Leaky Kangol Shoes

FLOOPER

Hi,

About 2 months ago I bough a very nice pair of Kangol runners and after about 3 weeks I noticed my socks getting a little wet. They wren't exposed to heavy rain and I returned them to Sports Direct and got a replacement.

The new pair have been doing fine having them about 28 days but with the wet under ground tonight I have found they're leaking again. They haven't been in any down pour just the wet ground underneath and agin I have found that my socks are damp and even feeling the insole it is damp. i.e. they obviously have a crack or leak in the underside of the rubber sole.

What are my rights considering I bought them about 30 days ago. I just use them for walking only.

I feel bad about going back again and saying the same thing. What are my rights here. I have the receipt of course.

Shouldn't shoes that haven't been subjected to a down pour offer water protection from the sole upward.

Just would appreciate some clarity as to my rights when buying shoes.

Thanks.

theteal

Why feel bad? They're not fit for purpose. I'd go back looking for a refund.

FYI, all those sports direct brands (karrimor, Dunlop, firetrap, lonsdale, kangol etc.) are nothing like their formerly reputable brands. They're all just standard sports direct rebranded crap these days and not worth the money/effort - I'm even coming to the conclusion that their Nike, adidas etc stuff is of a lower standard to the norm, if that's possible

davo10

Were they advertised as being water-proof? Maybe post a link to the runners.

CeilingFly

No rights whatsoever unless that were advertised and sold as waterproof or water resistant.

Shoes are stitched in many parts and water will get through these minute stitch holes - damp weather is almost worse than heavy rain for getting feet wet.

I'm really surprised they replaced the initial pair.

FLOOPER

CeilingFly wrote: »

No rights whatsoever unless that were advertised and sold as waterproof or water resistant.

Shoes are stitched in many parts and water will get through these minute stitch holes - damp weather is almost worse than heavy rain for getting feet wet.

I'm really surprised they replaced the initial pair.

Are you absolutely sure?

Would have thought that the least a shoe would do is not let water in after 30 days. Ive never in my 51 years bought shoes that leaked.

These are the shoes. https://ie.sportsdirect.com/kangol-canary-casual-mens-trainers-114098?colcode=11409805&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn_b-39md2AIVDeMbCh0xeAyAEAQYAyABEgIo8_D_BwE

Gatling

Most shoes will get wet these days depending on what and where your using them ,
Maybe look into decent pair of gortex runners or walking shoes

njs030

Synthetic sole with stitched detail is going to let in water.
They are casual shoes as it says, they aren't for walking and aren't waterproof.

CeilingFly

FLOOPER wrote: »

Are you absolutely sure?

Would have thought that the least a shoe would do is not let water in after 30 days. Ive never in my 51 years bought shoes that leaked.

These are the shoes. https://ie.sportsdirect.com/kangol-canary-casual-mens-trainers-114098?colcode=11409805&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn_b-39md2AIVDeMbCh0xeAyAEAQYAyABEgIo8_D_BwE

100% certain especially stitched leather upper with etxtile lining - nothing water-resistant about about that.

Leather is water permeable and with stitching and a textile lining, its near certain going to get wet on the inside in damp/wet conditions.

Very easy to dry out - stuff with newpaper/tissue and leave in a warm dry area for 24 hours but not directly beside a heat source.

Maybe previous shoes were of a glue and single piece construction with any stitching above any "water-line", but unless a shoe says "water resistant" or "water proof" it will get wet in certain conditions

davo10

FLOOPER wrote: »

Are you absolutely sure?

Would have thought that the least a shoe would do is not let water in after 30 days. Ive never in my 51 years bought shoes that leaked.

These are the shoes. https://ie.sportsdirect.com/kangol-canary-casual-mens-trainers-114098?colcode=11409805&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn_b-39md2AIVDeMbCh0xeAyAEAQYAyABEgIo8_D_BwE

Can't see where they are advertised as water proof.

splinter65

<SNIP>

Unless they are advertised as “waterproof” I don’t think you have any further comeback.

dudara

Sorry all, I completely disagree. Regular shoes should be able to stand up to regular use, including some water. I don’t have any explicitly “waterproof” shoes, yet none of my regular shoes get damp when out and about in normal conditions.

I would definitely be returning for a full refund citing unfit for purpose.

splinter65

dudara wrote: »

Sorry all, I completely disagree. Regular shoes should be able to stand up to regular use, including some water. I don’t have any explicitly “waterproof” shoes, yet none of my regular shoes get damp when out and about in normal conditions.

