Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

Gap socks have PERMANENTLY SCARRED my 4 month old daughter... I want to write to them I AM SO LIVID

143 replies

newmomma · 07/10/2010 15:29

My daughter wore some GAP socks (3-6mths) when she was just 3 months.

She wore them for a day (8am - 6pm ish) and was left with a VERY swollen and red raised bleed behind the skin - not just your normal bruise, really quite heavy duty.

I have just seen the doctor as 6 weeks on it isn't going away to be told that the dark red stripe across thoe whole of the back of her calf is a scar and won't improve much.

I cried. I am so cross that I want to write to gap and feel like asking for compensationas my perfect little girl will always carry this scar across the back of her legs.

Does anyone have any bad experience with faulty clothing and the outcomes?

Or any advice as to what I should say to GAP?

Please help. Angry

OP posts:
Flighttattendant · 07/10/2010 16:11

God, I didn't mean to suggest you had actually injured her in some other way. I was only trying to describe what it sounded like - sorry if you thought I was cynical.

I just didn't understand how it could have happened.

I agree with previous poster who mentioned it might be a latex allergy?

MackerelOfFact · 07/10/2010 16:12

Oh OK, sorry, cross-posted.

OldLadyKnowsNothing · 07/10/2010 16:12

newmomma, the scar will stay the same size while your daughter grows (so get relatively tinier); it will also fade, so by the time she's grown it'll probably not show. I can see you're upset by this, (I was horrified when I saw my DS covered head to toe in his own blood!) but it probably isn't that big a deal.

I'll await your photo, though.

booyhoo · 07/10/2010 16:14

how did you not notice at nappy changes? surely the area around the top of the sock would have been swollen and red? is there only a mark on one leg? the other leg was fine? didn't you notice how tight it was when putting it on her?

scars on babies do tend to shrink and fade rather than grow.

bruffin · 07/10/2010 16:14

Sorry but how on earth didn't you notice they were too tight when you put them on.

With regard to scars yes they do grow, dd has a skin graft on the back of her hand from when she was two. The scar has grown with her hand but the scar has become fainter and has become less noticeable. She is 13 now.

LIZS · 07/10/2010 16:14

Sorry you feel got at but still not clear. Surely you would have changed her nappy during that time and removed the bottoms? I'd agree with others that a skin reaction is more likely or perhaps one of the socks had shrunk (have they been used for another child as the elastic can perish) if that isn't a red herring for another possible cause. If you didn't seek medical attention at the time I'm afraid any legal case is rather flawed.

Original poster
newmomma · 07/10/2010 16:14

photo will have to wait
frickin camera batterys dead...

OP posts:
Original poster
newmomma · 07/10/2010 16:18

i don't take socks off at a nappy change.
(do others people? how odd...)

They're not even tight - I can understand everyone being dismissive.

The elastic seemed perfectly intact, stretchy.

In no way did I have to prize (sp?) her into them. They just went on as normal.

photo asap after battery charges.

please take me seriously. this is upsetting enough as it is. no neglect or malice involved. just a child who wore socks that have caused the damage.

perhaps you'll all be more supportive after you see the photos.

Sad
OP posts:
TotalChaos · 07/10/2010 16:21

agree with NickofTime. Sounds more like a bad allergic reaction than something tight socks would cause. May be worth pushing for some sort of allergy or dermatology referral to stop it happening again?

Pernickety · 07/10/2010 16:21

Is it possible that it is something else and not the socks that caused it. Is your GP just going along with socks because that's what you assumed it is? Could the GP have missed something else?

Aitch · 07/10/2010 16:22

i don't understand how a GP is qualified to say that a mark will be there forever. and tbh if it is, that is just unfortunate. if she hadn't been wearing jogging bottoms, you would have noticed earlier... it's just one of those things. if wishes were horses we'd all be kings.

do the socks feel different, btw? is one tighter than the other?

Original poster
newmomma · 07/10/2010 16:22

it really was the socks - the bleed had elastic marks in it. and only on one leg.

you can see (when i post the pics) that the scar is in exactly the same place as the top elastic of the socks.

pics soon - they'll explain all, i'm sure.

