New runners - Blister one side only

Mango Joe

Hi there - I bought new Adidas branded runners for €85.

I didn't expect to have to break them in given that I have never had problems with any footwear previously over almost 40 years.

However I blister badly on my left side only - Right side is absolutely issue free.

- I wore them around the house for a few weeks and buffered the area with thicker socks, plasters etc but I could not resolve issue.

Last resort was to return to shop with all packaging and receipt.

- Shop says it can't *see* or *feel* anything wrong so won't exchange/refund.

They are honestly useless to be and cause me physical harm/pain (raw, painful blister - takes days to heal over )

What can I do?

- I'd prefer not to go the route of the small claims court as I feel they should just return them to their supplier and refund me - But is this my final option? Is the burden of proof really on me? Who will make them honour their obligations under consumer law?

Isn't an underpinning principle of Consumer law that the product has to be fit for purpose???????

These are running shoes that will open up my heel/ankle 5 mins from my house :mad:

PS The right side is perfect - I think there is some subtlety in the left runner that is causing this and unfortunately it is not obvious in an impromptu in-store assessment.....

ec18

Sounds like it's just a poor fit for your foot and not an issue with the quality of the show......nothing you can do

TheChizler

Could be worth getting your gait checked out, one foot could be moving differently to the other. Other shoes might have been looser and more forgiving.

Mango Joe

ec18 wrote: »

Sounds like it's just a poor fit for your foot and not an issue with the quality of the show......nothing you can do

Thanks for taking the time to reply - Are shoe manufacturers/retailers not obliged to produce/sell a product that is fit for purpose and will not injure the consumer within 5 minutes?

Just to make absolutely clear that the foot in question has not caused this issue before in its 40 years as a shoe recipient - Therefore would it not seem more likely that the factory in Taiwan didn't mass produce this one piece of footwear to ergonomic spec and its subtly a millimeter or two out and thus causing the issue?

Just to be clear, there is in my opinion a very definite quality issue with a pair of running shoes if one of them quite literally wears your skin away to a bloody blister.

TheChizler wrote: »

Could be worth getting your gait checked out, one foot could be moving differently to the other. Other shoes might have been looser and more forgiving.

Thanks for the help - Issue has never occurred before - I think the shoe was poorly manufactured - The right hand one is immaculate by comparison.

Small claims court is €25 hopefully the Judge concerned will consider the fact that I would hardly take the time, trouble and effort to bring it that far if there wasn't a real and actual problem at hand.

- Please do share any other thoughts around this, I do appreciate the help.

ec18

Mango Joe wrote: »

Thanks for taking the time to reply - Are shoe manufacturers/retailers not obliged to produce/sell a product that is fit for purpose and will not injure the consumer within 5 minutes?

Just to make absolutely clear that the foot in question has not caused this issue before in its 40 years as a shoe recipient - Therefore would it not seem more likely that the factory in Taiwan didn't mass produce this one piece of footwear to ergonomic spec and its subtly a millimeter or two out and thus causing the issue?

If it's only your foot that is the problem than could just be that the shoe in questions just doesn't agree with your foot and not a manufacturing issue. Unfortunately this does happen from time to time, most of the time shops will do a swap provided the shoe hasn't been used outside. You're only recourse if the shop has said they won't change them is the small claims court.

Mango Joe

ec18 wrote: »

If it's only your foot that is the problem than could just be that the shoe in questions just doesn't agree with your foot and not a manufacturing issue. Unfortunately this does happen from time to time, most of the time shops will do a swap provided the shoe hasn't been used outside. You're only recourse if the shop has said they won't change them is the small claims court.

I'd be absolutely 1000% certain my foot is not the issue - Simply put, one half of this pair of shoes was not manufactured correctly.

Thanks.

njs030

Mango Joe wrote: »

I'd be absolutely 1000% certain my foot is not the issue - Simply put, one half of this pair of shoes was not manufactured correctly.

Thanks.

How are you going to prove the shoe was manufactured improperly?

Atlantic Dawn

Is there a chance they are fakes, was it a reputable chain you bought them from? (No need to name them)

gordongekko

Mango Joe wrote: »

I'd be absolutely 1000% certain my foot is not the issue - Simply put, one half of this pair of shoes was not manufactured correctly.

Thanks.

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance

cruizer101

Any friends with the same size feet? could you get someone else to try wear them round their house for an evening see how they get on. I would also expect to be able to feel a fault that would cause a blister that quick with my fingers

hearmehearye

Mango Joe wrote:

Thanks for taking the time to reply - Are shoe manufacturers/retailers not obliged to produce/sell a product that is fit for purpose and will not injure the consumer within 5 minutes?

I'd imagine unless there's something physically & visually obvious wrong with the shoe, then your foot is the problem. I've had numerous brands of shoes purchased from reputable sports shops lacerate my ankles, and there's nothing special about my gait. I don't over or under pronounce.


I think you've just been lucky. Change your socks, add an insole... Make them work for you. Your gait could just be changing as you get older.

davo10

Your two feet are not identical, no ones are.

sconhome

Mango Joe wrote: »

Thanks for taking the time to reply - Are shoe manufacturers/retailers not obliged to produce/sell a product that is fit for purpose and will not injure the consumer within 5 minutes? .... Issue has never occurred before - I think the shoe was poorly manufactured - The right hand one is immaculate by comparison.

How did you buy them?

Did you go into a shop, explain what you were doing and ask for a recommendation or did you pick the shoe off the shelf and ask for your size?

Two very different outcomes to these scenarios.

Any shop that makes a recommendation about a pair of shoes and fits you for size and purpose should stand over that recommendation regardless of the argument about faulty shoes or not.

In the second scenario which is true of most general sports stores, you are judged to have done your own research and come to your own decision about the shoe being fit for your purposes. Unless the shoes are demonstrably faulty you are not going to get anywhere.

Unfortunately blistering is not indicative of a fault of the shoe. It can be many different factors, socks, skin condition, shoe structure (not a fault - foot balance), fit - length & width.

Lux23

I don't think you would have any recourse in a scenario like this.

As a woman I have bought several pairs of shoes over the years that tore up my feet, but I never thought to return them. Shoes are fit for purpose once they go on your feet and you can walk around in them, just because they rub off your feet doesn't mean they aren't fit for purpose.

firestarter51

small claims court isn't the way to go here imo, what kind of shop was it
for example lifestyle sports etc ?
contact head office and nicely explain the situation you are in, and the problem you are having and the fact you approached a staff member and had no joy

it will be very hard to prove the trainer is of inferior quality as they have to meet certain standards

my advice is play nice with the person at head office and see how it goes, if you feel you are getting nowhere then email and keep emailing until you get a response

another option is to do what i have in the past, complain on social media like twitter and facebook, this is in the public eye and most companies will respond

ive had refunds from various companies over the last few years using this method

ectoraige

Did you change running route recently? Perhaps the council mislaid the pavement, you can look into bringing then to court too.

Mango Joe

Thanks for all the replies.

- Of course I may just be wrong on every count and assumption here.

But I have to say though I am incredulous, no, staggered with peoples stark unwillingness to believe, even for a second, that there could not simply be a minor issue with the runner itself.

No - Its my gait, foot oddities, breeding, genetics, foot-agreement (?), AGEING!



- It couldn't be that Adidas are flaking them off a production line in some 3rd world sweat shop at a rate of 500 every hour and that every occasional one has some incidental and minor mis-shaping.

Wow.

To the poster who asked how I could prove it - I think I'll go small claims route - I'd prefer to throw another €25 euro at this and know I did the right thing and stood by my principles than to acquiesce and let a retailers stone wall me when they hope people will be intimidated/discouraged and just back down.

PPS They're a major sporting chain - Don't think they are fakes. Ironically a pair of runners I bought from lidl for the gym are impeccable - despite this sudden occurrence of my phantom-mutant-troll foot issue.

PPPS No - I can do this without involving friends/family as surrogate-faulty-footwear-breaker-inners.

Mango Joe

ectoraige wrote: »

Did you change running route recently? Perhaps the council mislaid the pavement, you can look into bringing then to court too.

So by your logic any retailed product that has an issue should not be challenged under the statutory protections afforded the the general public under consumer law?

If you bought a dishwasher and it was defective you'd just suck it up in case some passing Genius on the Internet thought you were inclined to use a public legal service for the exact reason it was specified, designed and implemented?

- You are fortunate that you have never been unlucky with a purchase, long may your ignorance of the everyday default channels of consumer recourse continue.

& By the way, with all due respect, the above post is all over this site - There's a 'you' on just about every thread......

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

So what's the Consumer Issue for the thread if you are determined to do as you wish and ridicule all replies?

Mango Joe

Flynn Quick Rainwater wrote: »

So what's the Consumer Issue for the thread if you are determined to do as you wish and ridicule all replies?

And where did you imagine you saw this happening?

- Please provide proof of your nonsensical, troublesome claims.......

* Oh - If you mean the above reply - I was trying to be humorous - Perhaps I missed the mark - If so then I do apologise - It certainly was not my intention to offend/ridicule.

To be honest, a lot of the threads on here seem to end up with people making smart comments for their own amusement or because they simply prejudge the poster and make the assumption they are incorrect, petty, moody, at fault, too inclined toward legal recourse etc.

davo10

Mango Joe wrote: »

And where did you imagine you saw this happening?

- Please provide proof of your nonsensical, troublesome claims.......

To be honest, a lot of the threads on here seem to end up with people making smart comments for their own amusement or because they simply prejudge the poster and make the assumption they are incorrect, petty, moody, at fault, too inclined toward legal recourse etc.

I'd be interested to hear what the Judge says when he/she examines an undamaged shoe, I suppose you better hope he/she has never bought a tight pair of shoes during their lifetime.

I have a pair of Nike Air, they were around €150 at the time, I can't wear them, they cause cramp in the arches of my feet. I bought a pair of Asics for €50, they are really comfy when I run, no cramps. Is there anything wrong with the Nikes? No, my son wears them and he has no issues, they just didn't suit the shape of my foot. Maybe I should have sued Nike because the didn't make a "one shoe fits all" runner.

Sue culture gone mad me thinks, I bought a shoe which is too tight, who would have thought.

traprunner

If you are unhappy with a product the first port of call is the shop it was bought in. Then it's the manufacturer. Have you tried them before you go down the legal route?

I think you'll also need to know who you are claiming against. The shop or the manufacturer.


The blisters could be caused by a couple of things:
1. The runners may not be as well ventilated as previous ones you bought. The sweat can lead to friction.
2. Runners not laced up properly. All lace holes should be used to minimise friction. Even those that appear to be oddly placed at the very top.
3. Socks. The layer between the runner and the foot. They could be a bad fit and the runners highlight it. I bought a couple of 5 packs of sports socks and they don't all fit the same. It's probably due to the large size range they are meant to fit. One size does not fit all.
4. Fit of the shoe. I have orthotics so I have to take out the insole of all runners. I can tell you that not all insoles are the same and therefore all runners fit differently. Also, runners have different widths. I personally only found that out a couple of years ago while browsing the New Balance website. Is it possible that you bought for a different width of foot than you normally do?

BabySlam

I read somewhere recently that after age 40, show size goes up half-a-size every decade (probably due to feet flattening naturally). So size length and width may be crucial to have measured (every foot is different).

VincePP

Mango Joe wrote: »

I'd be absolutely 1000% certain my foot is not the issue - Simply put, one half of this pair of shoes was not manufactured correctly.

Thanks.

Its this type of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" attitude that will get you no-where in a situation like this.

Fact - No two feet are identical, even on the same person.

Also, unless you were prevented from trying them on, you have no recourse to replacement because they don't fit properly.

Years ago I was in the shoe trade, I old staff that unless the customer insists on not trying on both shoes, that both shoes must be tried on simply because every style of shoe is different and every foot is different.

So unless you were prevented from trying on the shoes, and unless you can prove a manufacturing fault, you have zero case.

livedadream

seems pretty clear to me im afraid,

just because they do not fit you perfectly does not mean that they are not fit for purpose.

my best advise if take them to a shoemaker (my local guy is a key cutter but does all the leather stuff and shoe repairs too)

see if he can wear down the bit that is chaffing you.

Mango Joe

davo10 wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear what the Judge says when he/she examines an undamaged shoe, I suppose you better hope he/she has never bought a tight pair of shoes during their lifetime.

I have a pair of Nike Air, they were around €150 at the time, I can't wear them, they cause cramp in the arches of my feet. I bought a pair of Asics for €50, they are really comfy when I run, no cramps. Is there anything wrong with the Nikes? No, my son wears them and he has no issues, they just didn't suit the shape of my foot. Maybe I should have sued Nike because the didn't make a "one shoe fits all" runner.

Sue culture gone mad me thinks, I bought a shoe which is too tight, who would have thought.

Would you still have the same insulting outlook if there did actually happen to be an issue with the shoe and it was in time acknowledged as such?

- What magically entitles you to automatically assume I am in the wrong here?

livedadream

Mango Joe wrote: »

- What magically entitles you to automatically assume I am in the wrong here?

in general when the whole world is telling you your wrong, its not them its you.

you asked for advise everyone here has effectively told you the same thing.

try and take some good out of it.

Mango Joe

livedadream wrote: »

seems pretty clear to me im afraid,

just because they do not fit you perfectly does not mean that they are not fit for purpose.

my best advise if take them to a shoemaker (my local guy is a key cutter but does all the leather stuff and shoe repairs too)

see if he can wear down the bit that is chaffing you.

Thank you for you objectivity and balance and not assuming I am a litigious idiot with a suddenly misshapen left foot which only ever manifests itself in one single item of footwear in a lifetime.....

- I may in fact wedge/clamp the heel with some thing in the hope the defect can be carefully stretched out over a week or two etc.

VincePP

Mango Joe wrote: »

- What magically entitles you to automatically assume I am in the wrong here?

possibly because you magically are assuming you are "1000% right"

And your expertise in footwear or chiropody is????

There are more than 1 million potential alignment combinations per foot, so the idea that your left foot is identical to your right is statistically impossible.

Asymmetrical gravitational loading patterns force the feet to develop differently as you begin walking and over a lifetime, so even if a pair of shoes fitted perfectly 5 years ago, the IDENTICAL pair may not fit today. Hence ALWAYS try both shoes when buying a new pair.

dudara

Flipping heck, how did this thread manage to descend like this? Please stop it immediately. Any further antagonism from either side will immediately result in moderator action

dudara

OP - if you have taken all reasonable measures to try to wear in the shoes, etc, then it might well be the case that there is something more fundamentally wrong with the shoe. Especially if you are not experiencing any issues with other shoes from the same brand.

There's no harm in writing a letter to the sellers, cc'ing head office, and also to the manufacturer of the shoes. Mention that you are considering registering a Small Claims Court case, as you believe that the shoes are defective.

livedadream

Mango Joe wrote: »

Thank you for you objectivity and balance and not assuming I am a litigious idiot with a suddenly misshapen left foot which only ever manifests itself in one single item of footwear in a lifetime.....

- I may in fact wedge/clamp the heel with some thing in the hope the defect can be carefully stretched out over a week or two etc.

oh no dont get it twisted, i think taking a company to the small claims court over a shoe not fitting before you even contact the company is ridiculous.


its happened me, i run, i buy shoes, some fit better than others,
my sister and i have the same size shoe, she cant wear my running shoes because they cut her, that doesnt mean she has misshapen feet or that the shoes are defective, it means they fit her differently.

talking about going to court is ridiculous because without addressing it to the manufacturer you wont get anywhere, its the first question the judge will ask.