/ Mountain Warehouse hiking shoes - WARNING!!!

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
L rbdavis 06 Jan 2020

I bought a pair of Mountain Warehouse hiking shoes in Dec 2018 intended for occasional use. After less than a year and wearing them, I'd say, no more than 50 times I found that in Nov 2019 my feet were sometimes slightly damp at the end of the day. By Dec 2019, when the weather was a bit worse, I was finding that my both of my socks were soaked very soon after wearing the shoes making for extremely uncomfortable outings and the need to urgently buy replacement shoes.

I took them to a shoe repairer and they predicted the problem before I even showed them the shoes: "exactly the same thing happens with all the Mountain Warehouse shoes we see". The heel literally has holes in it that are covered by a thin layer of rubber that wears away very quickly to reveal them. They also confirmed "it's not possible to fix this fault". The shoes have "waterproof" on their packaging and label, and are clearly nothing of the sort - this is mis-selling and a product that is clearly not fit for purpose. See my photos below.

I took the shoes back to Mountain Warehouse in Jan 2019 and asked for a refund. The sales person looked at the shoes and called her manager, and then called head office, describing the situation and confirming that the shoes only had light wear. Both the manager and head office refused to give me a refund, because the shoes were (2 weeks) over a year old. They did offer me a credit note, but I refused to accept it because after this experience I did not ever wish to purchase or own Mountain Warehouse products again. In the end I gave the shoes back to Mountain Warehouse and left empty handed.

I don't believe Mountain Warehouse should be selling products as shoddy as this. Think how many Mountain Warehouse hiking shoes there are being thrown away after a year or two, and needing replacement. I believe this is the philosophy of all Mountain Warehouse products - make it cheap, sell it cheap, sell a replacement a few months later. By comparison, I have hiking boots from a reputable brand that have lasted over 15 years through much tougher conditions are are still 100% waterproof and comfortable. At a time when we need to be reducing waste and thinking about the environment, Mountain Warehouse have revealed themselves to be a deceitful brand that doesn't care about the waste it produces and sells products that may look tempting, but don't do what they are sold to do. I personally will be avoiding Mountain Warehouse at all costs going forward.

Photos of the shoes showing the holes:

https://imgur.com/2uZPPvv

https://imgur.com/euFew9J

https://imgur.com/3ejjMuw

Post edited at 10:03
Report
rj_townsend 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

You appear to have confused UKC with Trading Standards. I suggest you go to them rather than registering on this forum and using your first post to whine about a shop.

Report
HB1 06 Jan 2020

FFS - you buy a cheap pair of shoes, from a cheapskate shop, wear them down for a year, and then expect the shop to replace them, and then, to cap it all, moan about it to us. Get real!

Report
L rbdavis 06 Jan 2020
In reply to HB1:

I didn't want a replacement. I wanted my money back so I can buy some decent shoes elsewhere, not shoes with actual holes in them.

Report
rj_townsend 06 Jan 2020
In reply to HB1:

> FFS - you buy a cheap pair of shoes, from a cheapskate shop, wear them down for a year, and then expect the shop to replace them, and then, to cap it all, moan about it to us. Get real!

Let's not forget turning down a credit note (which I'm astounded they even offered) in disgust, such was the OP's outrage... 

Report
rj_townsend 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

> I didn't want a replacement. I wanted my money back so I can buy some decent shoes elsewhere, not shoes with actual holes in them.

After a year and extensive use? Grow up.

Report
L rbdavis 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rj_townsend:

It was actually a year of "light use", as described by the shop manager on inspecting them.

Report
Neil Williams 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

50 hikes in a year isn't "light use".  This kind of cheap kit is intended for people who go for an easy bimble in the Lake District once or twice a year if that.

Report
L rbdavis 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rj_townsend:

> You appear to have confused UKC with Trading Standards. I suggest you go to them 

Hi All,

Apologies if I didn't use this forum correctly - i had thought the gear reviews section was a good place to share an experience about a piece of equipment even if negative.

