago the strap snapped. Rest of the shoe totally fine.

Took them to shoe shop today. He's measuring 11.5 H and they were a 12.5. they've moved him to a 13 and gave me 50% off (so £30 instead of £60).

Were they BU to not refund the shoes and/or do a straight swap for a new pair?

Given kids school shoes are so expensive, at £50/£60 a pair, I would definitely expect them to last longer than barely 5 months, and would expect a full refund/new pair as a replacement @StartWrong

They may have to be ‘fit for purpose’, but there is no specific definition of what that is. Usually it’s what a ‘reasonable person’ would deem it to be so. And as you can see from the responses on here, the majority think that this is reasonable. In addition, even IF they’re not fit for purpose, as it’s over 30 days since purchase, the retailer is entitled to choose the remedy. This could be a repair, replacement, or refund, if relevant. And any refund they give can be reduced to take into account any wear/use the item has.

So in this case I do think they have been fair and reasonable for OP.

Sorry to hear about your dad OP. I definitely wouldn’t give this any more headspace. It’s not worth it in the grand scheme of things.❤️

If the shop didn't do anything about it (they clearly weren't fit for purpose when the actual shoes were fine, just a crappy strap), I'd have taken them to the cobblers.

Have you a local independent cobblers? They are really cheap for simple repairs, Timpsons are hit and miss and can be pricey.

Then you can keep hold of the new size 13, and wear out the existing pair once the strap is repaired.

ETA I find people on MN have really low expectations of school shoes longevity! When I was at school, I got a new pair at the start of every school year, they lasted the whole year. Never needed a new pair mid-way through a year. My own children's shoes last them a year each too.

Yes. They didn’t charge me at all for stretching a pair of boots.

Er, just because the majority of people on MN think something doesnt mean its true or indeed what the law says on the subject! But i agree with the rest of your comment.

The law is a strange thing. Especially when it comes to footwear.

I had fancy expensive Merrell hiking boots which had vibram soles which crumbled and fell to bits when i became ill and was housebound for a long time.

I was gutted and they didn't give me a penny back.
The boots barely had a single mark on them. They would have passed for new if i put them on a shelf in store lol.

My old leather ones are still going strong decades later.

Bastards. I would never buy that brand again or vibram soles. And trading standards weren’t my help either as they were over a year old. Who expects £80 boots (in today’s money well over £100) boots to die within a year having barely a mark on them from NOT being used.

Shocking that they got away with that.