I would definitely be returning for a full refund citing unfit for purpose.

I’d be very interested to see how that would turn out in the SCC.
The purpose of a wool coat is to keep you warm.
If you wear the wool coat out in the rain and you get wet through and are cold, would you return that as unfit for purpose?

L1011

splinter65 wrote: »

I’d be very interested to see how that would turn out in the SCC.
The purpose of a wool coat is to keep you warm.
If you wear the wool coat out in the rain and you get wet through and are cold, would you return that as unfit for purpose?

Shoes sold in Ireland need to be fit for purpose for use in Ireland. Its relatively damp here.

Your feet shouldn't get wet in normal shoes/trainers in damp conditions. Actual pouring rain is a different story but that isn't the OPs scenario.

They are fairly cheap, own-brand products and effectively not worth going to the SCC for - if a single pair was sold at the alleged 88 euro original price I'd be amazed.

dudara

Think about what normal or regular use means. I’m not talking splashing through puddles, climbing up mountains or working outdoors here. I’m talking about being out on an average day in town with wet pavements etc. If a pair of shoes isn’t for that type of use, then there’s something wrong.

splinter65

L1011 wrote: »

Shoes sold in Ireland need to be fit for purpose for use in Ireland. Its relatively damp here.

Your feet shouldn't get wet in normal shoes/trainers in damp conditions. Actual pouring rain is a different story but that isn't the OPs scenario.

They are fairly cheap, own-brand products and effectively not worth going to the SCC for - if a single pair was sold at the alleged 88 euro original price I'd be amazed.

I disagree . If I want to walk in the rain and not get my feet wet then I need to buy waterproof shoes to wear when it’s raining and I walk.

njs030

Shoes that have stitching all over them aren't going to hold out water, the stitches will let in damp.
They are called casual shoes not walking shoes - casual shoes are for nights out or shopping etc. Buy decent walking shoes or trainers to go for walks.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

splinter65 wrote: »

I disagree . If I want to walk in the rain and not get my feet wet then I need to buy waterproof shoes to wear when it’s raining and I walk.

There would still be an expectation that most shoes should keep your feet dry in damp conditions.

L1011

splinter65 wrote: »

I disagree . If I want to walk in the rain and not get my feet wet then I need to buy waterproof shoes to wear when it’s raining and I walk.

The OP isn't talking about walking in the rain. Neither was I, so you're disagreeing with nothing.

CeilingFly

dudara wrote: »

Sorry all, I completely disagree. Regular shoes should be able to stand up to regular use, including some water. I don’t have any explicitly “waterproof” shoes, yet none of my regular shoes get damp when out and about in normal conditions.

I would definitely be returning for a full refund citing unfit for purpose.

I'd agree generally with that, but the op suggests that they were walking on grassy areas.

On the shoes in question the style has a long open tongue/gusset and very easy for water to get in as you walk with water coming from the sole of the opposite foot.

The stitching is about 2-3 cm off the sole, so "normal" damp conditions on a path wouldn't get the feet wet in a normal timeframe, but grass or a long walk would cause wetness with these and most other shoes of similar style.

As others have said, Kangol is now an own brand of Sports Direct and certainly would not be worth the false rrp of €84. Probably reasonable value at €36

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

CeilingFly wrote: »

I'd agree generally with that, but the op suggests that they were walking on grassy areas.

On the shoes in question the style has a long open tongue/gusset and very easy for water to get in as you walk with water coming from the sole of the opposite foot.

The stitching is about 2-3 cm off the sole, so "normal" damp conditions on a path wouldn't get the feet wet in a normal timeframe, but grass or a long walk would cause wetness with these and most other shoes of similar style.

As others have said, Kangol is now an own brand of Sports Direct and certainly would not be worth the false rrp of €84. Probably reasonable value at €36

Where did anybody mention walking on grass or anything other than normal walking on damp ground?

I have never had shoes in over 70 years that left my feet wet in normal walking on damp ground. The shoes are not fit for purpose in this country.

splinter65

Harlow Loose Cockroach wrote: »

There would still be an expectation that most shoes should keep your feet dry in damp conditions.

I don’t expect my wool coat to keep me either warm or dry in wet conditions.
Why would I expect shoes?

L1011

splinter65 wrote: »

I don’t expect my wool coat to keep me either warm or dry in wet conditions.
Why would I expect shoes?

Nobody is discussing wet conditions except you.