However your advice has been really helpful to me! I did contact Trading Standards and they advised me that under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 I had up to 6 years to return these shoes and to get a full refund, as they are not as described ("waterproof") and not fit for purpose.

I don't expect shoes to last only a year. I don't think any of us should accept such a short lifespan for a product. And it turns out consumer law agrees with this! I hope this case is useful for someone else going forward. Here are the contact details:

https://www.nationaltradingstandards.uk/contact/

p.s. I was actually going to the shoe repair shop to fix my other (Berghaus) boots that are over 15 years old. They fixed them in 20 minutes and they're as good as new! This is what good shoes should be like

Report
L rbdavis 06 Jan 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> 50 hikes in a year isn't "light use".  This kind of cheap kit is intended for people who go for an easy bimble in the Lake District once or twice a year if that.

Excuse my lack of clarity there - it wasn't 50 hikes. I completely guessed that I maybe wore them on about 50 days - likely less. The shop themselves described the shoes as having "only light use" when they checked them - those are not my words. Also, under UK consumer law, they should be usable and waterproof for 6 years.

Report
summo 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

Buy cheap, buy twice. Lesson learned. 

Report
Neil Williams 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

> Also, under UK consumer law, they should be usable and waterproof for 6 years.

That is not the case.  Cheap shoes would not be expected to last 6 years of daily use.  They might be expected to last 6 years of use once or twice a year, as most people buying that kind of kit would expect to put it to that sort of use.

For instance, I get through a pair of running shoes several times a year as I run several times a week.  This is expected.  If I ran a couple of times a year they might last several years.  It depends on use.

As you yourself highlighted, more expensive shoes from a reputable brand will cost more but will last longer.  You don't want to be paying £20 (as a quick Google suggests is the sort of price they are charging for walking shoes), you want to be paying £100+.

Post edited at 11:18
Report
L rbdavis 06 Jan 2020
In reply to summo:

> Buy cheap, buy twice. Lesson learned. 

Absolutely, hence never wanting to use this store again.

Report
summo 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

> Also, under UK consumer law, they should be usable and waterproof for 6 years.

I'd declare a miracle and expect a sainthood for any non leather footwear if they were even useable after 6 years active use, let alone still waterproof. 

Report
Neil Williams 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

> p.s. I was actually going to the shoe repair shop to fix my other (Berghaus) boots that are over 15 years old. They fixed them in 20 minutes and they're as good as new! This is what good shoes should be like

I'm sure they weren't the 2005 equivalent of £20.

You made a purchasing error for the usage you intended and you are near enough admitting it.  I'd suggest accepting it.

Your line of argument would basically require a ban on shoes costing under about £80.

Report
Neil Williams 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

> Absolutely, hence never wanting to use this store again.

You probably shouldn't.  The kit they sell is not suitable for the kind of usage you put it to.

Report
summo 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

> Absolutely, hence never wanting to use this store again.

I'd have taken the credit note and just got a few thermals or socks. As others have said they went beyond the norm to issue it. 

Report
L rbdavis 06 Jan 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> That is not the case.  Cheap shoes would not be expected to last 6 years of daily use.  They might be expected to last 6 years of use once or twice a year, as most people buying that kind of kit would expect to put it to that sort of use.

This is not my opinion - I'm literally quoting Citizens Advice Consumer Service who I just spoke to. It's the law under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, specifically because the shoes are not as described ("waterproof") and not fit for purpose.

Report
Neil Williams 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

> This is not my opinion - I'm literally quoting Citizens Advice Consumer Service who I just spoke to. It's the law under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, specifically because the shoes are not as described ("waterproof") and not fit for purpose.

Were they waterproof when you got them?  If so, they are as described.  The description did not, I'm sure, say that they would remain waterproof for 6 years.

You are misinterpreting this for your own ends, possibly based on the specific question you asked of them.

You simply cannot expect to buy a pair of walking shoes for £20 and for them to last 50 wearings.  That is not what that sort of cheap shoe is designed for - it is the absolute bottom of the market.  It is essentially a cheap disposable item for people who walk the Loughrigg Terrace for Easter then go back to London for the rest of the year.

