Leaky Kangol Shoes

FLOOPER

Hi,

About 2 months ago I bough a very nice pair of Kangol runners and after about 3 weeks I noticed my socks getting a little wet. They wren't exposed to heavy rain and I returned them to Sports Direct and got a replacement.

The new pair have been doing fine having them about 28 days but with the wet under ground tonight I have found they're leaking again. They haven't been in any down pour just the wet ground underneath and agin I have found that my socks are damp and even feeling the insole it is damp. i.e. they obviously have a crack or leak in the underside of the rubber sole.

What are my rights considering I bought them about 30 days ago. I just use them for walking only.

I feel bad about going back again and saying the same thing. What are my rights here. I have the receipt of course.

Shouldn't shoes that haven't been subjected to a down pour offer water protection from the sole upward.

Just would appreciate some clarity as to my rights when buying shoes.

Thanks.

theteal

Why feel bad? They're not fit for purpose. I'd go back looking for a refund.

FYI, all those sports direct brands (karrimor, Dunlop, firetrap, lonsdale, kangol etc.) are nothing like their formerly reputable brands. They're all just standard sports direct rebranded crap these days and not worth the money/effort - I'm even coming to the conclusion that their Nike, adidas etc stuff is of a lower standard to the norm, if that's possible

davo10

Were they advertised as being water-proof? Maybe post a link to the runners.

CeilingFly

No rights whatsoever unless that were advertised and sold as waterproof or water resistant.

Shoes are stitched in many parts and water will get through these minute stitch holes - damp weather is almost worse than heavy rain for getting feet wet.

I'm really surprised they replaced the initial pair.

FLOOPER

CeilingFly wrote: »

No rights whatsoever unless that were advertised and sold as waterproof or water resistant.

Shoes are stitched in many parts and water will get through these minute stitch holes - damp weather is almost worse than heavy rain for getting feet wet.

I'm really surprised they replaced the initial pair.

Are you absolutely sure?

Would have thought that the least a shoe would do is not let water in after 30 days. Ive never in my 51 years bought shoes that leaked.

These are the shoes. https://ie.sportsdirect.com/kangol-canary-casual-mens-trainers-114098?colcode=11409805&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn_b-39md2AIVDeMbCh0xeAyAEAQYAyABEgIo8_D_BwE

Gatling

Most shoes will get wet these days depending on what and where your using them ,
Maybe look into decent pair of gortex runners or walking shoes

njs030

Synthetic sole with stitched detail is going to let in water.
They are casual shoes as it says, they aren't for walking and aren't waterproof.

CeilingFly

FLOOPER wrote: »

Are you absolutely sure?

Would have thought that the least a shoe would do is not let water in after 30 days. Ive never in my 51 years bought shoes that leaked.

These are the shoes. https://ie.sportsdirect.com/kangol-canary-casual-mens-trainers-114098?colcode=11409805&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn_b-39md2AIVDeMbCh0xeAyAEAQYAyABEgIo8_D_BwE

100% certain especially stitched leather upper with etxtile lining - nothing water-resistant about about that.

Leather is water permeable and with stitching and a textile lining, its near certain going to get wet on the inside in damp/wet conditions.

Very easy to dry out - stuff with newpaper/tissue and leave in a warm dry area for 24 hours but not directly beside a heat source.

Maybe previous shoes were of a glue and single piece construction with any stitching above any "water-line", but unless a shoe says "water resistant" or "water proof" it will get wet in certain conditions

davo10

FLOOPER wrote: »

Are you absolutely sure?

Would have thought that the least a shoe would do is not let water in after 30 days. Ive never in my 51 years bought shoes that leaked.

These are the shoes. https://ie.sportsdirect.com/kangol-canary-casual-mens-trainers-114098?colcode=11409805&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIn_b-39md2AIVDeMbCh0xeAyAEAQYAyABEgIo8_D_BwE

Can't see where they are advertised as water proof.

splinter65

<SNIP>

Unless they are advertised as “waterproof” I don’t think you have any further comeback.

dudara

Sorry all, I completely disagree. Regular shoes should be able to stand up to regular use, including some water. I don’t have any explicitly “waterproof” shoes, yet none of my regular shoes get damp when out and about in normal conditions.

