Consumer Rights Act 2015- Applying to Retailer
Discussion
Has anyone had any experience of of applying this to purchases.
Purchased some £100 plus walking shoes from a well known outdoor retailer. They are also from a well known outdoor clothing manufacturer. I have a few pairs and my £100 plus The Northface ones get the most abuse hard trails and etc and still going strong after 2 years,
Other brand shoes are black and so I have worn them on work dress down fridays and done city walking in them one day a week on and off and get the lightest of use compared to my other shows. The laces died in the first 6 months on shoes and completely fell apart but the retailer didn't think it was reasonable of me to expect them to last more than 6 months. Shoes have tonnes of life in them and not heavily worn on the soles. I invested in some decent laces and kept them for light use.
Fast forward another 6 months and i did a 2 mile pavement walk in the in the week and one foot got wet as the lower is coming away from the upper. I have read the reviews on the retailers site and many people reporting the same issue and complaining the are not up to scratch for the brand or price. A number of the reviews show the retailer have replaced their shoes and one person is on there 3rd replacement pair. My store manager won't take any responsibility but the manufacture does state they offer a lifetime guarantee against faults etc which the shoe coming apart I would say should be covered. I showed them the reviews on his site and that s dozen people have had in store replacements but he says their procedure is to send them to the brand for them to offer replacement which takes 6 weeks.
Any advice, as I believe my contract is with the retailer not the brand.
Purchased some £100 plus walking shoes from a well known outdoor retailer. They are also from a well known outdoor clothing manufacturer. I have a few pairs and my £100 plus The Northface ones get the most abuse hard trails and etc and still going strong after 2 years,
Other brand shoes are black and so I have worn them on work dress down fridays and done city walking in them one day a week on and off and get the lightest of use compared to my other shows. The laces died in the first 6 months on shoes and completely fell apart but the retailer didn't think it was reasonable of me to expect them to last more than 6 months. Shoes have tonnes of life in them and not heavily worn on the soles. I invested in some decent laces and kept them for light use.
Fast forward another 6 months and i did a 2 mile pavement walk in the in the week and one foot got wet as the lower is coming away from the upper. I have read the reviews on the retailers site and many people reporting the same issue and complaining the are not up to scratch for the brand or price. A number of the reviews show the retailer have replaced their shoes and one person is on there 3rd replacement pair. My store manager won't take any responsibility but the manufacture does state they offer a lifetime guarantee against faults etc which the shoe coming apart I would say should be covered. I showed them the reviews on his site and that s dozen people have had in store replacements but he says their procedure is to send them to the brand for them to offer replacement which takes 6 weeks.
Any advice, as I believe my contract is with the retailer not the brand.
Edited by surveyor_101 on Saturday 23 September 20:40
Yes with the retailer, as far I understand the Law (easily searchable).
I bought a jumper from a well-known retailer. The side seam just came apart. I took it back, 'oh dear, do you want a replacement or refund' 'refund please'. Job done.
I bought a jumper from a well-known retailer. The side seam just came apart. I took it back, 'oh dear, do you want a replacement or refund' 'refund please'. Job done.
Edited by Pica-Pica on Saturday 23 September 21:31
surveyor_101 said:
Any advice, as I believe my contract is with the retailer not the brand.
Why are people so obsessed with this rhetoric Yes it's true, it's also completely irrelevant unless you are intending to take someone to court for breach of contract.
The 3 main measure for them meeting thier obligations for a repair / replacement are 1, within a reasonable time, 2 without substantial inconvenience, 3 bearing all costs.
If you feel really strongly that it taking 6 weeks for a replacement pair of shoes is unreasonable then take the retailer to court.
pixelatedJH said:
Sounds like the manager of that particular shop is just being difficult. Take it to another branch if you can and at first don't mention the backstory. They'll 90% just swap them.
Bit late I let h8m send them to berghaus.They do have a lifetime warranty against failure. The sole wearing out is one issue but the shoes coming apart is not great and 120 quid walking shoes.
I remember an issue a few years ago with a high priced push chair system.
