Jump to content


How long should boot last?


petethemanc
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5010 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

My girlfriend bought some boots from additions direct (south boots) after the first month she had to pay for the boots to be re-heeled. And yet they still wore down again very quickly, after two months usage the metal in the heel is showing and they need to be thrown out. My question is what is a reasonable time that boots should last given they were only worn to journeys to and from school?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How long is a piece of string? :razz:

 

It would depend on the price paid, on weather conditions, on type of boots, etc... Furthermore, it could also vary according to how your girlfriend walks (some people wear heels out, some the sides, some scuff the front, you get the picture...) As for price paid, catalogues charge a lot more than what high street shops charge, so you'd be expected to pay a higher price anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After buying the boots, following a short period the boots had to be re-heeled, hence were re-heeled at cost to urself, however again after another short period the boots need re-heeling, this tells me there was nothing wrong with the 1st heels on the boots just wear and tear, as the second heels only lasted the same period, yet were supplied seperatley from a shoe menders i guess, hence comes down to been heavy footed or heel walking as ladies tend to do.....The higher the cost of footwear doesn't mean better and longer usage, also the cheaper the footwear doesn't mean lesser the usage...

!2 years Tesco distribution supervisor

7 years Sainsburys Transport Manager

 

4 Years housing officer ( Lettings )

Partner... 23 Years social services depts

 

All advice is given through own opition, also by seeking/searching info on behalf of poster, and own personnel dealings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The higher the cost of footwear doesn't mean better and longer usage, also the cheaper the footwear doesn't mean lesser the usage

 

From SOGA point of view, it does, should someone want to make a case that the item wasn't suitable as regards durability and fitness for purpose, then the price would be part of the equation.

 

In this case, however, I agree that it is likely to be wear and tear on the heels and not a default with the boots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless both the original heels and the repair were both faulty. I think to prove this, or even either one, would involve a fight. It may be worth a go, but I suspect blood pressure may rise more than your phone bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

While I am not a lawyer, I believe that various organisations, for example trading standards, believe that goods should last a "reasonable" amount of time or they are not fit for purpose. Goods can be unfit for purpose even if they are not specifically "faulty", if the design is inadequate. In the case of boot heels wearing down after a month, I personally would think that these are not fit for purpose, and the OP should be refunded. Whether trading standards and/or other organisations agree is of course another matter.

 

I've returned quite a few cheap childrens toys for failing to last longer than a few hours of use by a typical child. Has so far worked every time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the boots belong to the child, or the mother? you mentioned walking to school....if the said boot is being worn by a child, its pretty safe to say the retailer will claim it was due to abuse/wear and tear.

 

To be honest, You will be better off cutting your losses either way and buying a boot that is known to be more robust....a quick look at the website reveals that those boots are more fasion items than sensible day-to day boots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the boots belong to the child, or the mother? you mentioned walking to school....if the said boot is being worn by a child, its pretty safe to say the retailer will claim it was due to abuse/wear and tear.

 

The retailer claiming this does not make it true. From what I've read, goods are "fit for purpose" if they can withstand normal wear and tear for a reasonable length of time. If boots are made for children, i.e. in child sizes, then they should be able to withstand the typical usage of children.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully agree, but playing devils advocate, how does the OP intend to prove otherwise?

 

I dont belive its fair to assume any manufacturer can predict the typical use of children, Im not that old myself and can clearly remember my mother chastising me for destroying my new shoes....I belive it involved a game that meant scuffing and stamping on the new shoes.

 

 

I think some more details from the OP would help to clarify the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully agree, but playing devils advocate, how does the OP intend to prove otherwise?

 

If the shop refused to refund, then a complaint to trading standards would be in order. I would think. Small claims court would be only for the really hard headed.

 

When I took broken childrens' toys back to toy shops, I sort of expected a "well, that's what happens to toys" response. But I always got a no-quibble refund. I even got a replacement once for one of those glowing light whirly things I bought at a fireworks display which stopped working at about half an hour.

 

I do seem to get surprised looks when I first bring back the item. I stopped buying no-brand things from Argos when they kept breaking or being substandard on me. I once even took a breadmaker back to them telling them that it made awful bread. Which it did, despite a "Which" review of the time saying that it made pretty decent bread. But they always refunded me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OP wouldn't be able to go to retailer now anyway, as they got a repair done elsewhere before giving retailer a chance to examine the goods and determine what caused the problem, thereby losing their right to claim redress under SOGA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SATRA - (Shoe and Allied Trade & Research Association) do set guidelines to footwear manufacturers stating the 'hardness' of heel top peices, too soft and they wear out quickly, too hard and they can cause you to slip as no grip resistance. Unfortunately though as Bookworm has said the fact the the top peices have been replaced means that you now have no come back on teh retailer (unless of course you kept the old tips?).

I worked in customer services for Int shoe retailer for 7 years and have seen returns for the same reason that have worn out within hours but have been proved to be non faulty, it really is down to the type of heel and the wearer, if the two don't match it doesn't render the goods 'not fit for the purpose'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...