OP posts:
booyhoo · 07/10/2010 16:22

OP i am just trying to work out how they did so much damage without you noticing. i don't take socks off at nappy change but i would notice if socks were cutting into my baby's leg. teh area above the top of teh sock would have been red and swollen. i have had socks on my baby that were slightly too tight and i have been able to tell by teh redness around the top of teh sock. taht is whi am asking how you didn't notice at nappy change.

Flighttattendant · 07/10/2010 16:22

Newmomma I am really sorry, I have PM'd you.

I think people are concerned because it seems such an unlikely injury - the socks weren't tight, nobody else appears to have had issues with these socks, etc etc.

My money is on some kind of allergy or reaction. That would explain why it happened despite them not being that tight.

I really hope you get to the bottom of this. You sound completely genuine to me.

OrmRenewed · 07/10/2010 16:23

Not a question of unsupportive newmomma. How could anyone not care about a poor LO who was hurt Sad It's just it seems impossible that baby socks could have caused such damage which explains the tone of incredulity and the suggestions re radiators and allergic reactions.

MackerelOfFact · 07/10/2010 16:23

I don't think people are being unsupportive, NM, just trying to find other possible explanations. It sounds from the description a lot like a blood blister, which is definitely not permanently scarring. I will wait on the pictures, but we are trying to help, honestly. I know you feel awful, but we're not trying to attack you. Honest. Smile

LadyBiscuit · 07/10/2010 16:25

Thing is newmomma is that a lot of us on the thread have had children wearing GAP socks for years and have never had this happen. So unless they were weirdly tight, I can't think how that happened unless she had a reaction to the socks. So I'm not sure you can blame GAP really.

I am sorry for your DD though - must be horrible but the marks will fade and be tiny in a few months' time. You should see the chicken pox scars my DS had - now virtually gone

Original poster
newmomma · 07/10/2010 16:25

Honestly, there was no sign of any damage until the socks were removed.

It WAS the socks as I witnessed the damage immediately after they were removed but had no idea at the time that it would leave permanent scars.

This all happened six weeks ago - I suppose a doctor knows what damage after 6 weeks should look like if it were going to heal perfectly, or not.

I have photos of her wearing the socks (for photo example only! - 15 seconds) to show that the damage is edxactly where the scar is...

OP posts:
Bigmouthstrikesagain · 07/10/2010 16:26

I am sorry that your baby has this nasty bruising Newmomma - it must be upsetting.

I do not understand how the Gap socks caused the bleed if they were not too tight? I think that is what people are questioning - if I wear an item of clothing that restricts my breathing or blood flow then it is my responsibility not the clothing manufacturer iyswim? It surely is the same for babies and children - but with parents (or carers) taking responsibility. If the fabric was causing the problem then you baby may have an allergy - baby skin is very delicate - but I do not know how the law treats allergies to fabrics - hopefully someone with more practical knowledge will come to the thread for you.

Hope you baby and you are ok.

FallingWithStyle · 07/10/2010 16:27

Aaw, I'd have been really upset about this too it it was my baby.

I think it's not that people are dismissing your concerns or blaming you - its just that it doesn't make sense, you say yourself they're not even tight.

You're obviously right that the socks did something realistically they cant have restricted the blood flow or crushed the leg enough to cause this mark. After all, why would the mark only be on the back of her legs? Why not all the way around?

I think its far more likely to be a reaction (which nobody could have predicted) or at some point in the day something pressed very hard on the back of her legs (and obviously this would leave an imprint of the elastic as the socks were between the leg and whatever was pressing on them.

We can only guess and I understand why you are so sure, but can you not see that it just doesn't make sense?

Original poster
newmomma · 07/10/2010 16:27

i can't read any more...
i'll come back later feeling less emotional and refreshed and with a camera that isn't a piece of shit.

OP posts:
booyhoo · 07/10/2010 16:27

have you contacted GAP?

seeker · 07/10/2010 16:28

So if they weren't tight, and you didn't notice her legs being sore when you changed her nappy, then what caused the mark? Was there something trappedin the elastic of the sock top that rubbed her? Had the elastic somehow worn through the fabric of the sock so that it was touching her skin and she was allergic to the elastic?

Acanthus · 07/10/2010 16:29

Where are the photos? She looks very very young on your profile Grin

BooBooGlass · 07/10/2010 16:30

It's not the socks. Gap socks rock. So there.
The key word in your OP is 'compensation' Hmm