The retailer had to send it back to the manufacturer for warranty claims and they tried to say we had misused it which was tripe and we didn’t use the transportation mode of the seats. They said they didn’t have to deal with me when I complained as I had a contract with the retailer.
ging84 said:
surveyor_101 said:
Any advice, as I believe my contract is with the retailer not the brand.
Why are people so obsessed with this rhetoric Yes it's true, it's also completely irrelevant unless you are intending to take someone to court for breach of contract.
The 3 main measure for them meeting thier obligations for a repair / replacement are 1, within a reasonable time, 2 without substantial inconvenience, 3 bearing all costs.
If you feel really strongly that it taking 6 weeks for a replacement pair of shoes is unreasonable then take the retailer to court.
What seems to happen all too often, reading posts on here, is that the retailer tries to make out that it's not their problem and that it's for the manufacturer to sort the issue out for the consumer and/or that their hands are tied until the manufacturer agrees to do something. All this is BS - it's for the retailer to sort out, and bear the liability, because they supplied in breach (but the retailer can pursue the manufacturer for the breach in their own contract with the person who supplied it to them if they want). This is in addition to any rights the end user may have directly under a warranty that the manufacturer offers, of course.
OP, I don't think six weeks is reasonable for repair/replacement. I'd suggest you kick up a stink with customer services if the retailer won't supply a replacement pair within two weeks. Tell them that under the CRA, they have an obligation to you to sort out the matter and that their redress for the same issue by their supplier is not your problem. Try that before taking them to court
bladebloke said:
It's absolutely relevant to all matters like these. And is the very reason why the retailer is responsible for doing all the things in your second paragraph.
What seems to happen all too often, reading posts on here, is that the retailer tries to make out that it's not their problem and that it's for the manufacturer to sort the issue out for the consumer and/or that their hands are tied until the manufacturer agrees to do something. All this is BS - it's for the retailer to sort out, and bear the liability, because they supplied in breach (but the retailer can pursue the manufacturer for the breach in their own contract with the person who supplied it to them if they want). This is in addition to any rights the end user may have directly under a warranty that the manufacturer offers, of course.
OP, I don't think six weeks is reasonable for repair/replacement. I'd suggest you kick up a stink with customer services if the retailer won't supply a replacement pair within two weeks. Tell them that under the CRA, they have an obligation to you to sort out the matter and that their redress for the same issue by their supplier is not your problem. Try that before taking them to court
Nail on head, agree with all that.What seems to happen all too often, reading posts on here, is that the retailer tries to make out that it's not their problem and that it's for the manufacturer to sort the issue out for the consumer and/or that their hands are tied until the manufacturer agrees to do something. All this is BS - it's for the retailer to sort out, and bear the liability, because they supplied in breach (but the retailer can pursue the manufacturer for the breach in their own contract with the person who supplied it to them if they want). This is in addition to any rights the end user may have directly under a warranty that the manufacturer offers, of course.
OP, I don't think six weeks is reasonable for repair/replacement. I'd suggest you kick up a stink with customer services if the retailer won't supply a replacement pair within two weeks. Tell them that under the CRA, they have an obligation to you to sort out the matter and that their redress for the same issue by their supplier is not your problem. Try that before taking them to court
I have sent a complaint to the retailer this morning,
Complaint
To say I am very disappointed with the Manager and the service at your Taunton store is an understatement.
I purchased a pair of *** Active GTX walking shoes which have RRP of £120 and current selling price is £108. I returned the shoes around 5 months ago for a replacement due to the shoes no longer being waterproof and the laces had fallen apart. I wear these shoes 1 day a week!
The store refused to replace the shoes over the laces or the lack of water tightness and recommended I purchased new laces or better still para-cord from the internet as its better than any laces you sell apparently (In store advice). I purchased new laces in store however and re proofed the shoes to continue using them.
The shoes have now started to separate from the sole and I have now read the review section for this product on your website which shows many customers have had issues the same as mine and many have had replacements, one customer is on their third replacement pair.
