Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to expect kids' clarks boots to last more than 4 months and should I expect a refund?

22 replies

nula · 05/01/2009 14:50

7 yo daughter got clarks boots for school early Oct 2007.
They are the kind with a small compartment for a wee dolly inside the heel (GRRR!)

In one boot the bit at the side of the compartment that supports her heel has sort of caved in. It happened early Dec but I was ill back then, and just sort of repaired them by packing the dolly compartment with cotton wool.

Forgot all about it over Christmas.

School again today, same palaver with cotton wool.She says they hurt her foot.

I still have the receipt. (oct 7th)

is it too late to return them? (Brantanno)

OP posts:
nymphadora · 05/01/2009 14:58

Probably. IME 4 months is good going for shoes with kids. Though I do have a very rough dd2 who killed DMs in 6 weeks.

givethedogachristmaspudd · 05/01/2009 15:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

PuppyMonkey · 05/01/2009 15:10

I got a pair for dd1 from Clarks once that lasted two weeks. I took them back and got me money back.

I would try your luck and say if they were adult shoes, they would have been expected to last four months, so why not kids?

sitdownpleasegeorge · 05/01/2009 15:11

I hate the toy compartment shoes.

I want to buy shoes not a toybox.

I personally feel that a collapsing hollow heel is a design fault and would want my money back.

BalloonSlayer · 05/01/2009 15:27

I took my Clarks boots to be re-soled and heeled (admittedly after daily wear through 2 winters).

The shoe repair man said he would try but the boots had been made with peculiar soles as the intention was that they should not be repaired, just thrown away when worn out.

As someone who hates getting new shoes (main reason why Sex and the City passed me by) I was less than impressed. He managed to mend the shoes however.

Better than my M&S boots which, when I noticed after 3 months that they needed reheeling, had worn down so much they couldn't be repaired at all.

[what's the world coming to emoticon]

FimbleHobbs · 05/01/2009 15:29

YANBU - I would return them. I doubt Brantano will give you any trouble anyway as they will just claim it back from Clarks I'd have thought?

stealthsquiggle · 05/01/2009 15:38

If they have collapsed then I would definitely take them back - that's not good at all.

I hate the toy compartment ones as well, but then I hate shoe shopping generally - since DS's feet grew so little last school year that he managed to wear holes in the toes of his shoes before he grew out of them I am resigned to expecting him to make up for it this year.

Good Luck.

Divineintervention · 05/01/2009 15:40

Clarks would take back a fault like heel collapse.

27 · 05/01/2009 15:45

The problem that you have is a known fault of those shoes, so I doubt you will get any trouble getting the money back.
Though 4 months is probably quite good going for kids shoes, especially as Clarks do seem to be of quite poor quality.

nula · 05/01/2009 15:45

Thanks all.
Glad i am not alone in disliking the toy compartment.
I have not known any kids to be particularly impressed by it either!

The boots are nice and have plenty of wear in them , it's just the collapsed bit and yes I woud call it a design fault

OP posts:
nula · 05/01/2009 15:45

27 is it really a known fault of those shoes?

OP posts:
27 · 05/01/2009 15:48

Apparently so. I heard it from someone who sold Clarks from thier shoe shop (it wasnt a branch of clarks, but they carried the shoes). They said that they were frequently having those shoes returned, and having to send them back to clarks because the heels would collapse.

mosschops30 · 05/01/2009 15:52

I wouldnt hold out too much hope. I returned shoes to clarks after 4 days, they looked like they'd been worn for 4 years!

They said that was the style and that they went 'distressed'
I did get my money back but I think after 4 months you'd be pushing it.
But I totally agree with you, they should last longer, IMHO Clarks shoes have gone to the dogs

naturalbornmum · 05/01/2009 15:59

The Clarks doll shoes are know for not being hard wearing. I think that you should have pushed for a refund or exchange the 1st time - stiffing with cotton wool is not repairing the boot. But 4 months down the line seems like a long time to me - sorry.

naturalbornmum · 05/01/2009 15:59

The Clarks doll shoes are know for not being hard wearing. I think that you should have pushed for a refund or exchange the 1st time - stiffing with cotton wool is not repairing the boot. But 4 months down the line seems like a long time to me - sorry.

shootfromthehip · 05/01/2009 16:03

Tis pants but I think that 4 mths is too long tbh.

bozza · 05/01/2009 16:04

I know a couple of people who have had this problem with those shoes. I have never bought them although have unwittingly bought DS a pair of Cica trainers with a car in the heel. But given all this, I went to Kids @ Clinks to get DD's new school shoes and avoided the Clarks which didn't look very substantial anyway. Her Hush Puppy ones are much chunkier while still being the Mary Jane style.

zazen · 05/01/2009 21:04

According to the Law, you are entirely within your rights to have a full refund up to six (6) years..
It seems to me that this design has in inherent flaw and, the product is not of a satisfactory quality. Good luck.

I've cut and pasted this from the bbc.co.uk site on consumer rights.

As it says -
"
While laws concerning sale of goods date back 100 years, the only phrase you need to memorise is 'The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended)'.

The 'as amended' is important because it refers to laws which have extended the basic 1979 Act and using the phrase tells the trader that not only do you know basic consumer law, you know it has been amended too.

The Sale of Goods Act lays down several conditions that all goods sold by a trader must meet.

The goods must be:

  • as described
  • of satisfactory quality
  • fit for purpose

As described refers to any advert or verbal description made by the trader.

Satisfactory quality covers minor and cosmetic defects as well as substantial problems. It also means that products must last a reasonable time. But it doesn't give you any rights if a fault was obvious or pointed out to you at point of sale.

Fit for purpose covers not only the obvious purpose of an item but any purpose you queried and were given assurances about by the trader.

If you buy something which doesn't meet these conditions, you have the potential right to return it, get a full refund, and if it will cost you more to buy similar goods elsewhere, compensation (to cover the extra cost) too.

Note, however, that the right to reject goods and get a full refund only lasts for a relatively short time after which a buyer is deemed to have 'accepted' goods. This doesn't mean that the buyer has not legal redress against the seller, just that he/she isn't entitled to a full refund.

Instead a buyer is first and foremost entitled to have the goods repaired or replaced.

If these remedies are inappropriate, then you're entitled to a suitable price reduction, or to return the goods and get a refund (reduced to take account of any wear and tear).

The act covers second-hand items and sales. But if you buy privately, your only entitlement to your money back is if the goods aren't 'as described'.

If goods which are expected to last six months don't, it'll be presumed that the goods didn't conform to the contract at the time they were bought, unless the seller can prove to the contrary.

In all other situations, it's for the consumer to prove their own case (that is, that the problem existed at the time of the contract). This will prove more difficult the longer you've had the goods. Subject to this, a consumer has six years from the time they buy something in which to make a claim.
"
/ ends

Here's the link

nula · 06/01/2009 23:02

zazen thanks so much for that

OP posts:
mummypumpkin · 06/01/2009 23:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mummypumpkin · 06/01/2009 23:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

nula · 08/01/2009 18:02

Took them back today.
Full refund with no questions asked

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page