I recently bought some mtb shoes. After a couple of rides the RH shoe had a crease/ridge/fold in the (fairly stiff) material inside the toe box, sort between the big toe and next toe. While actually riding, it meant that my big toe would rub slightly against the ridge. A few more rides and it just got worse to the point of being quite uncomfortable.

There was no damage to the outside of this section so it was clear that the shoe hadn’t been hit from the outside.

Being so new, I sent them back to the shop for a warranty replacement.

I got an email back saying that I wouldn’t be getting a warranty replacement because:

The creases that you state rub your feet are not a manufacturer defect but how your feet have moulded the outer of the shoe during use.

Not happy with that as it seems unreasonable and I’ve never seen or heard of it happening on any other shoes, I pushed them on it and they agreed to send them to the distributor to look (I know that my contract is with the shop but I didn’t mind them doing this so long as I got replacement shoes – I also made this clear to the shop).

Fast forward a couple of weeks and I’ve had them reply that the distributor refused the claim and the shop has posted the shoes back to me.

Obviously unhappy, I replied as follows:

I find this very disappointing and I’m not willing to settle this as being out of warranty.

In your original email (below), you stated

“The creases that you state rub your feet are not a manufacturer defect but how your feet have moulded the outer of the shoe during use.”

This cannot be a reasonable position to hold. I have used the shoes for their intended purpose and they have deformed in a way that no other (XXXX brand or otherwise) shoes I have ever used have or indeed that anyone else I have discussed this with has seen either. This is not normal.

I’m sure you understand the consumer rights on warranty which mean that since the shoes are less than 6 months old, you have to prove that the shoes are not faulty. Shoes creasing after such a short period of correct usage makes them not fit for purpose.

The distributor’s involvement is irrelevant to this issue. I bought the shoes from you, you are responsible for the warranty.

Could you please provide me with a phone number so that I can discuss this with you.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

to which I got the following response

I have addressed this situation with both the senior site manager and web commerce manager and the decision over the warranty claim still remains. This also takes into consideration the feedback supplied by the manufacturer’s UK representative, a copy of which has been placed in the return package to you.

The shoes were returned to XXXXX for warranty inspection only and no further comments, other than the mention of the crease, were given to them so as to receive an unbiased and fair feedback. Had XXXXX agreed there was a claim to be made then we would of immediately offered a replacement to you but in this instance they state that it was not a valid claim and so, based upon our initial refusal, then this is the final decision. We are willing in this instance only to offer you a replacement pair at trade cost as a goodwill gesture but this is the most we can offer under the circumstances.

We are sorry that this has not been the outcome you had requested but obviously if wish to seek further advice from Trading Standards or similar we will be happy to provide any relevant details that are required.

Finally with regards to telephone numbers these are for internal use only as all warranty correspondence is via email so as to record a written trail. Our Customer Services number is for orders only, not for warranty claims. Should you wish to make a formal complaint then this can be made to XXXX

Apologies for any disappointment caused.

Best regards,

All dealt with very politely but not fairly I reckon.

I haven’t yet had the shoes so I haven’t actually seen the distributor’s comments but irrespective, I don’t see what they could possibly say that would make it not a warranty claim.

So, the big question, am I being unreasonable or are they?

Did the crease develop or was it there from the beggining?

hard for you to prove from here that was a manufacturing defect. Going legal on them is your only recourse now.

I didn’t notice it on the first ride. I noticed it after a couple of rides so I can’t say whether it was there or not when brand new. It was getting worse though. If it had stayed as it was after a couple of rides, I may have just lived with it but it got much worse.

There was also a smaller crease on the LH shoe – I don’t know if this was there from new either or if it would have got bigger.

hard for you to prove from here that was a manufacturing defect

By my understanding they have to prove it, anyway

If goods which are expected to last six months don’t, it’ll be presumed that the goods didn’t conform to the contract at the time they were bought, unless the seller can prove to the contrary.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/consumer_advice/consumer_law_sale_of_goods_emp.shtml

They will say they have looked at it and it is not a manufacturing defect and have given you a reasonable explanation as to why it has happened. Not saying they are right but that is the line they will take.

I would maybe try going back to the shop in a formal letter quote the various parts of SOGA you think applies and threatening small claims

This crease is on the inside of the outer, rather than the insole?

Must be a fairly substantial crease.

