8 months lapse does make a difference Northwind. Up to 6 months its for the retailer to show its not a manufacturing fault, after 6 months its up to the buyer to prove it is a manufacturing fault.

its not always that clear cut…it depends on the retailers policy for returns and refunds and how they interpret consumer laws and rights and what is a reasonable life cycle for a shoe given its intended use.
for example: many years ago i bought a pair of Nike ACG Gore Tex running shoes..after 6 weeks of wearing them to walk to university and back the tread had worn down and on the right shoe the tread had come loose and had a gaping big hole. took them back to the store and the manager admitted this should not have happened and he sent them back to head office for inspection. they sent them back 2 weeks later saying that even though it was labelled as a rugged outdoor shoe that this was to be expected and it was wear and tear…£85 down the drain…as much as i complained they refused to budge on that
last year i bought a pair of Adidas Gore Tex running shoes and after 8 months the tread started to wear at an alarming rate. contacted the retailer and explained the issue and also pointed out that my 5 year old Adidas Gore Tex running shoes had less wear on them. they asked me to return them for inspection. 1 week later i got a full refund for the shoes and the cost of the return shipping

it is really that clear cut. its what the law says

Warranty issue surely but I guess the manufacturer should come back and tell you that.

I’m with the op on this one, although I wouldn’t have used the trading standards tactic. Clearly your ‘all guns blazing’ approach, as you didn’t get a quick response to your first email, has annoyed the seller.

Seller needs a lesson in customer service, buyer needs a lesson in how to approach situations with tact.

A warranty issue is with the retailer, which is the eBay seller in this case afaik. If there was a warranty of a year it doesn’t matter that the problem was reported after 8 months. Also it doesn’t matter that they may have been in store for three years.

Personally I wouldn’t bother pursuing it. The seller sounds like quite a small business, possibly selling end of line or bankrupt stock.

tjagain – Member

8 months lapse does make a difference Northwind. Up to 6 months its for the retailer to show its not a manufacturing fault, after 6 months its up to the buyer to prove it is a manufacturing fault.

Falling apart after such little use is an open-and-shut warranty claim, I’ve had chocolate bars that have lasted longer.

I hadn’t seen in the OP that the boots were brand new.

Guidance from eBay on warranties here

Basically, you should ask the seller about warranty before you bid, because beyond the 30 day eBay guarantee it’s the Wild West.

If the OP had been nicer to the seller then he might have had some joy, but seeing as he’s blown any chance of goodwill, I think he’ll just have to put this down to experience.

The lesson, I think, is that if you want full after-sales support, buy from an authorised dealer.

Basically, you should ask the seller about warranty before you bid, because beyond the 30 day eBay guarantee it’s the Wild West.

Ebay and their rules are a crock of convenience bullshit.

A transaction on ebay is a legal contract between buyer and seller, and the seller is bound by that contract to write honest descriptions and to follow through with prompt shipping.

Shame that Ebay, when told about a fraudulant seller, do nothing and let dodgy sales go through. Fact.

Right, where were we? Oh yes I got this reply from Lowa & bugga me if they aren’t genuine!

We have now received a response from Lowa Germany in regards to the pair of boots you brought on ebay. We can confirm they are indeed a genuine pair of Lowa boots – they are a model called Zephyr from 2003. Unfortunately due to the age of the boots they are deteriorating due to a process called “Hydrolysis”. Hydrolysis is a chemical reaction that can occur in all outdoor shoes that have a cushioned PU midsole and that are seven years or older. The age-related chemical deterioration is not at all related to use and occurs even when the footwear has been optimally stored. Hydrolysis is a normal material aging process that occurs in all footwear with a cushioned PU midsole independent of the manufacturer. The process also occurs in automobile tires, ski boots or helmets and does not represent lower quality or even a quality issue in materials or workmanship.

& they were actually ‘new’ in 2003!
You learn something new every day. I’m going to apologise to the seller for doubting her word.

Did she make it clear to you in her original auction that they were 13 year old shoes & as such will probably be completely knackered by the natural aging of the materials in the shoe?? Surely they shouldn’t be selling stuff that is 13 years old if the expected storage life of the shoe is only 7 years max…….

Sounds from the response that they’re saying it’s a perfectly natural thing that occurs in older footwear, but we’re still gonna sell them to whichever mug customer wants a good deal on shoes.

they are a model called Zephyr from 2003

I know I shouldn’t but …. 😆

so its not a manufacturing fault. so that avenue under consumer law is not available. Not fit for puropse – seems pretty clear cut.

I would be going after the seller onthose grounds. I’d certainly be wanting my money back but at the end of the day is it worth the hassle? sounds like small claims would be your only option

Hydrolysis is a chemical reaction that can occur in all outdoor shoes that have a cushioned PU midsole and that are seven years or older

Uh oh.. should probably have a good look at my boots in the loft then before taking them out!

So the people on the first page including myself who correctly called the issue were correct. Age related 🙂
Shame about your boots but it feels great to be right 🙂

So the people on the first page including myself who correctly called the issue were correct.

ZOMG I want you inside me 🙄

I would be going after the seller on those grounds.

Agreed it would seem that the seller has the liability for selling stock so old that it’s not fit for purpose.

If I was the OP I would send the seller the report from Lowa and ask for a refund, making it clear that, should you need to escalate to small claims court, you’ll be also claiming costs.

She’ll probably pay up. If not, it’s Money Claim Online. There’s a £25 fee I think.

The difficulty is that the OP has already antagonised the seller and this may make the seller dig their heels in rather than settle with minimum of hassle.

So the people on the first page including myself who correctly called the issue were correct.
ZOMG I want you inside me

Not a problem, happy to shove my foot in your ass. 🙂 smiley face so you don’t get a stropon.