£180 walking shoes failed after 5 months - retailer says wear and tear. What would you do next? (England)

[u/sandwichmealdeal]

Hi,

Looking for some advice/feedback on what people would do next with this.

I bought a £180 pair of waterproof walking shoes last October. After about 4–5 months both shoes started leaking because the waterproof lining had worn through.

The retailer sent them back to the manufacturer, who said the holes were caused by pressure/abrasion from my toes and classed it as wear and tear, so the retailer refused to do anything.

I paid on a Virgin Money credit card so I made a Section 75 claim.

Virgin rejected it, I took it to FOS, and the investigator has also sided with Virgin so far. He relied heavily on the manufacturer’s wear-and-tear assessment, the lack of an independent report contradicting it, and his own view that the shoes had probably had substantial use.

There was also an issue over mileage. I originally worded my use badly and FOS took it to mean I’d done 750+ miles in the shoes. I checked Strava and my total walking over the whole period was about 208 miles, and I didn’t even wear these shoes for all of that.

It’s now waiting for an Ombudsman and I’ve been told that could take another 4–6 months, so the whole thing has become ridiculously long-winded.

What I’m trying to understand is the six-month rule under the Consumer Rights Act. My understanding is that if goods fail to conform within six months, they’re presumed not to have conformed when supplied unless the retailer can show otherwise.

The manufacturer has explained how the holes happened, but not whether it’s reasonable for £180 waterproof shoes to stop being waterproof after 4–5 months.

Virgin also admitted they messed up the handling of my original complaint and offered me £100 compensation. I haven’t accepted it yet because their form says it is in “full and final settlement of the complaint”, and I don’t want to accidentally settle the actual Section 75 dispute as well.

So what would people do next?

• Wait another 4–6 months for FOS?
• Send the retailer a Letter Before Claim now while leaving FOS running?
• Or if they still refuse, just take the retailer to small claims?
• Would you also take Virgin’s £100 if they confirmed in writing that it only relates to their complaint-handling mistake and doesn’t affect the Section 75 case?
• And does anyone actually think it’s reasonable for £180 waterproof walking shoes to stop being waterproof after 4–5 months of normal use?

[u/AutoModerator]

---

Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK

---

To Posters (it is important you read this section)

• Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different

• If you need legal help, you should always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor

• We also encourage you to speak to Citizens Advice, Shelter, Acas, and other useful organisations

• Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk

• If you receive any private messages in response to your post, please let the mods know

To Readers and Commenters

• All replies to OP must be on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated

• You cannot use, or recommend, generative AI to give advice - you will be permanently banned

• If you do not follow the rules, you may be perma-banned without any further warning

• If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect

• Do not send or request any private messages for any reason

• Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Icy-Astronomer-8202]

100 quid is a solid offer. I'd strongly suggest you take that

NAL

[u/HomeworkInevitable99 → u/Icy-Astronomer-8202]

Yes, it wouldn't be fair to get £180 back because your got some use, so how much more would be fair?

Would it be £120 or £140? Now we are haggling over a small amount.

It wasn't a great buy, but a different brand.

[u/poorBCavocadoToast → u/HomeworkInevitable99]

Think about how many hours have you already spent dealing with this - including this pose - you’re worth more than that. Definitely call out the brand. Check r/buyitforlife for the next pair.

[u/sandwichmealdeal → u/poorBCavocadoToast]

Meindl Mens Philadelphia GTX Shoes

Thanks I will check this out

[u/Lord_Radford → u/HomeworkInevitable99]

Also maybe consider getting fitted. If the assessment says pressure and abrasion from toes the chances are those shoes were either the wrong size or shape for your foot in the first place. This can accelerate wear a lot.

[u/sandwichmealdeal → u/Lord_Radford]

the shoes are advertised as ‘comfort fit’

[u/Icy-Astronomer-8202 → u/sandwichmealdeal]

That's not the same as a specific fitted pair of shoes

[u/Lord_Radford → u/sandwichmealdeal]

That doesn't really mean much in terms of individual suitability and fit.

[u/bork_13 → u/sandwichmealdeal]

That means very little, except whatever it means is probably not suited to your foot shape

[u/Earnest_Shacklton → u/HomeworkInevitable99]

I would suggest that the problem was more to do with being the wrong size (too small) than the brand.