By the way I just looked at the pics and would consider those well-worn, not lightly worn.

Edit:  I currently wear these:

https://www.millets.co.uk/footwear/292207-merrell-mens-moab-2-gore-tex-hiking-shoe-black.html/931027/?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Shopping&istCompanyId=b238823a-59fd-4816-9c36-7dd47877f2a8&istFeedId=e4ff9138-23c5-4427-aa0b-cc0475742ae6&istItemId=wixqmriww&istBid=tztx&gclid=EAIaIQobChMItqLmz-7u5gIVRrTtCh0djwomEAQYAyABEgKY0fD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

(Merrell Moab GTX Low)

...and I probably get a year or two out of them wearing as daily trainers.  Perhaps this price range (about £80) would be more suited to the kind of product you require.

Post edited at 11:26
Report
summo 06 Jan 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

>   It is essentially a cheap disposable item for people who walk the Loughrigg Terrace for Easter then go back to London for the rest of the year.

Harsh... some will go as far as stickle tarn.  

Edit. I paid about £100 for some ankle height Salomon type ones for the summer. I pretty much killed them in 4 months active use. I think that's just about all they can handle unless you buy something much heavier. 

Post edited at 11:30
Report
Pursued by a bear 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

If it looks to good to be true, it very probably is.

I'm only a gear snob for certain things. Footwear is one. I don't buy shoes or boots made by brands I don't trust.

T.

Report
Neil Williams 06 Jan 2020
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

I've bought cheap shoes - until I discovered the Moabs I was buying Sports Direct Karrimor approach shoes because they always had size 13 in stock.  But I was getting through several pairs of those a year wearing them as daily urban trainers - which at a £20ish price point was to be expected.

£20ish shoes are disposable, basically - that's the idea.  Perhaps that's not a sustainable way of working, but realistically they will last fine for people who walk once or twice a year in them for whom a £200 pair of mountaineering boots would be overkill.

Post edited at 11:43
Report
ScottTalbot 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

I only ever get a Year out of Scarpa's and they cost about £140. I wouldn't consider a few trips to the mountains plus a bit of around town use as heavy either.. It just is what it is. Nothing is made to last. Accept it and get on with your life.

Report
Dave Hewitt 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

For comparison, I've worn Inov-8 Mudclaws on the hill in non-winter (ie non crampony) conditions for a good few years now. A pair of these - usually from Pete Bland - costs about £90, although I can usually get them for £70ish in a sale. They're excellent for my needs and close to top-of-the-range pieces of kit. I wear them for walking as my running days are done. It varies, but generally I find a pair of Mudclaws lasts me 80-90 outings "for best", ie Munros and other rough hills. After that, they quite often have another 50 outings on grassier things such as the Ochils before being consigned to gardening duties.

I normally have two pairs on the go at once, and last year after maybe 30-35 uses one of the pairs had a sudden and pretty major failure on the left shoe - a whole load of stitching along the side came away, creating a big flappy hole. Nothing particular seemed to prompt this - I didn't scrape it on a rock or catch it on a barbed wire fence. Fortunately this happened in the latter stages of an Ochils outing on easy ground and in good weather, and I was able to get out no problem (although I did have cable ties in my bag, just in case of such an eventuality). I contacted sales and returns at Pete Bland - who are excellent in my experience - showed them what had happened and said the shoes had had a fair amount of use but were still a good way short of the life I'd expect from them, going by previous purchases. Pete Bland checked with Inov-8 and agreed this was a proper failure, and duly gave me a credit note - which I spent on another pair of Mudclaws! (And which have been fine.) However - and I guess this is my point - had they said no, sorry but you've worn these quite a lot and it's just something that happens, then I wouldn't have had any complaint and wouldn't have pursued it further.