The OP is having shoes that get water in them when the ground is wet, e.g. damp conditions, e.g. Ireland.

Please read the actual posts.

splinter65

L1011 wrote: »

Nobody is discussing wet conditions except you.

The OP is having shoes that get water in them when the ground is wet, e.g. damp conditions, e.g. Ireland.

Please read the actual posts.

Ok. So damp conditions instead of wet conditions. I still fail to see how shoes not advertised as “waterproof” or “water resistant” can be returned as faulty.

L1011

splinter65 wrote: »

Ok. So damp conditions instead of wet conditions. I still fail to see how shoes not advertised as “waterproof” or “water resistant” can be returned as faulty.

Because it is damp in Ireland somewhere between a third and half of the year.

Shoes which can only be used on dry days are slippers, not shoes.

Your wool coat example would only be of any use in summer which, generally, doesn't need coats if we follow your logic.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

Because it is damp in Ireland somewhere between a third and half of the year.

Shoes which can only be used on dry days are slippers, not shoes.

Your wool coat example would only be of any use in summer which, generally, doesn't need coats if we follow your logic.

They are advertised as "casual men's trainers", no mention of being water proof. Surely you are not suggesting that because it rains s lot here, all shoes should be waterproof? Most of my runners are not leather, I certainly wouldn't want a heavy pair of water proof runners when I'm running.

To me it looks like these are a light pair of casual runners to be worn more under jeans. If clothing/footwear is advertised as waterproof then you have a right to be disappointed but there is no claim to be that on the ad.

Gatling

Wonder if the damp insoles isn't from absorbing water ,but more from sweaty feet due to non breathable materials been used and resulting in excess moisture building up inside the shoe

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

They are advertised as "casual men's trainers", no mention of being water proof. Surely you are not suggesting that because it rains s lot here, all shoes should be waterproof? Most of my runners are not leather, I certainly wouldn't want a heavy pair of water proof runners when I'm running.

To me it looks like these are a light pair of casual runners to be worn more under jeans. If clothing/footwear is advertised as waterproof then you have a right to be disappointed but there is no claim to be that on the ad.

The OP has never mentioned wearing them in rain.

If you think that Ireland doesn't have damp ground sufficiently often that casual shoes need to be waterproof, please let me move to your house because the ground is damp basically from September to march outside mine

njs030

L1011 wrote: »

The OP has never mentioned wearing them in rain.

If you think that Ireland doesn't have damp ground sufficiently often that casual shoes need to be waterproof, please let me move to your house because the ground is damp basically from September to march outside mine

They are casual shoes not walking shoes.
Casual shoes are shoes for shopping, nights out, driving etc. Not ultra fancy but definitely not for long walks.

Op can't claim fit for purpose when he isn't using them for the intended purpose of 'casual' use.

colm_mcm

It's ok that my feet are wet cos I'm on a night out. Just as well I wasn't on a long walk?

njs030

colm_mcm wrote: »

It's ok that my feet are wet cos I'm on a night out. Just as well I wasn't on a long walk?

That makes absolutely no sense. Literally none.

Tigger

Harlow Loose Cockroach wrote: »

There would still be an expectation that most shoes should keep your feet dry in damp conditions.

cloth or leather

L1011

notjustsweet wrote: »

They are casual shoes not walking shoes.
Casual shoes are shoes for shopping, nights out, driving etc. Not ultra fancy but definitely not for long walks.

Op can't claim fit for purpose when he isn't using them for the intended purpose of 'casual' use.

The OP has never said they were used on long walks

The people arguing that the shoes are OK are repeatedly inventing scenarios the OP never mentioned. Please desist.

Casual shoes that can't cope with damp ground are slippers, not shoes. Shoes that get your feet wet in normal conditions - of which damp ground is - are not fit for purpose.

njs030

L1011 wrote: »

The OP has never said they were used on long walks

The people arguing that the shoes are OK are repeatedly inventing scenarios the OP never mentioned. Please desist.

Casual shoes that can't cope with damp ground are slippers, not shoes. Shoes that get your feet wet in normal conditions - of which damp ground is - are not fit for purpose.

He said he was out walking in them. They aren't walking shoes.
It doesn't matter how you spin it but casual shoes with stitching all over them are not walking shoes to be used in damp conditions.

I have many, many pairs of shoes costing anything from €10 - €400 and I wouldn't expect any that aren't marked waterproof or water resistant to be suitable for walking. In Ireland. In December.
I have shoes that my feet would be damp walking from the car to the house - that's not a fault in the shoe it's because that's not what they are made for.