This is a copy of the lifetime guarantee for ***'s Website on this product>
"Product lifetime guarantee
A lifetime of adventure. Guaranteed. ** products can do (almost) anything
For 50 years, *** has been committed to endless innovation and the relentless pursuit of excellence. We believe passionately that our products make a real difference to the people who use them – and we guarantee our gear will stand up to the task it’s intended for (yes, that does rule out using your jacket as a paragliding sail).
Read more about Product Lifetime Guarantee..."
Seems clear to me the failure of the laces or shoe construction is covered.
Also, the first time I returned the shoes I should have been offered a replacement according to your returns policy on your website as this was within 12 months>
Taken from your website
"Within 12 months of purchase, we will either seek to replace the product or repair it free of charge. Please speak to a member of our team and we will come up with a solution that is right for you."
This seems to be the same as most stores due to the number of reviewers claiming they have had replacements. However, all the staff in your Taunton Store seem averse to exchanging products and following your own returns policy.
I was not offered on my previous visit to send the shoes to MAKER, however Dan the Store Manager only offered this service on Saturday when I returned a second time armed with the reviews showing many other people have returned the shoes and had replacements for the same reason and showing the separation.
After being a loyal customer for years and having never had an issue with a ****** product I am very disappointed.
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 my contract of sale is with ***** and not maker. The product should be fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality. A pair of ‘High Performance’ (maker wording) walking shoes should not start coming apart before the sole is worn out which it is not in my case. However in this case the manufacture offer a lifetime guarantee against such defects and so ****should be confident to replace the shoes this time or the first time I brought the defects to your attention as maker suggest this is not an issue.
I hope you will be able to review your position on this matter and I will not have to wait 6 weeks for maker to give their opinion.
Yours sincerely
Edited by surveyor_101 on Monday 25th September 12:51
Edited by surveyor_101 on Monday 25th September 12:55
There response not good>
Good Morning
Thank you for taking the time to reply to our email,
With reference to the issue you raised regarding the initial return of your boots,
Most boots do require us to send them back to the manufacturer for inspection and possible repair, if this is not the best course of action or the boots are within 28 days of purchase then a replacement pair will be exchanged for the customer.
The first year of the warranty on boots is with Go Outdoors and you are entirely correct that the responsibility ultimately lays with us , however the lifetime warranty is offered by *** and not ***s so the responsibility and the decision making regarding your boots after the first year does fall with ***.
After the first year we will happily act as a point where the boots can be dropped off and sent to ***. With regards to the six weeks you have quoted it would be my anticipation it wouldn't be this long for *** to make a decision as we have just come out of the camping busy period and they won't be as busy.
I understand that this is not the response you were seeking but the manager of the Taunton store is following the correct procedure and I can confirm the boots were shipped to **** yesterday . The store will keep you updated when **** have reached a decision and if i can be of further assistance please don't hesitate to contact me.
Dan the manager of the Taunton store has followed the correct procedure on this occasion so with this in mind we would be unable to progress with your complaint any further.
Good Morning
Thank you for taking the time to reply to our email,
With reference to the issue you raised regarding the initial return of your boots,
Most boots do require us to send them back to the manufacturer for inspection and possible repair, if this is not the best course of action or the boots are within 28 days of purchase then a replacement pair will be exchanged for the customer.
The first year of the warranty on boots is with Go Outdoors and you are entirely correct that the responsibility ultimately lays with us , however the lifetime warranty is offered by *** and not ***s so the responsibility and the decision making regarding your boots after the first year does fall with ***.
After the first year we will happily act as a point where the boots can be dropped off and sent to ***. With regards to the six weeks you have quoted it would be my anticipation it wouldn't be this long for *** to make a decision as we have just come out of the camping busy period and they won't be as busy.
I understand that this is not the response you were seeking but the manager of the Taunton store is following the correct procedure and I can confirm the boots were shipped to **** yesterday . The store will keep you updated when **** have reached a decision and if i can be of further assistance please don't hesitate to contact me.
Dan the manager of the Taunton store has followed the correct procedure on this occasion so with this in mind we would be unable to progress with your complaint any further.
my draft response any comments prior to sending>
Paul,
Thank you for your response.