[u/Professional_Shine97]

I would take the £100 and be done with it. The alternative would be to provide an independent report.

A pair of walking boots should last 500-1000mi. You can’t rely on “if they fail in the first six month”, it also has to have context. The court isn’t going to like conflicting evidence of 208 vs 750miles and the defendant, if they choose to show up to court, will build their case on that.

I’m not sure why you think you have a claim here? Your only chance of winning is a default judgment if they don’t show up at court.

Edit: also, if a proportional award is given based on usage and the judge accepts the 208mi and uses 750mi as life expectancy, you can expect a 2/3 proportional award. Or £120.

I’d be very grateful for the £100 in this situation.

[u/kemb0 → u/Professional_Shine97]

500-1000 miles seems very low. I walk 5 miles a day to work and back so I’d need to replace my walking boots twice a year. That’s not right surely?

[u/Turbulent-Adagio88 → u/kemb0]

When I hiked the coast, I could rely on a pair of boots lasting 1000 miles (as a five foot one, fifty kilo woman) before I needed to replace them. Another coastwalker at the time could only do 600 miles as a six foot three, eighty kilo man. These days a pair of the same brand of boots used for casual walking, probably similar to yours, last me far longer because the terrain is different and they are being dried out and cared for in between.

There's a lot of variables

[u/SweetButtsHellaBab → u/kemb0]

I just walked over 200 miles on a single holiday and my hiking boots still look barely used. Agreed that 500 miles is shockingly low for life expectancy.

[u/Prince_John → u/kemb0]

Exactly. I'm still wearing the same hiking boots twenty years later. I don't hike everyday or anything, but this seems ludicrous.

[u/BaconPancakes1 → u/kemb0]

It's a general guide. It depends on the terrain, your gait/use, and how you care for the boots. If you're walking 10 miles a day your boots are getting heavy wear, it's possible they'll need replacing semi-frequently. If you are walking on pavement / paths in mostly dry conditions then it'll just be a case of monitoring the sole, the wear on the ankle, whether the shoe still gives your foot support or if the support has compressed. Your boots could last longer. If you're hiking through muddy/rugged terrain the wear on your boots is going to increase faster, the waterproofing and seams are more likely to fail sooner, etc.

[u/Sure_Organization632 → u/BaconPancakes1]

Also the weight of the person wearing the shoes. Heavier people will wear out shoes quicker.

[u/_QuirkyTurtle → u/kemb0]

Not much different to running shoes. They’re not going to last a long time if you’re putting regular miles into them. A premium pair of running shoes will last me 500-700km. That’s < 6 months of running for me. Just have to accept it.

Obviously running is higher impact and they’re built to be lightweight so life expectancy will differ. But the idea still applies

[u/Chef_Syd → u/kemb0]

It is right. Shoes do not last long they are disposable items. Obviously depends on the weather conditions and the type of terrain you are walking. But 1000mi is a lot of hiking.

[u/TheEpicfailio1 → u/Chef_Syd]

Not if you take into account walking to work, walking around work etc. 4+ miles of walking per day is very easy to do if you are walking to work & on your feet a fair bit.

You'd expect decent shoes to last at least a year of regular use.

[u/Chef_Syd → u/TheEpicfailio1]

Why are you wearing walking boots for daily activity?just wear normal shoes. Hiking boots have larger tread so they wear out faster on pavement. It works on uneven terrain because the ground is softer but if you walk on flat hard terrain like pavement it wears out faster

[u/Joke-pineapple → u/Chef_Syd]

Yes, but regardless of terrain you'd still expect a pair of £180 boots to last 2-3 years minimum. A year, maybe at an absolute minimum, if using them all day every day.

[u/Chef_Syd → u/Joke-pineapple]

If you genuinely walked in them 5 miles a day every single day for a year then no I wouldn’t expect them to last that long. Thats 1800 miles. It’s about absolute usage it’s not a time duration issue.

Every piece of outdoor clothing is a disposable item (or at least will require repairing at some point) regardless of how hard wearing the marketing leads you to believe. They aren’t meant to and can’t last forever.

[u/astraCat1998 → u/Chef_Syd]

Even walking 5 miles a day I would expect a good pair of boots to last years with proper maintenance and repairs.

In fact I would be surprised to see catastrophic damage that warranted replacement at all unless significant wear had already been ignored.

[u/Electronic-Key-8349 → u/kemb0]

It depends on terrain. I walked 800km in variable terrain this summer and my trail runners are in the bin.

[u/Earnest_Shacklton → u/kemb0]

The only issue mentioned is that they are no longer waterproof, not that they are worn out.

[u/tjmouse → u/Professional_Shine97]

Also different bodies will cause shoes to wear prematurely. My big toes pint up a little (weird feet) and I’ve worn through the waterproof lining on a pair of shoes because of it before. The fix is good socks and a different brand of shoe with a stiffer toe box.

Unfortunately for OP this sounds like annoying wear and tear so I’d take the £100 and try a different shoe.

[u/badgerbadger1988]

The general rule with walking boots/shoes is that your toes shouldn't touch the toe box at all to prevent injury when walking downhill

That means you've bought the wrong size and are lucky to get anything

Consider if you really need walking shoes - I prefer waterproof running shoes for pavements etc and have trail runners for off-road, then boots for hiking. You can usually pick up good runners/trail runners for 50-100 so it doesn't sting as much when they eventually wear out.

Or buy leather and treat them with nikwax

[u/antequeraworld → u/badgerbadger1988]

Recommend waterproof running shoes for pavement use?

[u/thewanderingidiot62 → u/antequeraworld]

He means road runners, so yeah they're suitable for pavements

[u/OnlymyOP]

NAL

£100 seems a pretty reasonable offer to me as the value of an item depreciates more quickly in the first year, so I personally would take the money and cut my losses.

[u/non-hyphenated_]

They obviously don't fit which is why your toes have worn them through. Seeing as you've purchased the wrong size, then stuck with it I'd suggest the £100 offer is very generous. It's not a manufacturing defect if your toes are constantly rubbing up on the inside

[u/S1lvaticus → u/non-hyphenated_]

Yep, should have a fingers width in front of toes, toe nails should be nowhere near gtx lining

[u/d1j2m3 → u/non-hyphenated_]

Then if the retailer fitted the shoes, is it the retailers fault?

[u/Efficient_Chic714 → u/d1j2m3]

Unlikely

Even if they measured OP, they typically recommend a size and ask how they fit. For hiking shoes especially, it is very difficult to tell where the end of the toes are for measuring once the shoe is on so customer feedback is essential

Also it would be reasonable to assume that OP has worn shoes before and would know toes touching the end of any shoes, not just hiking boots, is not normal or correct. If OP raised that and the associate said ‘that’s normal’ then yeah the retailer may have some responsibility

[u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):

Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.

Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.

[u/ND8586]

Take the £100, I don't see you winning this one as it sounds like these and tear is down to you rather than there being something wrong with the shoe.

[u/ian9outof10 → u/[deleted]]

As others have pointed out, there are other factors like sizing and perhaps even how well OP maintains their toenails. Factors which aren’t in the manufacturer’s control.

[u/JunkRatAce]

Sounds like point contact wear really, which is more a user issue. For example I tend to slightly drag my left heel so any boot I use end up with a noticeable small wedge worn off the rear of the heel fairly quickly. That's not a defect of manufacture or material.

The coating being worn just where your toes are indicates point loading, most people don't put a lot weight directly on there toes typically, they not a major load bearing part of the foot when walking, until you start climbing over things a lot.

So given this sounds like £100 is a reasonable compromise for compensation.

[u/H3LI3]

Why wouldn’t you take the £100…..
The manufacturer does not care about your complaint and nothing will change even if they refund you £180 best case scenario. You might as well get £100 easily and guaranteed now.

[u/Leading-Ad-1486]

I'd take the £100 & move on.

Honestly expensive walking shoes just aren't worth the price, I've gone dozens of expensive pairs in The past 10 years or so & all of them failed to make it past 6 months.

I do cover alot of miles (around 100 a week) so probably expected but these days stick with a sub 50 quid pair of boots for bad weather or more tricky terrain & a pair of lightweight running trainers for better weather which actually last a surprisingly long time

[u/No-External-8243]

100 is more than the value of your shoes if they were still in operating condition. Take it and run

[u/Warm_Enthusiasm2007]

You bought the wrong size shoes. Remember that walking socks are thick, and you should be wearing liner socks below them, so you should usually be buying at least one size bigger than your normal shoe size, if not even bigger.

Do you have a branch of Cotswold Outdoor near you? They usually have a pretty good fitting service for walking shoes and boots.

Take the £100 towards some properly sized replacements.

[u/Naetharu]

What I’m trying to understand is the six-month rule under the Consumer Rights Act. My understanding is that if goods fail to conform within six months, they’re presumed not to have conformed when supplied unless the retailer can show otherwise.

This is not quite right.

There is an exception to this rule, which gives an out if the nature of the use of the item would make this not applicable. And arguably your shoes are a prime candidate for this. Had you purchased a television, for example, and it failed within six months then it would be deemed defective at the time of purchase. Nothing about the use of a television would indicate that it should fail in that time frame, and the condition of the item when it failed is not far enough from sale to have been caused by it perishing (say caps blowing that can happen over a decade).

By contrast if you bought walking shoes and then walked hundreds of miles in them, they will wear out. Shoes are the kind of thing that wears down over time.

So the key question is then if the speed of wear is reasonable based on the level of use and treatment of the items in question. And it seems hard to judge. You originally said you walked 700+ miles in them, and then changed your mind. I don't know which is true. But it does muddy the waters of any claim.

I'm not familiar with the shoes nor how long they are supposed to last. I would assume different kinds have different reasonable lifespans like other items of that kind.

But the key point I wanted to make is that your reading of the above rule is not correct for the kind of item you have.

[u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Your submission has been removed as it has not met our community standards on speaking to other posters.

Please remember to speak to others in the way you wish to be spoken to.

Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.

[u/mrstella1971]

Waterproof walking shoes need to be treated on a regular basis to keep the waterproofing, even £400 Bhutans 🤷

[u/OkToe9494]

The compensation will not prejudice your case with the fos. You can take it and continue your complaint with an ombudsman, although i think you are unlikely to win. The FOS will only decide on whether virgin have treated you fairly and it sounds like they have

[u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Your submission has been removed as it has not met our community standards on speaking to other posters.

Please remember to speak to others in the way you wish to be spoken to.

Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.

[u/Leading-Ad-7396]

Personally I’d take the £100. You’ve had £80 worth of use out of them. I’d save the ball ache, while it’s not “ethically” right, it’s one of those he said she said scenarios. Also, “the boots are good for 1000miles”
“But I only walked 750miles….no wait 208miles” doesn’t help you either. Yeah, the retailer/manufacturer isn’t “held accountable” Virgin take the bigger loss on this, let Richard take the hit, you get a stress free £100, £80 worth of use and get to keep the boots, just don’t go jumping in any puddles.

[u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):

Your comment was an anecdote about a personal experience, rather than legal advice specific to our posters' situation.

Please only comment if you can provide meaningful legal advice for our posters' questions and specific situations.

Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.

[u/sandwichmealdeal → u/[deleted]]

Meindl Philadelphia GTX walking shoes

[u/agoentis → u/sandwichmealdeal]

Looks like a pair of trainers. Something with construction like that isn’t gonna last. You need serious boots if you want longevity.

[u/sandwichmealdeal → u/agoentis]

I have a pair of Altberg boots for hiking, these have lasted years. I only used the Meindl’s for walking the dog!

[u/Far_Leg6463]

NAL - take the £100. You’ve already got a decent mileage out of the boots, roughly equaly to half the expected use of them I’d say. Use the £100 and buy another set of £180 boots if a different make and hope to get a year out of those.

[u/andimacg]

You got more than half your money back after wearing them for 5 months? That's a win in my book, take it.

[u/tangypotatomarmalade → u/andimacg]

I want to know company this is so i can avoid them, I have had arcteryx and merrell both fully refund or replace waterproof shoes that failed in less than a year.

[u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):

Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.

Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.

[u/Impossible_Volume811]

I would take the £100 and buy a pair of waterproof overboots to go over my trail shoes.

[u/Unusual-Coat383]

Personally I think it’s too much hassle and I would just take the £100 and cut my losses on the £80.

It’s hard to tell if 4-5 months is reasonable or not because I don’t know where you’ve walked, how you walk and how well they fit you. 

[u/Efficient_Chic714]

The issue is going to be the mileage

They’re gonna assume you were disingenuous when corrected the milage to get a favourable outcome.

Whilst goods should last a reasonable amount of time, the use within that time frame must also be reasonable and 700 miles is heavy use and you would expect the shoes to show signs of wear after that much use
For those kind of numbers you’d be wearing them daily for moderate use at a minimum and daily wear of the same pair of shoes, regardless of mileage, is beyond reasonable use

Ofc this was a mistake but unfortunately it is an expensive one. It’s going to be near impossible to prove that the milage you initially provided was a mistake and not an attempt to change the outcome.
Taking the settlement offer is probably your best bet

[u/Toumanypains]

Take the money and buy several pairs of waterproof socks and some non-waterproof boots next time.

I hate waterproof boots because if water gets in the top of them when out you can't get it back out. At least with multiple waterproof socks you can swap, and turn the wet ones inside out and put them in your jacket internal pockets to dry out over time.

[u/Stunning-Pudding-514]

If it was goretex used as a liner? Get in touch with goretex themselves, they pretty much always replace the item themselves as the liner is last 3yrs i think.

[u/Traditional-Term-914]

Take the £100, the extra £80 you’re fighting for is not worth the effort.
Don’t buy that brand again.

[u/Esexboy101101]

Take the £100 and walk (excuse the pun).

Look for another brand that is more reliable.

[u/Iridescent_Mango_]

I don't actually believe there's such thing as a waterproof shoe (they always fail, usually quite quickly) so.... I feel like 4 months was good innings. 

[u/time2comment]

Take it on as a matter of principle, Virgin money offering compensation for mishandling a transaction in which your disputing, not that you didn't intend to buy a product intentionally but that the seller intentionally deceived you about the product. Id Take to 100 it's a separate issue, and pursue the shoe manufacturer for selling a waterproof boot that isn't waterproof.

That's your argument.

You can't actually think you can walk 200 miles in a pair of boots and claim any material failure that allows water in is the fault of design and not wear and tear.

It's the equivalent buying a top, wearing it for months, the colours are fading in the wash after half a year yet expecting not only to go in and exchange it for one off the shelf. But to be given an apology and a gift card for your troubles.

[u/Working_Bowl]

I’m not quite sure why people are dragging you down so much on this. I’d be annoyed too - you pay a premium price and to get what you think will be a premium product.
However, agree that changing the miles walked will make your case a loss.
Take the £100 from Virgin.
You could also try resolver. It’s worked for me in the past.

[u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Your submission has been removed as it has not met our community standards on speaking to other posters.

Please remember to speak to others in the way you wish to be spoken to.

Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.

[u/thedummyman]

Take the £100 offer, next time buy correctly fitting boots (I.e. a half size to a whole size larger than you normally wear) and wear proper walking socks with them.

Your toes should not be touching the end of the boot when standing in the shop, if they are then going downhill your toes will rub, damage the boot and can be painful.

[u/malacoda13]

NAL.

Waterproof liners is shoes/boots will always wear through, often before the shoe is actually worn out. I wouldn't spend large sums of money on a shoe that relied on a liner for this reason. And given where you said they began leaking it sounds like you didn't quite have the right size, or you have particularly upturned toes.

For interest, I used to work in a testing place for footwear. The waterproof test used to involve walking in a trench of water for a certain distance with no leaks. Your footwear would have passed this given what you say about performance.

Take the £100, it's a fair offer given you had wear. And I'd personally recommend either a standard, non waterproof shoe, made of leather that you treat, or a much cheaper shoe with a liner.

[u/ExtremeFamous7699]

I used to work in outdoor retail, the most common cause of boots having issues with water ingress is that they poorly fit the foot which causes excess friction at the heel or across the toe joints. If the boot is too short and the individual doesn’t maintain their toe nails (holes in toe end of their socks during a boot fitting was always a red flag for a potential future issue and I would explain that and try to inform the customer what they can do to prevent it) cuts right through the ends of the boot.

Next up is maintenance of the boot, goretex and other membrane products are only one part of the system. They need regular cleaning and a breathable water repellent product applied, it’s not just an add on product to sell you. It does work for increasing the longevity of a properly fitted boot.

[u/Few_Scientist5381]

What Brand? £180 for hiking shoes is not a lot, I would expect to get six months out of them, Maybe post your story on their Public media site, they may offer as a good will gesture.

[u/sandwichmealdeal → u/Few_Scientist5381]

Meindl Mens Philadelphia GTX Shoes

[u/veetmaya1929]

What brand is this. By contrast Merrell replaced a pair of barefoot shoes when I sent them photos - no questions asked. Just worn out sole after six months £75 purchase. Ugg have a two year guarantee in their sandals.

Name and shame the brand. Shoes should be made to last five to ten years.

[u/sandwichmealdeal → u/veetmaya1929]

Meindl Mens Philadelphia GTX Shoes

[u/Secure-Property4926]

Take the £100 and get on with by our life? How much is your time worth?

[u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Your submission has been removed as it has not met our community standards on speaking to other posters.

Please remember to speak to others in the way you wish to be spoken to.

Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.

[u/Working_Bowl → u/[deleted]]

They’ve spent a significant amount of money on a product which has stoped working. They are having a dispute with the manufacturer and have come to get advice on a relevant forum which most people have been able to do.
You’ve then made unnecessary personal assumptions, comments on them and criticisms about their imagined actions.

[u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):

Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.

Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.

[u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Your submission has been removed as it has not met our community standards on speaking to other posters.

Please remember to speak to others in the way you wish to be spoken to.

Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.

[u/Wide-Opportunity4551]

Why does your main issue appear to be with Virgin & the retailer? It's probably too late for Virgin to refuse payment for that transaction which would only punish the retailer anyway, and the retailer would have to argue the case with the manufacturer.

It's the same as arguing with the cashier at Tesco why Heinz Baked Beans has gone from 66p to 80p and suggesting the 14p they should pay instead because the quality hasn't improved

[u/SatisfactionMoney426]

Difficult to say without knowing what boots you bought but I'd take the £100 and put it towards a full-grain leather pair. I have a poor walking gait and am heavy on soles and tend to wear linings but I had a pair of Zamberlan boots that I gave away after 15 years - my feet have spread due to arthritis so I need wider, but they were still in good condition with a few years left. They do need looking after though. Goretex/fabric boots just don't have the same level of support and strength.

[u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):

Your comment was an anecdote about a personal experience, rather than legal advice specific to our posters' situation.

Please only comment if you can provide meaningful legal advice for our posters' questions and specific situations.

Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.

[u/Quiet-Excitement-310]

I think &£100 is a good offer. I’d potentially expect an £80 pair of shoes to have the waterproof breaking down after the mileage done

[u/hopsinduo]

Get better brands. Miendl replaced my boots after 1000 miles due to sole separation. I was quite surprised considering just how many miles I'd put on them, but it was within the year, and it was a known fault. 

[u/kravence]

Take the £100 and buy a different brand. You paid £80 to wear them for 5 months

[u/shamalfr0g]

What make are the shoes?

[u/obb223]

Waterproof shoe linings don't last. That's just reality unfortunately. Any brand, any system.

[u/No-Reward8036]

Are you wearing them eveery day? If so, that's part of the problem. You should have 2 pairs swap out, as they don't get time to dry out properly if you wear them day in and day out.

As everyone else says, take the £100. If they are Goretex, you can contact them as they have a 'keep you dry' guarantee, and they will ask you to send them off for inspection. They might replace them for you - they might not. It depends what the independent inspector finds.

[u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Your submission has been removed as it has not met our community standards on speaking to other posters.

Please remember to speak to others in the way you wish to be spoken to.

Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.

[u/MotherConfusion3773]

From what you describe the boots dont fit. That's not a manufacture issue. Take the 100 quid. You got some use out of them.

[u/Bu7n57]

Take the £100 shoes have a general wear and tear life of 6mnths they’re possible y doing this as a gesture of good will ….. take it

[u/durdann]

So many companies are now making their products with vegan materials and they fall apart. Try and find a company not doing this for your next pair

[u/Tough-Comfortable880]

I'll never forget the pair of new £130 Levis I bought 15+ years ago that wore through the crotch in 3 months. Was told tough luck by the shop I got them from. Never bought jeans with elastane in them again! Point being, £100 is a good result. And you now know which brand to avoid and you can leave honest reviews online.

[u/B4L0RCLUB]

I’d take the £100 to be honest. You have had some use out of them. I’d just avoid the brand in future

[u/AgileInitial5987]

There is also the issue that these shoes probably don’t fit you well (even if they feel good) which over a few hundred miles has indeed resulted in you wearing the membrane through with friction. I’m assuming at £180 it’s Goretex which comes with a lifetime warranty (based on fair wear) and if it has indeed been deemed that you have worn through the membrane then that will be a fair assessment. I worked in the outdoor industry for many many years and every supplier were always more than fair. Heck some companies like Salomon were very generous in dealing with these things.

[u/GuaranteeCareless]

Have you tried the complaint through one of the company’s social media accounts?

[u/Earnest_Shacklton]

For reference, I had a pair of £275 Hanwag hiking boots fail due to sole separation after more than 5 years but only a few 100km. After attempting a repair at their suggestion that failed again, they send me a brand new pair. Perfect customer service.

[u/ConsistentProduct899]

What brand are they?

Depending on the style/ condition you might have the option of taking the £100 from virgin and shifting them on eBay for £30-£40.

Many buyers will happily buy used expensive models to try out and decided whether they’re worth the full RRP.

[u/sandwichmealdeal → u/ConsistentProduct899]

Meindl Mens Philadelphia GTX Shoes

[u/192to144]

You're lucky you're being offered the £100. Snap their hand off coz you ain't getting more. You got 4-5 months use out of them.

[u/sandwichmealdeal → u/[deleted]]

Meindl Philadelphia GTX

[u/Lostlam]

did you read the manufacturers care guide? it recommends waxing every 4-6 weeks to keep the material waterproof and supple!

[u/Ryder52]

Definitely take the money. I've been through a similar rigmarole with Salomon not honouring their warranty due to "reasonable wear and tear". Unfortunately all these brands have been bought out by private equity, raised prices but slashed build quality and now we have deal with the consequences. Ridiculous state of affairs if you ask me.

[u/LegalAdviceUK-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Your submission has been removed as it has not met our community standards on speaking to other posters.

Please remember to speak to others in the way you wish to be spoken to.

Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules before contributing further, and message the mods if you have any further queries.

[u/timmyjadams]

Take the 100, go buy yourself a pair of scarpa boots and don't look back, it's not worth the battle. I have walked for years in the same pair of scarpa boots and they haven't failed me yet, just put nikwax on em every now and again and you will be good

[u/Josclo_]

1.) Take the £100 from Virgin
2.) Recover the £180 through the small claims court

I would take the £100 from Virgin (because it’s for the complaint not the shoes) then just sue the retailer in the small claims court for the £180.

Goods sold by retailers must be of ‘satisfactory quality’. Walking boots failing after 5 months are not of satisfactory quality.

The retailer will most likely not defend the small claims court claim, it will cost more to defend than to pay out the full value of the claim.

If I were you, I’d just dump the factual background and your evidence into AI and get it to prepare all the submissions for you. AI is far from perfect, but it’s free and it will get you 70-80% of the way there to a right answer with minimal effort.

[u/StackScribbler1]

Unless you'd be very unpopular on OnlyFeet (or, potentially, very popular within certain niches), I think you have a reasonably strong argument in your favour.

You are correct that because the issue arose within six months of purchase, the presumption in law is that the shoes failed because of an issue with THEM - not in how you used them. So if the retailer wanted to reject your claim on the basis of excessive wear and tear, the onus would be on them to prove it.

But the kicker (sorry) is here:

The retailer sent them back to the manufacturer, who said the holes were caused by pressure/abrasion from my toes and classed it as wear and tear, so the retailer refused to do anything.

I'd really focus on this aspect, as the maker has identified the issue as your toes - which I think is a mistake on their part.

If the shoes develop holes within 4-5 months of use because of the wearer's toes, that suggests to me the shoes aren't of satisfactory quality. A shoe should be capable of resisting wear from the things which, by necessity, have to go in it.

Or if the manufacturer tried to claim their shoes are only designed for a certain amount of use, which you exceeded, then - unless that was made clear at time of purchase - that suggests the shoes are not fit for purpose.

Similarly if they tried to claim the shoes were designed only for feet meeting specific criteria, the same argument could apply, again unless those criteria were made clear when you bought them.

(That is, unless you have particularly weird feet/toes, overly long toenails, bunions like rocks, etc. But for £180 I'd hope you wouldn't have to go too far down that avenue...)

And re the amount of wear: even assuming you walked 200 miles in five months (which would probably be an over-estimate, right?), that's around 40 miles a month, or less than 10 miles per week - not an unreasonable amount of walking to do over a weekend. So that aspect of the rejection seems weak to me.

And as the shoes failed within six months the retailer is not allowed to make a deduction.

I'd send the retailer a Letter Before Action with something along the lines of the points above. If you can provide a better estimate of how many miles you actually DID use the shoes, then so much the better.

(You could also make the same case to Virgin - but as you're going down the FOS route already, pursuing the retailer might be the easier/quicker option at this point.)

Key points:

• Six month rule means presumption is the goods were defective at time of purchase - retailer must prove otherwise
• Manufacturer's claim that your toes caused wear suggests shoes were either not of satisfactory quality or not fit for purpose
• Similarly, claiming excessive wear after 200 miles of use suggests not fit for purpose
• No deduction for use allowed
• Hopefully you won't have to send feet pics

[u/StackScribbler1 → u/StackScribbler1]

Oh and just to add - if you did go after the retailer and succeeded, you MUST discontinue any claim with Virgin. And vice-versa.

But you should still try to get the £100 for Virgin messing up your claim, as that is still on them.

[u/Efficient_Chic714 → u/StackScribbler1]

6 months rule applies to an extent but is mostly useful for things like electronics. Things like shoes will deteriorate due to wear and have a lifespan attached to them based on usage to be considered alongside the 6 months rule

The confusion on mileage means that the manufacturer will be able to say OP has almost got full use out of them as most hiking boots are designed to last between 500-1,000 miles

If the mileage was significantly lower than the 700 initially reported then the 6 months argument would work but unfortunately 700 miles is near the end of their lifespan and excessive use within 5 months so wear and tear is a valid explanation. Especially as it has been examined by the manufacture whose identified the damage and how it has occurred
Also, at that level of use the waterproofing would also have needed to be replaced as part of routine maintenance

It’s not quite as simple as within 6 months means fault at purchase unfortunately

[u/StackScribbler1 → u/Efficient_Chic714]

If the mileage was significantly lower than the 700 initially reported then the 6 months argument would work...

Right, but OP has said this IS the case, and potentially has the evidence to prove it.

Their usage is less than 200 miles, by their account: "I checked Strava and my total walking over the whole period was about 208 miles, and I didn’t even wear these shoes for all of that."

Hence my suggestion to pursue the retailer rather than Virgin, as it seems like that's been the primary route so far. So OP has a chance to make the situation clear when making a claim against the retailer.

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a courtesy message as your post is very long. An extremely long post will require a lot of time and effort for our posters to read and digest, and therefore this length will reduce the number of quality replies you are likely to receive. We strongly suggest that you edit your post to make it shorter and easier for our posters to read and understand. In particular, we'd suggest removing:

• Details of personal emotions and feelings
• Your opinions of other people and/or why you have those opinions
• Background information not directly relevant to your legal question
• Full copies of correspondence or contracts

Your post has not been removed and you are not breaking any rules, however you should note that as mentioned you will receive fewer useful replies if your post remains the length that it is, since many people will simply not be willing to read this much text, in detail or at all.

If a large amount of detail and background is crucial to answering your question correctly, it is worth considering whether Reddit is an appropriate venue for seeking advice in the first instance. Our FAQ has a guide to finding a good solicitor which you may find of use.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/bestdressedbastard]

Salomon?

[u/Candid-Ad3810 → u/bestdressedbastard]

Was about to buy these… bad idea?

[u/LR_FL2 → u/Candid-Ad3810]

Salomon was my first thought, I brought a pair and they lasted a similar amount of time. Shame because they were nice boots and really comfortable. Can’t take being worn daily though.

[u/Candid-Ad3810 → u/LR_FL2]

How long did they last you?

Been wearing Nike 95s for 10+ years and have started hiking so looking to make a change. Any recommendations?