I would definitely be returning for a full refund citing unfit for purpose.

splinter65

dudara wrote: »

Sorry all, I completely disagree. Regular shoes should be able to stand up to regular use, including some water. I don’t have any explicitly “waterproof” shoes, yet none of my regular shoes get damp when out and about in normal conditions.

I would definitely be returning for a full refund citing unfit for purpose.

I’d be very interested to see how that would turn out in the SCC.
The purpose of a wool coat is to keep you warm.
If you wear the wool coat out in the rain and you get wet through and are cold, would you return that as unfit for purpose?

L1011

splinter65 wrote: »

I’d be very interested to see how that would turn out in the SCC.
The purpose of a wool coat is to keep you warm.
If you wear the wool coat out in the rain and you get wet through and are cold, would you return that as unfit for purpose?

Shoes sold in Ireland need to be fit for purpose for use in Ireland. Its relatively damp here.

Your feet shouldn't get wet in normal shoes/trainers in damp conditions. Actual pouring rain is a different story but that isn't the OPs scenario.

They are fairly cheap, own-brand products and effectively not worth going to the SCC for - if a single pair was sold at the alleged 88 euro original price I'd be amazed.

dudara

Think about what normal or regular use means. I’m not talking splashing through puddles, climbing up mountains or working outdoors here. I’m talking about being out on an average day in town with wet pavements etc. If a pair of shoes isn’t for that type of use, then there’s something wrong.

splinter65

L1011 wrote: »

Shoes sold in Ireland need to be fit for purpose for use in Ireland. Its relatively damp here.

Your feet shouldn't get wet in normal shoes/trainers in damp conditions. Actual pouring rain is a different story but that isn't the OPs scenario.

They are fairly cheap, own-brand products and effectively not worth going to the SCC for - if a single pair was sold at the alleged 88 euro original price I'd be amazed.

I disagree . If I want to walk in the rain and not get my feet wet then I need to buy waterproof shoes to wear when it’s raining and I walk.

njs030

Shoes that have stitching all over them aren't going to hold out water, the stitches will let in damp.
They are called casual shoes not walking shoes - casual shoes are for nights out or shopping etc. Buy decent walking shoes or trainers to go for walks.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

splinter65 wrote: »

I disagree . If I want to walk in the rain and not get my feet wet then I need to buy waterproof shoes to wear when it’s raining and I walk.

There would still be an expectation that most shoes should keep your feet dry in damp conditions.

L1011

splinter65 wrote: »

I disagree . If I want to walk in the rain and not get my feet wet then I need to buy waterproof shoes to wear when it’s raining and I walk.

The OP isn't talking about walking in the rain. Neither was I, so you're disagreeing with nothing.

CeilingFly

dudara wrote: »

Sorry all, I completely disagree. Regular shoes should be able to stand up to regular use, including some water. I don’t have any explicitly “waterproof” shoes, yet none of my regular shoes get damp when out and about in normal conditions.

I would definitely be returning for a full refund citing unfit for purpose.

I'd agree generally with that, but the op suggests that they were walking on grassy areas.

On the shoes in question the style has a long open tongue/gusset and very easy for water to get in as you walk with water coming from the sole of the opposite foot.

The stitching is about 2-3 cm off the sole, so "normal" damp conditions on a path wouldn't get the feet wet in a normal timeframe, but grass or a long walk would cause wetness with these and most other shoes of similar style.

As others have said, Kangol is now an own brand of Sports Direct and certainly would not be worth the false rrp of €84. Probably reasonable value at €36

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

CeilingFly wrote: »

I'd agree generally with that, but the op suggests that they were walking on grassy areas.

On the shoes in question the style has a long open tongue/gusset and very easy for water to get in as you walk with water coming from the sole of the opposite foot.

The stitching is about 2-3 cm off the sole, so "normal" damp conditions on a path wouldn't get the feet wet in a normal timeframe, but grass or a long walk would cause wetness with these and most other shoes of similar style.