Without Prejudice
As you assumed I am not happy with Go Outdoors position and this is not the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. You have failed to address how when I returned the Shoes (Not boots) before the store did not follow the returns process as this was inside the 12 months. At this point I was entitled to a replacement that is clear. I believe Go Outdoors have now breached my statutory rights by refusing to refund or replace this product.
As I hold you in breach under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (here after CRA) you may wish to pass to your legal department if you have one. Go Outdoors Policy is just that your policy and does not necessarily comply with your obligations under CRA and that is my assertion.
I believe I can prove that the defect with the quality of shoes was present when I purchased the shoes and the shoes were/are not of satisfactory quality. I believe these walking shoes would not meet the fitness for purpose test for outdoor walking which is the purpose the shoes were supplied. Furthermore, the laces and the lack of water tightness fall under ‘freedom from minor defects’ and the shoes also fail ‘durability’. My contract with Go Outdoors who sold me the shoes and has nothing to do with your Contractual arranges with the manufacturer ‘Berghaus’. You cannot assign your obligation under the CRA to Berghaus. Laos note your Taunton Store refused to accept a refund within the 12 months period.
The definitions taken from the CRA 2015;
• Satisfactory quality Goods shouldn't be faulty or damaged when you receive them. You should ask yourself what a reasonable person would consider satisfactory for the goods in question. For example, bargain-bucket products won’t be held to as high standards as luxury goods.
• Fit for purpose The goods should be fit for the purpose they are supplied for, as well as any specific purpose you made known to the retailer before you agreed to buy the goods.
I will not accept a repair to the shoes and reserve my rights under the CRA.
Under the CRA as the goods don’t meet a number of the criteria within the CRA I have covered above I am entitled to a refund or repair. I have been quoted up to 6 weeks for the manufacturer to review the shoes. This is not a reasonable period which is widely considered to be 7 – 28 days. Since Go Outdoors have indicated that this is not possible I would request a refund or replacement immediately.
I have evidence from product reviews and social media that other purchasers of these shoes have suffered the same defects and this evidence will be used to prove the defect exist at time of purchase. It is firmly established that this evidence can be used in cases such as these where the CRA applies, to prove defects existed with the product.
The next step would if Go Outdoor agree to use the Alternative Dispute Resolution Provision under the CRA which came into effect from the 9th July 2015 the EU ADR Directive compels the government to ensure that ADR. If this is something Go Outdoor would enter into please let me know by return however it would be much easier to resolve this issue between both parties without the ADR.
If Go Outdoors do not offer a refund or replacement I will be forced to contact the Consumer Ombudsman is Go Outdoors now indicate I have exhaust their complaints procedure.
Finally, if Go Outdoors still refuse to refund or replace the product and are not willing to enter into Dispute Resolution I will left with no choice but to start court proceedings against Go Outdoors for the allege breaches. Such is my feeling that I am not being treated lawfully or fairly.
Yours faithfully
Paul,
Thank you for your response.
Without Prejudice
As you assumed I am not happy with Go Outdoors position and this is not the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. You have failed to address how when I returned the Shoes (Not boots) before the store did not follow the returns process as this was inside the 12 months. At this point I was entitled to a replacement that is clear. I believe Go Outdoors have now breached my statutory rights by refusing to refund or replace this product.
As I hold you in breach under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (here after CRA) you may wish to pass to your legal department if you have one. Go Outdoors Policy is just that your policy and does not necessarily comply with your obligations under CRA and that is my assertion.
I believe I can prove that the defect with the quality of shoes was present when I purchased the shoes and the shoes were/are not of satisfactory quality. I believe these walking shoes would not meet the fitness for purpose test for outdoor walking which is the purpose the shoes were supplied. Furthermore, the laces and the lack of water tightness fall under ‘freedom from minor defects’ and the shoes also fail ‘durability’. My contract with Go Outdoors who sold me the shoes and has nothing to do with your Contractual arranges with the manufacturer ‘Berghaus’. You cannot assign your obligation under the CRA to Berghaus. Laos note your Taunton Store refused to accept a refund within the 12 months period.
