Walking boots - warranty claim query

[Bonefishblues]

...or the test is so basic and undemanding they won't leak. I've since looked at another review of this boot on the Keen site, where leaking was reported. The suspicious mind wonders if this is about claim rejection.

[Tangled Metal]

Do the test, if it fails you're laughing. If it doesn't leak then don't send the photographs off but send the boots to them so they can test (might be a better test or series of tests that find how it has failed). Then if it is a faulty boot they'll refund you.

Alternative is you forget about your claim and get no refund. How much were the boots? Guessing at least £100. Postage is something like £25? Lose £100 by doing nothing more or get £75 back after postage is taken into account. You might even get £125 back to cover the boots and postage.

Of course you might just get nothing and have to pay to get the boots sent back if they say no fault was found.

Or you keep the boots for dry walks.

[Bonefishblues]

Truth be told, I'm actually rather insulted. I could do their test, no problem, but:

I'm probably in their top 5% of customers - they know this from my account, I'm sure. I tell them in advance that I'm going to do the same walk again, with photos - and they say nothing to the contrary. I send the photos (see link below), and they tell me no, you have to do our silly little test. That makes me rather cross.

Take a look - would you be asking a demonstrably loyal and rather valuable customer to jump through another hoop?

http://s300.photobucket.com/user/bfb020 ... en%20Boots

Here is the boot model in question. Note the review.

https://www.keenfootwear.com/en-gb/p/M- ... wear_boots

[windmiller]

Since you have a lot of experience and miles under foot with this brand, I expect you have a good idea regarding just how long they should reasonably be expected to last before the waterproof membrane fails.
I would email them a copy of the entire thread to show how concerned and disappointed you are with your latest purchase.
Personally I think all kinds of waterproof membranes found in hiking boots are not very good at keeping water out. The fermentation produced by the foot ( not sure of the actual science involved) seems to destroy the membrane in a fairly short time. I prefer leather boots with little stitching and no membrane, which can be proofed with wax etc as needed, I find this way my feet breathe better and stay dry longer.

[AMMoffat]

I've always found Keen to be a good company to deal with. I have previously had a relatively new pair of supposedly waterproof Keen shoes leak. They were returned to Keen, by the retailer in that case, and tested and I eventually got a refund. Why not do the test they suggest as it might avoid you having the expense of posting the boots back? You will still have the option of posting them back if the test does not show the leak. Keen footwear is expensive and you certainly should expect the waterproofing to work for a reasonable amount of wear.

It does seem to be the way with faulty waterproof outdoor wear. I've had similar experiences with another brand's waterproof shoes and an expensive "waterproof" jacket. In neither of those cases was my word about the leaks accepted and the items had to be returned to the manufacturer for testing. In each case I got either a refund or a replacement when it turned out I was not lying.

[Oldjohnw]

If they are within the warranty period your contract is with the retailer, not the manufacturer.

[philvantwo]

Read the story......he's bought them direct from the manufacturer!!

[Oldjohnw]

Read the story......he's bought them direct from the manufacturer!!

My bad. I make mistakes.

[Bonefishblues]

Thanks for your comments.

I just did a mental tot-up. I have 8 pairs of Keens, daughter 2, and wife one.

I wouldn't mind if they had the courtesy to respond to my 3 emails asking for an explanation...

ETA
And for complete transparency, here's my email exchanges (well, mainly mine to them...)


Me to them
It's raining at the moment. I need to take the dogs for a walk. I will repeat the exercise, this time with pictures pre and post.



Me to them, later
Hello again.

As promised earlier this morning, I have done another walk similar to the one I did when I originally reported my boots were leaking - about .75 miles of the walk was through wet grass.

The boots have leaked again, exactly as last time (more in the right than the left, but leaks in both). You will note that the top of the boots and socks are dry.

I have taken relevant photographs - shared album here:

http://s300.photobucket.com/user/bfb020 ... en%20Boots

I assume that this is sufficient for your purposes?

Regards,

John


They responded with the email I posted earlier, to which I replied:

Why not please?

The Waterproof boots are being worn as intended, and are demonstrably leaking?

Can you explain what your test will show that mine does not?

Thank you.


Me 3 days later:

Hello, could I have a reply to my question please.

Thank you



Me, yesterday, getting miffed:

Hello,

Can I once again (3rd time) ask for an explanation as to why my test is flawed such that you will not accept it as evidence that my Waterproof boots are leaking?

If you are unable to provide one, would you be kind enough to escalate to someone who can.

I'm a time-served Keen fan - I won't bother you with how many pairs I have (all but my very first Newports, which finally fell apart last year...), but I'm finding this experience rather disappointing. I'm not one to voice this publicly, but I would like to understand this please, so I can decide what to do next.

Thank you.

[pwa]

As an enthusiastic hill walker I understand your discomfort. You find a brand of boot you like and learn to trust, and you feel good every time you do the laces up. Then something happens to undermine that faith. And the maker is awkward about dealing with it.

[Vorpal]

If it were me I would do their test. If they failed, I'd send them back. If they didn't, I'd write write them again, explain why their test is useless, and how much money I had spent with them, and that they need to put it right.

TBH, they should have done the right thing after you sent your dog walk test.

[Tangled Metal]

Is it just me or do those photographs not really give the brand the information needed? I'm not sure they prove anything. Sorry if that's being negative but it's my opinion.

Can't you do the test and if it backs you up and the requested photographs off or if they show nothing then just post the boots off. Since they're faulty in sure a good brand like keen will refund. Besides they probably factor in a certain percentage of refund for faults into the boot costing and might just refund on return if boots without testing just visual inspection.

As to failure. One of the founders of brasher boots lived in the village some family members lived in. So they had a conversation over goretex booties put into their boots. They get batch tested before being put into the boots so the membrane does work as designed. It's the putting into the boot where problems with its waterproofness happens. Faults are produced that breaks the integrity of the bootie. These are hard to spot so the process has to be validated. It isn't 100% hence refunds. Add to that the fact any grit into the boot can cause failure and that's before use issues like flexure at the instep is considered.

Waterproof membranes are really only temporary, although a year should be attainable if there's no manufacturing weakness (random not built into the process) of course.

BTW their local village store used to sell brasher stuff off. End of lines, socks and prototypes. Plus a spell selling goretex boot liner booties. These were the joined and taped goretex that gets fitted between outer and inner layers of the boot. Nearly got a pair to use as waterproof socks.

[Bonefishblues]

I likely will, but I've asked a perfectly reasonable question of the Warranty Dept., and I would like the courtesy of an answer from them. As it is, they have ceased to respond, which isn't acceptable.

The boots have had very little wear, as can be seen, and leaked at the first sign of a wet walk - and the second!

ETA
Apropos of my images proving nothing, how will their test, and its accompanying images prove anything, either, I wonder?

Mine was real-world, and highly relevant, as in waterproof boots demonstrably weren't, over quite a short walk. At £140 this boot is being pitched at the 'serious' end of the market, where walkers will expect much, much better than leaking after .75 miles on wet grass!

[pwa]

Waterproof membranes are really only temporary

That's my feeling, though B should be entitled to expect a few years of moderate use before the membrane gives up. The boots were not cheap. The doubt about membranes is the main reason I stick to leather when choosing hill walking boots, and preferably a design with very few seams. The leather and dubbing combine to make a fairly good defence against water even without a membrane. The membrane is just an extra bit of security in such a boot.

[Bonefishblues]

Waterproof membranes are really only temporary

That's my feeling, though B should be entitled to expect a few years of moderate use before the membrane gives up. The boots were not cheap. The doubt about membranes is the main reason I stick to leather when choosing hill walking boots, and preferably a design with very few seams. The leather and dubbing combine to make a fairly good defence against water even without a membrane. The membrane is just an extra bit of security in such a boot.

For donkeys and donkeys I wore a pure leather boot called "La Robusta"*, recommended by Lockwoods in Leamington, and never had a problem. Progress, eh?

*Heavy as a heavy thing, mind!