So, having sent some ripped MW81 shoes back to CRC for a ripped ankle seal thingy, they are sending them off to Madison for ‘inspection’ with an estimated time of 2-3 weeks.
Now, is it unreasonable to want CRC to say they are faulty as they ripped across a velcro tab and replace them now, or should I wait.
I know I’m impatient, but I feel that I bought them from CRC and they have the duty to me, if the goods are not fit for purpose, not the importer (Madison?), so should be making good?

Thoughts (and ‘stop whining and accept comments’)

How long have you had them?

There’s probably an element of procedure in there. Stuff that breaks (cracked frame) they’re probably in a position to say it was a fault, ripped clothes you could rip in a crash so maybe they default to getting a 2nd oppinion before paying up.

Your rights are with CRC, all they’re doing is checking that it’s definately a fault on their/madison/shimano’s part not a yours before deciding whether to give you new ones or have them repaired.

did that with a saddle I sent back. couldn’t be bothered to wait so bought another saddle and got a refund when the goods were deemed faulty.

I’ve had them about 2 months, they ripped when I undid the velcro strap across the ankle so I’m certain in my mind that they were faulty however I just want to wear them ASAP as they are so warm and toasty.

If they come back with a ‘operator error’ then I’ll start the fight!

bruneeps idea wins, I’m ordering a new pair and getting a refund. Might get additional shiny bits as well!

Seems to me they are just trying to confirm the possible cause of the problem and are dealing with it in a reasonable way. This procedure is used because of people wrecking their stuff and trying to claim under warranty. But no-one on here does that of course 😉

I don’t disagree, I’m just being impatient and I want my warm boots back! It’s still only 2c at night when I get to ride!

They’re being reasonable in that they’re getting someone qualified to comment on cause to do so. If they said it’d take a year then you’d have a case for saying it’s not reasonable.

Mind you I had a warranty claim on a pair of Shimano shoes and Madison were a bunch of unmentionables, (as were Rutland cycles, incidentally) so you may well need to fight your corner…

Don’t forget that under consumer rights (SOGA), under 6 months old and they have to prove that the product wasn’t faulty, not you having to prove that it was.

Slightly related, CRC directly refunded my 5tens based “solely” 😉 on the photos alone. The process couldn’t have been any less painful.

I expect that madison are the problem here.

It’s also very possible that the 5:10 fault was common enough they’d already had feedback from the manufacturer/distributor and didn’t need to check it with them.

CRC didn’t used to do this but its not reasonable, even its is not predictable. I had this when I sent some Endura stuff back as clearly faulty but it was all sorted with refund in ~2 wks. Other things which I thought were less straightforward were done straight away…the end results with their return policy is very good IME and one reason why I still use them more than LBS & other onliners.

I had big issues with CRC with a pair of Mavic factory wheels. The rear hub developed a crack. CRC sent the wheel off to Mavic, who refused CRC a warranty replacement as the wheel had not been sold in Europe.

Basically CRC accused me of swapping wheels and sending them a faulty one that I had purchased outside of Europe. Truth was CRC where caught out selling grey imports.

CRC took about 2-3 months before they decided to replace the wheel.

had the same thing happen with some waterproofs. store policy said i had to wait but after lots of mentions of “not fit for the purpose intended” ie: £100 waterproof pants not keeping me dry! This was at go-outdoors. imo you are right to want an immediate replacement

*Probably totally wrong but I can’t be bothered to check* I didn’t think CRC bought through Madison? I thought CRC were the Irish importers of Shimano, thant’s why they can offer such great discounts on their product line. *Probably totally wrong but I can’t be bothered to check*

imo you are right to want an immediate replacement

And I’m sure he will be given an immediate replacement, if it is deemed to be under warranty

Wiretownman-what happened in the 2/3 month period? E-mails? Calls? Did you involve trading standards at any point?

About eight years ago they did this when I sent back an isis bottom bracket, they were fine and I got my money with no hassle.

I’m pretty relaxed about the money side actually. As long as i can get It back in the next Few weeks its all good. I’ve called them and said that as long as I can get a refund, not a replacement, I’ll buy another pair. Which I’ve already done. Then when the refund comes through, it’ll be new summer shoes time!

@tinybits

its very simple (sales of goods act)

within 6 months of purchase, a customer with goods that develop a fault (not wear and tear) should be offered a replacement or refund as it is assumed that the goods were not fit for purpose, with the retailer then having to take their loss up with the distributor.

this second part is irrelevant to the customer, their contract is with the retailer they purchased the goods from. a risk any retailer takes when signing a contract to retail goods from a distributor is that the distributor will back up the goods delivered with a reliable warranty service.

after 6 months of ownership, the customer has to then prove that the goods were not originally fit for purpose, and allow the retailer to send the goods to their distributor or manufacturer for inspection

obviously you need to return the goods by post to CRC for “inspection” but they have a warranty department that can inspect the goods and make a judgement. Allow 1 week for this process. Any more than this is stalling on their part.

a big problem for companies like CRC is that they are often purchasing goods through grey import channels at lower cost, and may not have anyone to actually send the good “back to”.

this is part of the risk they assume when buying goods cheaper direct from off-shore factories or sales agents dumping OE stock into the aftermarket

any shops or companies claiming that they need to “send goods to the manufacturer” for inspection inside of the initial 6 month period, need to educate themselves on retail law in the EU:- its basically a cost-saving blag relying on uneducated customers caving in, when the law is very clear on who is responsible (the retailer)

incidentally, I recently learned the warranty period in the EU is actually 2 years on goods sold, and this supercedes the UK “sales of goods act”.

I have recently used this successfully for electrical goods bought from Argos that failed after 13 months, despite them trying to fob me off with “12 month warranty”. It was only when I showed them the link to the EU laws on my smartphone that their manager started taking my complaint seriously.

crc were great with my endura shorts – sent me a new pair even after a years use
great service for me hope you are as lucky