The definitions taken from the CRA 2015;
• Satisfactory quality Goods shouldn't be faulty or damaged when you receive them. You should ask yourself what a reasonable person would consider satisfactory for the goods in question. For example, bargain-bucket products won’t be held to as high standards as luxury goods.
• Fit for purpose The goods should be fit for the purpose they are supplied for, as well as any specific purpose you made known to the retailer before you agreed to buy the goods.
I will not accept a repair to the shoes and reserve my rights under the CRA.
Under the CRA as the goods don’t meet a number of the criteria within the CRA I have covered above I am entitled to a refund or repair. I have been quoted up to 6 weeks for the manufacturer to review the shoes. This is not a reasonable period which is widely considered to be 7 – 28 days. Since Go Outdoors have indicated that this is not possible I would request a refund or replacement immediately.
I have evidence from product reviews and social media that other purchasers of these shoes have suffered the same defects and this evidence will be used to prove the defect exist at time of purchase. It is firmly established that this evidence can be used in cases such as these where the CRA applies, to prove defects existed with the product.
The next step would if Go Outdoor agree to use the Alternative Dispute Resolution Provision under the CRA which came into effect from the 9th July 2015 the EU ADR Directive compels the government to ensure that ADR. If this is something Go Outdoor would enter into please let me know by return however it would be much easier to resolve this issue between both parties without the ADR.
If Go Outdoors do not offer a refund or replacement I will be forced to contact the Consumer Ombudsman is Go Outdoors now indicate I have exhaust their complaints procedure.
Finally, if Go Outdoors still refuse to refund or replace the product and are not willing to enter into Dispute Resolution I will left with no choice but to start court proceedings against Go Outdoors for the allege breaches. Such is my feeling that I am not being treated lawfully or fairly.
Yours faithfully
guitarcarfanatic said:
Jeez!
Having worked in the industry many moons ago (funnily enough in Taunton) for a different outdoor store, we would have swapped without question.
Although, I have heard bad things about Go Outdoors service...
Pees me off when retailer take no responsibility and palm it off to the supplier/manufacturerHaving worked in the industry many moons ago (funnily enough in Taunton) for a different outdoor store, we would have swapped without question.
Although, I have heard bad things about Go Outdoors service...
deckster said:
One of those times where being right is so, so unimportant.
I bet you that a quick email to Berghaus would have got you a replacement pair of shoes within the week. But hey, at least you're "right", even if you still have wet feet.
I considered that, however one review states Berghuas were not interested,.I bet you that a quick email to Berghaus would have got you a replacement pair of shoes within the week. But hey, at least you're "right", even if you still have wet feet.
This review suggested to me the store was my best bet
The only good points are
1. The after sales service from GO Outdoors
2. The 'Guaranteed for LIFE' of the shoe
otherwise the Bergaus product is not fit for purpose
On my second replacement pair - first pair lasted 6 months, second pair will now need replacing after another 6 months. Bergause themselves do not want to know, they leave it to GO Outdoors to provide the service. Let's see what happens when I am on my 3rd and 4th pair
deckster said:
One of those times where being right is so, so unimportant.
I bet you that a quick email to Berghaus would have got you a replacement pair of shoes within the week. But hey, at least you're "right", even if you still have wet feet.
This.I bet you that a quick email to Berghaus would have got you a replacement pair of shoes within the week. But hey, at least you're "right", even if you still have wet feet.
Why didn't you contact Berghaus directly OP?
ETA: You've responded and I see why you didn't. I still think my suggestion below would have done the trick.
Something along the lines of...
Waddup. I bought a pair of your cracking shoes for a little over a hundy. They ain't holding up very well and I've got damp tootsies as a result. Can I have a new pair of super-duper booties please to replace the dodgy McDodge ones? Cheers, your brand's biggest fan.
MrBarry123 said:
This.
Why didn't you contact Berghaus directly OP?
Something along the lines of...
Waddup. I bought a pair of your cracking shoes for a little over a hundy. They ain't holding up very well and I've got damp tootsies as a result. Can I have a new pair of super-duper booties please to replace the dodgy McDodge ones? Cheers, your brand's biggest fan.