Wear walking shoes to go walking, wear casual shoes for casual wear.

L1011

notjustsweet wrote: »

He said he was out walking in them. They aren't walking shoes.
It doesn't matter how you spin it but casual shoes with stitching all over them are not walking shoes to be used in damp conditions.

I have many, many pairs of shoes costing anything from €10 - €400 and I wouldn't expect any that aren't marked waterproof or water resistant to be suitable for walking. In Ireland. In December.
I have shoes that my feet would be damp walking from the car to the house - that's not a fault in the shoe it's because that's not what they are made for.

Wear walking shoes to go walking, wear casual shoes for casual wear.

You are assuming "walking" in their post means fecking hiking. Either that or you slither from your car to the door.

It very clearly doesn't. It obviously just means what you insist on calling casual use which is just use. In a country where its damp for half the year, casual use shoes need to be able to deal with damp ground.

The shoes are cheap Sportsdirect junk and are faulty. End of story.

You and other posters are inventing this mad world where the OP is climing Three Rock in a monsoon when it was never even implied.

You need to return those shoes too. Anything that can't take normal exposure is a slipper not a shoe. Items have to be fit for purpose.

njs030

L1011 wrote: »

You are assuming "walking" in their post means fecking hiking.

It very clearly doesn't. It obviously just means what you insist on calling casual use which is just use. In a country where its damp for half the year, casual use shoes need to be able to deal with damp ground.

The shoes are cheap Sportsdirect junk and are faulty. End of story.

You and other posters are inventing this mad world where the OP is climing Three Rock in a monsoon when it was never even implied.

You need to return those shoes too.

No actually you're inferring a meaning that isn't there.
Please stop doing that. I didn't mention hiking or climbing mountains

No one knows how far the op was walking but when the first pair of shoes got damaged wouldn't it be common sense to think 'maybe these aren't suitable for wet weather?'

I'd be interested to know though what exactly the op was doing, was it mountain hiking (haha) or a simple walk round the shops because the difference between them would mean the difference between the shoe being faulty or not.


Just cos you're a mod doesn't mean you get to say end of story

L1011

notjustsweet wrote: »

No actually you're inferring a meaning that isn't there.
Please stop doing that. I didn't mention hiking or climbing mountains

No one knows how far the op was walking but when the first pair of shoes got damaged wouldn't it be common sense to think 'maybe these aren't suitable for wet weather?'

I'd be interested to know though what exactly the op was doing, was it mountain hiking (haha) or a simple walk round the shops because the difference between them would mean the difference between the shoe being faulty or not.


Just cos you're a mod doesn't mean you get to say end of story

Damp ground is not "wet weather". Its Ireland

The shoes are clearly faulty. You are still inventing scenarios.

If you have new or nearly new shoes that leak on damp ground, return them as they are faulty. You clearly need to do so.

njs030

L1011 wrote: »

Damp ground is not "wet weather". Its Ireland

The shoes are clearly faulty. You are still inventing scenarios.

If you have new or nearly new shoes that leak on damp ground, return them as they are faulty. You clearly need to do so.

What scenario have I invented?

I said the op should enlighten us all to the situation he was in when his feet got wet because if he was using them as walking shoes it's tough luck.
If he was using them as casual shoes they are faulty.

Until he does that this conversation is pointless

L1011

notjustsweet wrote: »

What scenario have I invented?

That they're going for long walks and in wet weather. Both of which are not even vaguely implied in their posts.

Ireland is damp, if your shoes can't handle being used in the damp sell them as slippers or don't sell them at all.

njs030

L1011 wrote: »

That they're going for long walks and in wet weather. Both of which are not even vaguely implied in their posts.

Ireland is damp, if your shoes can't handle being used in the damp sell them as slippers or don't sell them at all.

Seriously in my last 2 posts I've said that it would be good if the op could clarify what he was using his shoes for so people could advise him properly.

Are you reading the posts at all?

Theres more than two types of shoes - outside and slippers. There's other shoes that don't like getting wet!

italodisco

I hate to sound bad but Kangol shoes? Surely this thread is someone trolling??

Were Kangol shoes not something that would have been left in the 1990s with kickers jumpers and naff naff jackets?

L1011

notjustsweet wrote: »

Seriously in my last 2 posts I've said that it would be good if the op could clarify what he was using his shoes for so people could advise him properly.

Are you reading the posts at all?

Theres more than two types of shoes - outside and slippers. There's other shoes that don't like getting wet!

I've read every post in this thread.

The shoes the OP linked to are outdoor shoes - it is insanity to claim otherwise. They are faulty if they leak in normal Irish conditions which is all we have to go on.

Again - if you can't make shoes that cope with normal Irish conditions, call them slippers or don't sell them in Ireland.

njs030

L1011 wrote: »

I've read every post in this thread.

The shoes the OP linked to are outdoor shoes - it is insanity to claim otherwise. They are faulty if they leak in normal Irish conditions which is all we have to go on.

Again - if you can't make shoes that cope with normal Irish conditions, call them slippers or don't sell them in Ireland.

Huh? Who said they weren't outside shoes?

I'm genuinely baffled now so I'm leaving this thread.

L1011

notjustsweet wrote: »

Huh? Who said they weren't outside shoes?

I'm genuinely baffled now so I'm leaving this thread.

You did!

You being baffled by your own posts doesn't surprise me as I've been pretty baffled by all of them.

Mech1

They are sold in Ireland and advertised as suitable for everyday use.

That means to me they should not let in water when walking on wet ground.

theteal

This thread got a bit weird. OP, they're rubber soled shoes, they should definitely not be letting in moisture from a normal wet pavement - sodden grass, jumping in puddles would be a different story. They're not fit for purpose, send them back.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

I've read every post in this thread.

The shoes the OP linked to are outdoor shoes - it is insanity to claim otherwise. They are faulty if they leak in normal Irish conditions which is all we have to go on.

Again - if you can't make shoes that cope with normal Irish conditions, call them slippers or don't sell them in Ireland.

Calm down, you're feet'll be getting a bit sweaty if you keep going like this. We have shoes for Irish weather conditions, buy a pair of welliingtons (rubber = low porosity).

I hate to break it to you, manufacturers don't make shoes specifically for the Irish damp (not wet mind you) market, they make them for all markets and climates. As far as I know there is no legal requirement that shoes sold in Ireland be waterproof so they withstand damp, not wet mind you, conditions.

But here's the thing, L1011, where do these shoes claim to be waterproof? You can say they should be this, they should be that, but they do not claim to be anymore than they are. Maybe people in drier, not wet mind you, climates appreciate a little bit of porosity.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

davo10 wrote: »

Calm down, you're feet'll be getting a bit sweaty if you keep going like this. We have shoes for Irish weather conditions, buy a pair of welliingtons (rubber = low porosity).

I hate to break it to you, manufacturers don't make shoes specifically for the Irish damp (not wet mind you) market, they make them for all markets and climates. As far as I know there is no legal requirement that shoes sold in Ireland be waterproof so they withstand damp, not wet mind you, conditions.

But here's the thing, L1011, where do these shoes claim to be waterproof? You can say they should be this, they should be that, but they do not claim to be anymore than they are. Maybe people in drier, not wet mind you, climates appreciate a little bit of porosity.

Apart from my hiking shoes and walking boots, none of my everyday shoes have ever said they were waterproof. "Ordinary" shoes aren't labelled as water resistant. It is an expectation of a shoe, other than sandals and slippers, that it will keep your feet dry in everyday conditions.

davo10

Harlow Loose Cockroach wrote: »

Apart from my hiking shoes and walking boots, none of my everyday shoes have ever said they were waterproof. "Ordinary" shoes aren't labelled as water resistant. It is an expectation of a shoe, other than sandals and slippers, that it will keep your feet dry in everyday conditions.

True, but can there be a shoe for "everyday" conditions?, conditions here differ from conditions in Spain, Poland, US, etc. Brands don't make different specs of each shoe for different markets. If you want a waterproof shoe fit for our damp, not wet, underfoot conditions, then buy a shoe which has a water proof spec, if it doesn't claim to be waterproof, it isnt.

William Shakespeare once wrote "expectation is the root of all heartache", it cannot be taken as reality until it is so.

Cazale

I bought a pair of runners from Sports Direct when I was away for a few nights in Cavan. Wore them for a few hours and then started to drive home to Kildare. I had to pull the car over halfway home and let the missus drive as my feet were in agony. Absolute rubbish quality and I would never buy anything from them again.

colm_mcm

Even the cheapest Dunnes/Penneys shoes dont let in water like the OP describes.

davo10

colm_mcm wrote: »

Even the cheapest Dunnes/Penneys shoes dont let in water like the OP describes.

Ironically, those shoes are probably bought by Penny's/Dunne's with the Irish climate in mind.