Walking boots - warranty claim query

[Bonefishblues]

They run the whole of their European operations from (IIRC) Rotterdam, so multi-language capability is a given.

I run service operations and would be critical of a member of my team who failed to exercise their judgement where appropriate, as opposed to hiding behind processes. It's why we employ humans, as opposed to relying on AI, chatbots and the like.

My test is (and the question I ask team members) "what's the right thing to do here?"

I will never, but never, criticise someone whose motive is this, even if ultimately it doesn't go right.

Good service is often marked by the occasions where one departs from (the necessary, don't get me wrong) process, not by its slavish adherence.

[thirdcrank]

I can see you are upset by this and I can empathise with you: last year I got so wound up dealing with a warranty problem (measured in thousands of squids and affecting my house) that it began to affect my health and happiness. (Better now, BTW.) I can imagine you feel powerless and emails going unanswered puts the brass knobs on.

You asked for advice which different people gave, but unfortunately it didn't seem to be helpful to you. The general drift from the existing customers of the company involved was that they were very satisfied with both the product and customer service and I don't think anybody indicated this would affect any future purchasing decisions although as this isn't a walking forum, the interest in boots may be limited.

Perhaps you have already posted an unfavourable review on a specialist forum.

[Bonefishblues]

Not upset, I'd say annoyed that I company I so obviously (by voting with my pocket) hold in high esteem.

I've posted nowhere but here - I want to resolve this, and I'm not an internet review warrior.

I was, and am, interested in other people's views on what they thought was and wasn't reasonable in the circumstances. Not sure why you thought it was unhelpful to me, given I did run the test when it seemed obvious that I wasn't going to get an answer - about an hour before I did get an answer from the Blessed Celeste!

[irc]

Not upset, I'd say annoyed that I company I so obviously (by voting with my pocket) hold in high esteem.

I've posted nowhere but here - I want to resolve this, and I'm not an internet review warrior.

I was, and am, interested in other people's views on what they thought was and wasn't reasonable in the circumstances. Not sure why you thought it was unhelpful to me, given I did run the test when it seemed obvious that I wasn't going to get an answer - about an hour before I did get an answer from the Blessed Celeste!

To me the obvious thing to do would have been to do their test. 1. It fails - they warranty them. 2. It passes, and you then explain why a static test isn't representative of a boot flexing in use. As it is it would have saved some emails back and forth.

As for gooretx membranes in boots - hate them - fail after moderate use but still make the boots far too warm for much of the year and a leather boot with membrane doesn't breath as well as the same boot without membrane.

As for the test - is it the case that a break in the membrane big enough to let in water from outside the boot will easily fail a test where there is actually a few inches of water depth forcing it out? If so the test might actually be a reasonable one.

[Bonefishblues]

Not upset, I'd say annoyed that I company I so obviously (by voting with my pocket) hold in high esteem.

I've posted nowhere but here - I want to resolve this, and I'm not an internet review warrior.

I was, and am, interested in other people's views on what they thought was and wasn't reasonable in the circumstances. Not sure why you thought it was unhelpful to me, given I did run the test when it seemed obvious that I wasn't going to get an answer - about an hour before I did get an answer from the Blessed Celeste!

To me the obvious thing to do would have been to do their test. 1. It fails - they warranty them. 2. It passes, and you then explain why a static test isn't representative of a boot flexing in use. As it is it would have saved some emails back and forth.

As for gooretx membranes in boots - hate them - fail after moderate use but still make the boots far too warm for much of the year and a leather boot with membrane doesn't breath as well as the same boot without membrane.

I think the point was that I had already provided more than convincing evidence of their boots' failure, but as it was (eventually - all the to was mine, precious little fro from them) I was required to do something else, of less relevance to real-world walking (that being what they were designed to do) conditions - unless one habitually uses boots by filling with water, standing them on paper and videoing them...but I tend to recommend a vase or similar for that gig.

The justification, paraphrased was - you might have had something like had sweaty feet*, and besides, we make everyone do this test. Hmmm.

Had I retained dry feet during my test, they would have heard no more from me, by the way.

*You'll recall the detail I provided of the walk, it's duration, its length, the before and after shots, all timed against a mobile. I didn't half go to a right old faff to commit fraud [sic] and cover my sweaty tracks, eh?

[PH]

Evidently not, but they have simply ceased communicating, which is disappointing.

It's what I'd expect a business to do, they've given you the options, they've rejected your alternative, if they've decided not to change their position any further dialogue would be a waste of resource. Unless they say - OK we've changed our mind - what is it you think they could say to improve the situation? Explaining why they reject your proposal is more likely to escalate the situation than resolve it, better for them to sit back and let you choose which of the available options to follow.

They don't know their customer very well

In what way? You've ended up accepting one of their two options, seems to me they knew you would.

I think the point was that I had already provided more than convincing evidence of their boots' failure,

You're convinced by it, to me it just looks like a pair of wet socks. You know how honest you are, but accepting your own evidence would be a matter of trust and they don't trust you. It isn't personal, there are some untrustworthy people and I expect some of them buy walking boots.
I thought it was decent of them to give you an option that didn't involve the cost of return, I don't think being specific about how that is carried out unreasonable at all, glad it's been resolved and hope the replacements serve you better.

[Bonefishblues]

Do you know something I don't regarding resolution?

[irc]

Not upset, I'd say annoyed that I company I so obviously (by voting with my pocket) hold in high esteem.

I've posted nowhere but here - I want to resolve this, and I'm not an internet review warrior.

I was, and am, interested in other people's views on what they thought was and wasn't reasonable in the circumstances. Not sure why you thought it was unhelpful to me, given I did run the test when it seemed obvious that I wasn't going to get an answer - about an hour before I did get an answer from the Blessed Celeste!

To me the obvious thing to do would have been to do their test. 1. It fails - they warranty them. 2. It passes, and you then explain why a static test isn't representative of a boot flexing in use. As it is it would have saved some emails back and forth.

As for gooretx membranes in boots - hate them - fail after moderate use but still make the boots far too warm for much of the year and a leather boot with membrane doesn't breath as well as the same boot without membrane.

I think the point was that I had already provided more than convincing evidence of their boots' failure,

Actually I think the 2 pics of their test with the water clearly seeping out the boots demonstrates the fault more convincingly than the other dozen or so pics of your test and was I imagine carried out in a fraction of the time.

[Bonefishblues]

To me the obvious thing to do would have been to do their test. 1. It fails - they warranty them. 2. It passes, and you then explain why a static test isn't representative of a boot flexing in use. As it is it would have saved some emails back and forth.

As for gooretx membranes in boots - hate them - fail after moderate use but still make the boots far too warm for much of the year and a leather boot with membrane doesn't breath as well as the same boot without membrane.

I think the point was that I had already provided more than convincing evidence of their boots' failure,

Actually I think the 2 pics of their test with the water clearly seeping out the boots demonstrates the fault more convincingly than the other dozen or so pics of your test and was I imagine carried out in a fraction of the time.

I'd draw my Learned Friend's attention to my previous point:

I think the point was that I had already provided more than convincing evidence of their boots' failure.

...and mine was based on how a consumer might use the product for what it was designed to do*. Theirs satisfies their need to eliminate sweaty feet and subterfuge, were I to have gone to those extreme lengths to try to defraud them, of course (although I'm sure that I could have subverted that test, were I so minded)

*Rather useful, were we to get into an argument later, might you think? The quote Which?

Fit for purpose The goods should be fit for the purpose they are supplied for, as well as any specific purpose you made known to the retailer before you agreed to buy the goods.

[philvantwo]

Just seen photos of your boots, with all that stitching they're bound to leak!!

[PH]

I'd draw my Learned Friend's attention to my previous point:
I think the point was that I had already provided more than convincing evidence of their boots' failure.

Obviously not in their opinion.
Quote Which all you like, they were not in any way attempting to deny you your consumer rights, they were offering you an alternative to the costly process of posting them back.

[Bonefishblues]

I'd draw my Learned Friend's attention to my previous point:
I think the point was that I had already provided more than convincing evidence of their boots' failure.

Obviously not in their opinion.
Quote Which all you like, they were not in any way attempting to deny you your consumer rights, they were offering you an alternative to the costly process of posting them back.

I didn't say they were, I don't think. You may want to re-read what I wrote.

...and thanks for your allowing me to quote Which?, it's appreciated.

Other arguments are available

[PH]

You may want to re-read what I wrote.

I am, and enjoying it very much, can't wait for the book.

[Bonefishblues]

You may want to re-read what I wrote.

I am, and enjoying it very much, can't wait for the book.

I'll take it that you understand what I said now

[PH]

You may want to re-read what I wrote.

I am, and enjoying it very much, can't wait for the book.

I'll take it that you understand what I said now

I think I've got it about right.
The gist is you think your test is better than theirs, but they don't care and it's up to them.
Followed by pages and pages of moaning (I admit I've not read all of it) none of which is going to make a jot of difference to the outcome.