As per the above review suggested the store was the best bet and they don't want to know.Why didn't you contact Berghaus directly OP?
Something along the lines of...
Waddup. I bought a pair of your cracking shoes for a little over a hundy. They ain't holding up very well and I've got damp tootsies as a result. Can I have a new pair of super-duper booties please to replace the dodgy McDodge ones? Cheers, your brand's biggest fan.
Plus my contract is with Go Outdoors.
I will contact them but their site says contact the retailer to claim>
http://int.berghaus.com/product-lifetime-guarantee...
Edited by surveyor_101 on Tuesday 26th September 13:52
surveyor_101 said:
Bit of update Go Outdoors ignored my comments on the consumer rights act but have now said Berghaus have inspected the shoes agreed they are faulty and a replacement pair are being sent.
Of course they didIts easier to ignore you than to try and engage with someone with a fundamental lack of understanding of thier legal responsibilities towards their customers emboldened by a bunch of self reinforcing b
ks they read on the internet.They were entitled to send the shoes to the manufacturer to establish if they were faulty, that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It did not create an unreasonable delay, now provided you do get your replacement shoes as expected in a reasonable time then the retail has 100% complied with it's legal obligations, and all this talk about contracts and consumer rights has done nothing but add stress to your own life, and possibly the life of someone who probably works hard to little more than minimum wage.
Personally i think most reasonable people would think that being able to go to a shop return a year old pair of shoes have then send them off to the manufacturer and within a few days let you know they're sending you a new pair was excellent customer service, the idea that this could be a breach of your basic legal rights is frankly disgraceful but fairly typical of the compensation culture we now have in our society.
ging84 said:
Of course they did
Its easier to ignore you than to try and engage with someone with a fundamental lack of understanding of thier legal responsibilities towards their customers emboldened by a bunch of self reinforcing bks they read on the internet.
They were entitled to send the shoes to the manufacturer to establish if they were faulty, that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It did not create an unreasonable delay, now provided you do get your replacement shoes as expected in a reasonable time then the retail has 100% complied with it's legal obligations, and all this talk about contracts and consumer rights has done nothing but add stress to your own life, and possibly the life of someone who probably works hard to little more than minimum wage.
Personally i think most reasonable people would think that being able to go to a shop return a year old pair of shoes have then send them off to the manufacturer and within a few days let you know they're sending you a new pair was excellent customer service, the idea that this could be a breach of your basic legal rights is frankly disgraceful but fairly typical of the compensation culture we now have in our society.
Two weeks to send away and get replacements I have no issue with.Its easier to ignore you than to try and engage with someone with a fundamental lack of understanding of thier legal responsibilities towards their customers emboldened by a bunch of self reinforcing b
ks they read on the internet.They were entitled to send the shoes to the manufacturer to establish if they were faulty, that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It did not create an unreasonable delay, now provided you do get your replacement shoes as expected in a reasonable time then the retail has 100% complied with it's legal obligations, and all this talk about contracts and consumer rights has done nothing but add stress to your own life, and possibly the life of someone who probably works hard to little more than minimum wage.
Personally i think most reasonable people would think that being able to go to a shop return a year old pair of shoes have then send them off to the manufacturer and within a few days let you know they're sending you a new pair was excellent customer service, the idea that this could be a breach of your basic legal rights is frankly disgraceful but fairly typical of the compensation culture we now have in our society.
My contract is with the retailer and say can do nothing but if berghaus want to replace them that’s their business is not compliant with the CRA 2015.
The issue is the store managers way of explaining what they would do and that berghaus aren’t quick and can take 6 weeks when they are busy.
My issue was they quoted 6 weeks as being their agreed returns and response period with berghaus. As I pointed out the shoes are not cheap and are not heavily worn. Berghaus offer a liftetime warranty against the shoes failing excluding wearing out which they have not. I also returned them 6 months ago identifying faults and was told reproof Gortex shoes and replace the laces.
I contacted berghaus directed pointed out my current products of theirs and they fast tracked the replacements.
The reviews I read echoed my comments and issues and stated most stores exchanged them on the stop,
Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 27th September 21:40
Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 27th September 21:41
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff