Cxsjr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1921 times:
On Thursday, I bought a pair of shoes. I wore them for 2 hours round the house to break them in a little before I wore them out for the first time on Friday night. Yesterday, I was putting the shoes back in the wardrobe and noticed part of the shoe was coming unstitched.
I took them back to the store and asked for a replacement pair.
The store manager replies that she's never seen any problems with this particular style of shoe and that she must send the shoe to her Head Office for a second opinion before proceeding. I asked why and she suggested that people sometimes deliberately damage goods in order to obtain refunds. "But I aksed for a replacement" I replied. She wasn't having any of it.
Things started getting ugly (I did not swear) and the next I know, the shopping mall security arrive. They escort me to customer service and put me on to trading standards who tell me the law changed 6 months ago and now allows traders a 'reasonable' amount of time to check faulty goods before giving refunds or exchanges!!
So I ring the Head Office of the store. Their customer service manager explained the options. I said to him "so your telling me I might end up with damaged shoes and no refund or exchange, then what am I supposed to do?" - his reply ... "I don't care what you do, I've given you your options"!!!!!
I was so f***ing furious that they implied I might have deliberately damaged the shoe despite I'd asked for an exchange, not a refund!!! I ended up bringing the shoes home and taking them to the repair shop and they're being restitched - if her Head Office had come back and concluded I'd damaged the shoes, I would not have been responsbile for my actions hence I wasn't going to give them the satisfaction of p***ing me off even more!!!!!!
What would you have done in this situation? Do you think their response was reasonable?
Nordair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1910 times:
I do not think their response was reasonable. There was obviously something defective in the construction of the shoes. Whether the silly cow has seen a similar problem like it before is irrelevant.
Whatever laws may exist in Canada governing such problems, I am unware of them. I return things to shops all the time. If the merchandise is faulty, it's faulty. I won't take "no" for an answer.
There must be some sort of consumer watchdog agency in Britain and you may want to file a complaint with them. I know I would. And make sure you slam that store to everyone you talk to. Word of mouth can be very effective.
Cxsjr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1901 times:
Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 2): May I ask where this happened so I never go shopping there or buy this brand?
Am I allowed to name the shop here? ..... oh well, WTF, it was "Sole Trader" in the Trafford Centre in Manchester. The brand was Firetrap - should be renamed FireCrap I reckon! Comfortable shoes mind you and apparently easy to repair but not the point!
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1876 times:
Quoting Cxsjr (Reply 3): Am I allowed to name the shop here? ..... oh well, WTF, it was "Sole Trader" in the Trafford Centre in Manchester. The brand was Firetrap - should be renamed FireCrap I reckon! Comfortable shoes mind you and apparently easy to repair but not the point!
According to the Sales of Goods act, for the first 6 months following the sale, you the consumer does NOT have to present any evidence, but the retailer can dispute the claim and take the item for analysis in order to provide evidence of mistreating.
Most retailers just refund or replace, because to analyse each return is insanely expensive.
Just sounds like you got someone in a bad mood tbh.