Was it the distributor or the manufacturer the shop sent the shoes back to for inspection? I’d expect a distro to push back like this as a matter of course.

I’ve had plenty of riding shoes ‘mould to my feet’ in wearing in. In all cases these have lead to the shoe becoming more comfortable, not less, as the shoe ends up matching the shape of my feet more closely. For an uncomfortable crease in the material to appear, it must be due to some peculiarity of the material, construction or design of these particular shoes.

Trading Standards or Small Claims then …

It’s on the inside of the ‘upper’ of the toebox.

No other shoes (same brand even) have shown anything even similar.

The shoes were sent by the shop to the UK distributor, not manufacturer

The sounds like the game that lots of shops are now playing where they push the responsibility onto the manufacturer or say that you have to deal direct with the distributor. They seem to have forgotten that the sales contract is with them and the manufacturer is completely irrelevant with regard your contract in law. Had a similar issue recently with a faulty iPad after 2 weeks and Comet said I had to deal with Apple direct and pick up all the postage costs. No you sold it to me so its your problem!

Have a word with Trading Standards as especially is your bought by mail order as there are additional rules in place. Products have to be fit for purpose irrespective of manufacturing defects.

That’s exactly my point. A pair of shoes that lasts only a few rides before developing a fault like that is not fit for purpose IMO.

Anyone been through small claims? Bit of a hassle but this has really peed me off.

so if the shop has to prove that they were fit for.purpose how could they actually do that? just say “we don’t get lots of returns so they must be alright “?

So, I got the shoes and letter back.

The letter states:

Unfortunately we cannot cover this under warranty as the shoes have clearly been well used. XXXXX will not consider this a defect in manufacture and will reject this claim without returning to themselves.

The shoes have done 6/7 rides and were 5 weeks old. They clearly cannot have been ‘well used’ and are well within the 6 months requirement for the seller to have to prove that they were fit for purpose. I can’t see that they have done anything to prove this other than to say they’re well used.

This just seems completely unreasonable and against the Sale of Goods Act requirements. Or am I being unreasonable?

Ring Trading Standards – they were most helpful when I bought a defective jacket and the shopkeeper wouldn’t take it back (and threatened me). Ended up getting the money back for me.

Which manufacturer?

I’ve just sent a pair of Shimano shoes back for warranty and this thread has made me nervous.

Grum – I will be doing that if they don’t respond positively to my latest email in which I’ve pointed out that they’ve done nothing to prove that the shoes were fit for purpose.

would of immediately offered a replacement

Grammar fail. Really hate that.

If your feet are rubbing the inside of the shoe are they not the wrong size? I’m not entirely surprised they’ve not honoured it here, but suggest it’s worth following up with Trading Standards. I think their response is very reasonable (except for the grammar fail).

They’re not the wrong size – the shoe has creased inside the toebox forming a ridge which rubs – if that wasn’t there, they’d be spot on as were my other shoes of the same brand, same size.

Hard to say without seeing them, but I suspect you may well have a decent case regarding them not being fit for purpose. I’d drop any mention of warranty though, as this isn’t a warranty thing.

Hmmm yeah, I guess you’re right though isn’t warranty really tied in with Sale of Goods?

Put it another way, has anyone else ever had a pair of cycling shoes that have done this? I certainly never have, no one else I know ever has. Moulding a bit to the shape of your feet, yes but these have deformed to a shape that is nothing to do with my feet!

I think you have to start using the ‘fit for purpose’ side of things not ‘manufacturing defect’.

Agree and that is what I’ve said in my latest email. It’s not unreasonable for mtb shoes to be used for mtbing which in turn will mean that they get muddy (which is presumably what lead to the ‘well used’ comment). (I did clean them as well as possible before sending back, mind)

Following on…

In response to my email where I pointed out that they hadn’t in any way proven that the shoes were not faulty, they agreed to replace the shoes but without accepting any defect was present, as an act of goodwill.

The original shoes were a 2011 model sold at £100 (down from £150) and no longer available so they offered me a current model from the same brand that were the same(ish) price as what I paid which did nark me a bit – I’m not out of pocket as such but I do now have slightly ‘less good’ shoes than before which I’d probably not have bought in the first place.

Overall, not really very happy – if I hadn’t chased it, I’d have been £100 out of pocket. I won’t be shopping there again.