As others have said, Kangol is now an own brand of Sports Direct and certainly would not be worth the false rrp of €84. Probably reasonable value at €36

Where did anybody mention walking on grass or anything other than normal walking on damp ground?

I have never had shoes in over 70 years that left my feet wet in normal walking on damp ground. The shoes are not fit for purpose in this country.

splinter65

Harlow Loose Cockroach wrote: »

There would still be an expectation that most shoes should keep your feet dry in damp conditions.

I don’t expect my wool coat to keep me either warm or dry in wet conditions.
Why would I expect shoes?

L1011

splinter65 wrote: »

I don’t expect my wool coat to keep me either warm or dry in wet conditions.
Why would I expect shoes?

Nobody is discussing wet conditions except you.

The OP is having shoes that get water in them when the ground is wet, e.g. damp conditions, e.g. Ireland.

Please read the actual posts.

splinter65

L1011 wrote: »

Nobody is discussing wet conditions except you.

The OP is having shoes that get water in them when the ground is wet, e.g. damp conditions, e.g. Ireland.

Please read the actual posts.

Ok. So damp conditions instead of wet conditions. I still fail to see how shoes not advertised as “waterproof” or “water resistant” can be returned as faulty.

L1011

splinter65 wrote: »

Ok. So damp conditions instead of wet conditions. I still fail to see how shoes not advertised as “waterproof” or “water resistant” can be returned as faulty.

Because it is damp in Ireland somewhere between a third and half of the year.

Shoes which can only be used on dry days are slippers, not shoes.

Your wool coat example would only be of any use in summer which, generally, doesn't need coats if we follow your logic.

davo10

L1011 wrote: »

Because it is damp in Ireland somewhere between a third and half of the year.

Shoes which can only be used on dry days are slippers, not shoes.

Your wool coat example would only be of any use in summer which, generally, doesn't need coats if we follow your logic.

They are advertised as "casual men's trainers", no mention of being water proof. Surely you are not suggesting that because it rains s lot here, all shoes should be waterproof? Most of my runners are not leather, I certainly wouldn't want a heavy pair of water proof runners when I'm running.

To me it looks like these are a light pair of casual runners to be worn more under jeans. If clothing/footwear is advertised as waterproof then you have a right to be disappointed but there is no claim to be that on the ad.

Gatling

Wonder if the damp insoles isn't from absorbing water ,but more from sweaty feet due to non breathable materials been used and resulting in excess moisture building up inside the shoe

L1011

davo10 wrote: »

They are advertised as "casual men's trainers", no mention of being water proof. Surely you are not suggesting that because it rains s lot here, all shoes should be waterproof? Most of my runners are not leather, I certainly wouldn't want a heavy pair of water proof runners when I'm running.

To me it looks like these are a light pair of casual runners to be worn more under jeans. If clothing/footwear is advertised as waterproof then you have a right to be disappointed but there is no claim to be that on the ad.

The OP has never mentioned wearing them in rain.

If you think that Ireland doesn't have damp ground sufficiently often that casual shoes need to be waterproof, please let me move to your house because the ground is damp basically from September to march outside mine

njs030

L1011 wrote: »

The OP has never mentioned wearing them in rain.

If you think that Ireland doesn't have damp ground sufficiently often that casual shoes need to be waterproof, please let me move to your house because the ground is damp basically from September to march outside mine

They are casual shoes not walking shoes.
Casual shoes are shoes for shopping, nights out, driving etc. Not ultra fancy but definitely not for long walks.

Op can't claim fit for purpose when he isn't using them for the intended purpose of 'casual' use.

colm_mcm

It's ok that my feet are wet cos I'm on a night out. Just as well I wasn't on a long walk?

njs030

colm_mcm wrote: »

It's ok that my feet are wet cos I'm on a night out. Just as well I wasn't on a long walk?

That makes absolutely no sense. Literally none.

Tigger

Harlow Loose Cockroach wrote: »

There would still be an expectation that most shoes should keep your feet dry in damp conditions.

cloth or leather