Elvery's return policy more important than my consumer rights??

bfa1509

I went into Elvery's yesterday to buy a pair of football boots for tag rugby that evening. As the ground is hard at the moment, I new from past experience that you should get ones with the so-called "mouldy" style studs. The only pair that fitted and I liked had mouldy studs but they had blade type studs on the heels. I asked the assistant about this and he said that they should be fine but bring them back if they are not.

I wore the boots to training and sure enough they completely shredded the skin on my feet. I brought the boots back today to trade them in. I found a more expensive pair that had mouldys on both foot and heel. When I went to the counter to swap them the lady at the till opened the box and saw a small grass stain on the sole of one of the boots.

Her: "You can't bring these back, you've worn them"
Me: "But the boots are cutting into my feet, I have them in the original box with the reciept. What's the problem?"
Her: "That doesn't matter, you've worn them. How do you expect us to resell boots that have been worn?"
Me: "Wait a second. Refusing a trade in goes against not only my consumer rights but your own store policy"
Her: "I've been working here for 23 years, I think I know the store policy better than you do"
Me: "So you are going to refuse a trade in and leave me with boots that put blisters on my feet?"
Her: "Well I can't see any manufacturer's fault with them, but if you want, I can send them pictures of your feet and let them establish that the boots are faulty. If they agree then I can accept the trade in"

I was in complete disbelief at this. I am quite good with knowing my consumer rights, but the stubborness of this person had me questioning myself. The argument went on for 20 minutes and she wasn't budging. I didn't want to have the boots sent back to the manufacturer as I have training again on Monday.

Is there any truth to what this person is saying? Or did I cave too quickly?

dobman88

New boots always cause blisters of some sort. After two or three wears you'll be fine, break em in. Get some compeed gel plasters. Be grand.

drunkmonkey

You bought off a He and went back to a She, see is your guy working tomorrow and clean them before you go back to him.

liam7831

Their is actually nothing wrong with the boots so they don't have to give you a refund.

theteal

Ehhh, what consumer right enables somebody to trade in worn footwear?
Blisters from hard ground is a part of sporting life, Vaseline in the feet beforehand helps, not a consumer issue.

bfa1509

dobman88 wrote: »

New boots always cause blisters of some sort. After two or three wears you'll be fine, break em in. Get some compeed gel plasters. Be grand.

You are right, but I have experience of both the break-in blisters and the unsuitable-stud blisters. Unsuitable studs cause horrific skin peels.

Regardless of this, was the lady right in refusing to take a trade in? I have vague memories of coming up against the woman years ago when I was a teenager and she was equally painful. I can't understand why she wouldn't take back the problematic pair that cost €60 in favour of a better pair that cost €100. Usually staff are delighted to take back a cheaper pair in return for a more expensive pair.

davo10

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You bought off a He and went back to a She.

Wow.

Op, are the boots defective? If not, you wore them out on a hard pitch, once. They can't be resold.

Sofiztikated

bfa1509 wrote: »

You are right, but I have experience of both the break-in blisters and the unsuitable-stud blisters. Unsuitable studs cause horrific skin peels.

Regardless of this, was the lady right in refusing to take a trade in? I have vague memories of coming up against the woman years ago when I was a teenager and she was equally painful. I can't understand why she wouldn't take back the problematic pair that cost €60 in favour of a better pair that cost €100. Usually staff are delighted to take back a cheaper pair in return for a more expensive pair.

It's change of mind.

https://www.ccpc.ie/consumers/shopping/buying-goods/changing-your-mind/

chillinpenguin

No the woman was correct.

You cant exchange because you have changed your mind....Most stores offer this as a customer service but it is not a law.

You can legally only change if there is a fault. As stated blisters is hard to prove as a fault and you would have to battle that out with the manufacturer

You going is saying they hurt your feet..... well thats your problem.

You going in saying a stud broke off that there issues as you bought something that was supposed to be fit for purpose.

az2wp0sye65487

bfa1509 wrote: »

You are right, but I have experience of both the break-in blisters and the unsuitable-stud blisters. Unsuitable studs cause horrific skin peels.

Regardless of this, was the lady right in refusing to take a trade in? I have vague memories of coming up against the woman years ago when I was a teenager and she was equally painful. I can't understand why she wouldn't take back the problematic pair that cost €60 in favour of a better pair that cost €100. Usually staff are delighted to take back a cheaper pair in return for a more expensive pair.

But there is no fault with your boots and you had worn them. The retailer couldn't sell them again. So they would be losing out on that sale....

If you were in their position, would you accept returns that were not faulty and then let a customer buy another version at a discounted price?

Wesser

you are not within your rights. the boots are not defective. They just didnt suit you. You can only insist on returning something if it is faulty, which it is not. consumer rights only protect you if the goods are faulty which they are not.

most people wear new shoes around the house for just a few minutes to check they are OK. you should have done this


if its just a change of mind, and not a faulty good, as in this case, then the store can exchange them if they want to but are not obliged to, and most stores will not if the good are clearly worn

lawred2

bfa1509 wrote: »

I went into Elvery's yesterday to buy a pair of football boots for tag rugby that evening. As the ground is hard at the moment, I new from past experience that you should get ones with the so-called "mouldy" style studs. The only pair that fitted and I liked had mouldy studs but they had blade type studs on the heels. I asked the assistant about this and he said that they should be fine but bring them back if they are not.

I wore the boots to training and sure enough they completely shredded the skin on my feet. I brought the boots back today to trade them in. I found a more expensive pair that had mouldys on both foot and heel. When I went to the counter to swap them the lady at the till opened the box and saw a small grass stain on the sole of one of the boots.

Her: "You can't bring these back, you've worn them"
Me: "But the boots are cutting into my feet, I have them in the original box with the reciept. What's the problem?"
Her: "That doesn't matter, you've worn them. How do you expect us to resell boots that have been worn?"
Me: "Wait a second. Refusing a trade in goes against not only my consumer rights but your own store policy"
Her: "I've been working here for 23 years, I think I know the store policy better than you do"
Me: "So you are going to refuse a trade in and leave me with boots that put blisters on my feet?"
Her: "Well I can't see any manufacturer's fault with them, but if you want, I can send them pictures of your feet and let them establish that the boots are faulty. If they agree then I can accept the trade in"

I was in complete disbelief at this. I am quite good with knowing my consumer rights, but the stubborness of this person had me questioning myself. The argument went on for 20 minutes and she wasn't budging. I didn't want to have the boots sent back to the manufacturer as I have training again on Monday.

Is there any truth to what this person is saying? Or did I cave too quickly?

You wore them

They are not defective

They are now used

What makes you think you can return used non defective items?

ebbsy

Try gel insoles.

L1011

I haven't ever had a pair of hard leather shoes or boots that didn't cause quite nasty issues if worn immediately for long periods - football boots included.

You would need to actually break these in to proof a manufacturing fault.

J.pilkington

Shop is dead right. What are they supposed to do with the boots you have worn? The manufacturer won’t take them back just because a customer didn’t have the patience to wear them in. So do you expect elverys to take a huge hit of them and try dispose of them somewhere else (they don’t sell 2nd hand boots).

In your world i assume you expect elverys to stick them back on the shelf? I wouldn’t like the thought of buying expensive new boots when in reality someone has previously worn them to a training session(which you admit was on hard ground), sweated in them and then returned them.

jaxxx

Is OP having a laugh? Please tell me OP's having a laugh and not actually serious..............

bfa1509

This is what it says on www.citizensinformation.ie:

"Goods must be of merchantable quality – goods should be of reasonable quality taking into account what they are meant to do, their durability and their price
Goods must be fit for their purpose – they must do what they are reasonably expected to do
Goods must be as described - the buyer must not be mislead into buying something by the description of goods or services given orally by a salesperson or an advertisement."


I've worn in plenty of boots in the past. I know well what wear-in blisters are like. These boots shredded my feet over an hour long training session. How is that fit for purpose? How was I not mislead by the salesperson when he said the boots should be fine for the hard ground?

Sofiztikated

bfa1509 wrote: »

This is what it says on www.citizensinformation.ie:

"Goods must be of merchantable quality – goods should be of reasonable quality taking into account what they are meant to do, their durability and their price
Goods must be fit for their purpose – they must do what they are reasonably expected to do
Goods must be as described - the buyer must not be mislead into buying something by the description of goods or services given orally by a salesperson or an advertisement."


I've worn in plenty of boots in the past. I know well what wear-in blisters are like. These boots shredded my feet over an hour long training session. How is that fit for purpose? How was I not mislead by the salesperson when he said the boots should be fine for the hard ground?

And yet, for someone else, they may have been grand.

Wesser

They just didnt suit your feet, that doesnt mean they are defective in manufacturing. It like buying the wrong shoe size, they are perfectly manufactured to all standards, but will not fit your feet.

This is a very common phenomenen. maybe women experience it more??? cant believe you have never bought shoes that have hurt you before. cant believe that every single pair of shoes youve ever owned fit you like a glove. I remember shoes that have hurt me before. fit me well in the shop but after a night on the town big blisters on the heels. Now I always do a trial run at home on my own carpet to make sure all is good.

Surely you can understand the difference between, doesnt suit your feet, and defectively made???!!!!!


salesman said ' should be fine for hard ground' he cant guarantee it, he is just doing his best to he helpful for you, its not a cast iron guarantee. thats just an expression that friendly irish people use..........he is just indicating that he has done his best...........

Dr Turk Turkelton

jaxxx wrote: »

Is OP having a laugh? Please tell me OP's having a laugh and not actually serious..............

How is he having a laugh, sure he said he knows his rights.
I'm going back with my old dirty boots tomorrow to get a new pair of Adidas using my "consumer rights".

tomwaits48

Are you for real??

bucketybuck

bfa1509 wrote: »

I can't understand why she wouldn't take back the problematic pair that cost €60 in favour of a better pair that cost €100. Usually staff are delighted to take back a cheaper pair in return for a more expensive pair.

Because they would be selling a €100 pair of boots in exchange for €40 and a pair of used boots they can't resell. Thats not exactly favourable for the shop.

I'm surprised at the shop to be honest. I have returned runners to places like Amphibian King purely because after 10/20k of running I had sore feet and felt muscle pains developing, no obvious defect with the shoes but they took them back no problem and got me sorted with replacements.

Thats an issue of customer service though, not a consumer rights issue. Its very possible that the OP went too hard too soon on the boots and got himself a few blisters, so while lots of places will replace them no questions asked, they don't necessarily have to do that.

bfa1509

bfa1509 wrote: »

This is what it says on www.citizensinformation.ie:

"Goods must be of merchantable quality – goods should be of reasonable quality taking into account what they are meant to do, their durability and their price
Goods must be fit for their purpose – they must do what they are reasonably expected to do
Goods must be as described - the buyer must not be mislead into buying something by the description of goods or services given orally by a salesperson or an advertisement."


I've worn in plenty of boots in the past. I know well what wear-in blisters are like. These boots shredded my feet over an hour long training session. How is that fit for purpose? How was I not mislead by the salesperson when he said the boots should be fine for the hard ground?

Sofiztikated wrote: »

And yet, for someone else, they may have been grand.

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

How is he having a laugh, sure he said he knows his rights.
I'm going back with my old dirty boots tomorrow to get a new pair of Adidas using my "consumer rights".

Funny how you resort to jokes when you've been stumped with the above argument. How about you put the effort in and string an informative counter-arguement together that might be helpful to me and others? (if you can)

davo10

bfa1509 wrote: »

Funny how you resort to jokes when you've been stumped with the above argument. How about you put the effort in and string an informative counter-arguement together that might be helpful to me and others? (if you can)

The boots just don't suit you/your feet, unfortunately that doesn't mean they are defective. Consumer law does not cover that as the boots aren't defective. You probably would get more informative/sympathetic posts if you hadn't stated that you know your consumer rights. Consumer law covers non merchantible items, this would seem to be a pair of boots that just don't suit you.

jimmycrackcorm

bfa1509 wrote:

I've worn in plenty of boots in the past. I know well what wear-in blisters are like. These boots shredded my feet over an hour long training session. How is that fit for purpose? How was I not mislead by the salesperson when he said the boots should be fine for the hard ground?

Have you thought about going back to your mother and father to complain about your faulty feet and asking them to take you back and adopt you out?

Herpes Free Since03

OP bought the wrong shoes, happens all the time ...
go into Elverys...ask for rugby boots... meant to ask for ballet shoes....easy mistake to make

jaxxx

I think the moral of this story is.... don't do drugs kids.

L1011

Posting has got too silly to continue, back on topic please.

Nonoperational

bfa1509 wrote: »

I went into Elvery's yesterday to buy a pair of football boots for tag rugby that evening. As the ground is hard at the moment, I new from past experience that you should get ones with the so-called "mouldy" style studs. The only pair that fitted and I liked had mouldy studs but they had blade type studs on the heels. I asked the assistant about this and he said that they should be fine but bring them back if they are not.

I wore the boots to training and sure enough they completely shredded the skin on my feet. I brought the boots back today to trade them in. I found a more expensive pair that had mouldys on both foot and heel. When I went to the counter to swap them the lady at the till opened the box and saw a small grass stain on the sole of one of the boots.

Her: "You can't bring these back, you've worn them"
Me: "But the boots are cutting into my feet, I have them in the original box with the reciept. What's the problem?"
Her: "That doesn't matter, you've worn them. How do you expect us to resell boots that have been worn?"
Me: "Wait a second. Refusing a trade in goes against not only my consumer rights but your own store policy"
Her: "I've been working here for 23 years, I think I know the store policy better than you do"
Me: "So you are going to refuse a trade in and leave me with boots that put blisters on my feet?"
Her: "Well I can't see any manufacturer's fault with them, but if you want, I can send them pictures of your feet and let them establish that the boots are faulty. If they agree then I can accept the trade in"

I was in complete disbelief at this. I am quite good with knowing my consumer rights, but the stubborness of this person had me questioning myself. The argument went on for 20 minutes and she wasn't budging. I didn't want to have the boots sent back to the manufacturer as I have training again on Monday.

Is there any truth to what this person is saying? Or did I cave too quickly?

You are completely in the wrong and must be mad to think they should take them back. In future check what you need before you buy.

beechwood55

bfa1509 wrote: »

. I am quite good with knowing my consumer rights,

You're actually not.

theteal

Sorry OP, it’s your feet that are not fit for purpose. Don’t worry I get the same thing every year as the ground begins to harden, your feet will toughen up after a couple of sessions but they will never be completely immune to those painful little feckers, that’s just the nature of summer time sports.

Now I hope you just didn’t go into the shop giving it the “I know my rights” speil as that a great way to get shop staff to not want to be helpful, especially when you’re completely incorrect - as is the case here unfortunately.

Now your solution, if you must part with them, is going to be to try sell them on second hand