Report
thommi 06 Jan 2020
In reply to summo:

Funny you say that, but I've got some old roclites that must be kicking on for 7 years old that get used every day and are still going strong. They get used for all sorts, gardening, dog walking etc. I've been through countless other shoes during this time (well, not countless) which are specifically for running or walking etc, but this one pair of inov8s won't die. Maybe I have some kind of unique mutation that escaped the factory... 😁

Report
Rigid Raider 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

The "holes" in those shoes aren't holes, they are the voids in the sole that keep the cost low, keep the weight down and cushion your steps. If you wanted to wear shoes that would give you 6 years or more of use you should have bought shoes with solid rubber soles. 

I've never shopped at Mountain Warehouse but I'd guess that 95% of their stock is manufactured in the Far East, same as Decathlon and other budget outdoor gear suppliers. Although the shoes are styled more ruggedly than a trainer, you are getting trainer technology as others point out above.

Report
CasWebb 06 Jan 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

For clarity on the CRA 2015 rule:

"The Sale of Goods Act 1979 – now the Consumer Rights Act 2015 – provides that consumers are entitled to a repair or replacement or refund where goods are faulty.

If the fault occurs after six months, the consumer has to prove that the problem was down to a fault or issue at the manufacturer, as opposed to wear and tear or misuse.

In accordance with a law known as the Statutes of Limitations, consumers have this right for six years in England and for five years in Scotland."

Report
summo 06 Jan 2020
In reply to thommi:

> Funny you say that, but I've got some old roclites that must be kicking on for 7 years old that get used every day and are still going strong. They get used for all sorts, gardening, dog walking etc. I've been through countless other shoes during this time (well, not countless) which are specifically for running or walking etc, but this one pair of inov8s won't die. Maybe I have some kind of unique mutation that escaped the factory... 😁

I do still have two pairs of old inov8s.. perhaps 2007 ish, a pair of mudclaws and something else more cushioned. I don't wear them often, but they do seem far more robust than anything before or after, from any other brand. 

Report
Neil Williams 06 Jan 2020
In reply to CasWebb:

> For clarity on the CRA 2015 rule:

> "The Sale of Goods Act 1979 – now the Consumer Rights Act 2015 – provides that consumers are entitled to a repair or replacement or refund where goods are faulty.

> If the fault occurs after six months, the consumer has to prove that the problem was down to a fault or issue at the manufacturer, as opposed to wear and tear or misuse.

> In accordance with a law known as the Statutes of Limitations, consumers have this right for six years in England and for five years in Scotland."

*Where goods are faulty*.  These goods weren't faulty, they were simply not designed for the level of use to which they were put.  A comparison might be using a domestic kettle in a cafe.

It doesn't guarantee you to have a usable product for 6 years.  It means you have the right to redress *if* there was a latent manufacturing fault up to 6 years, after which you have no rights.

Post edited at 13:37
Report
bpmclimb 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

Hi.

Bit of an unfortunate start on UKC! 

The people on here are generally very welcoming and helpful, believe it or not, but your post did come across as a lengthy rant from someone who had only just registered, apparently for that purpose alone, with no profile provided. Imagine behaving that way on walking into a real room with real people!

As others have said, buying very cheap gear for serious use is entirely your choice, but it does come with consequences: poor performance and short lifespan are very likely. If you're in a position to save up a bit more money, higher quality is obviously a better way to go. FWIW I've had my current pair of Meindl boots for ten years; in that time I've done quite a bit of rugged walking and scrambling in them, and they remain comfortable, waterproof, and have never needed any repairs. They're not cheap, but you get what you pay for, by and large

Report
CasWebb 06 Jan 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

Exactly, with the onus being on the consumer to prove that there was a manufacturing fault after that first 6 months.

Report
L rbdavis 06 Jan 2020
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> Although the shoes are styled more ruggedly than a trainer, you are getting trainer technology as others point out above.

To be clear, these cost more than £20 (that's a price someone else, not me mentioned) and these shoes are much lower quality than an average pair of trainers. I've worn similar priced trainers for many years and not had any issues.

Report
Archy Styrigg 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

> To be clear, these cost more than £20 (that's a price someone else, not me mentioned) and these shoes are much lower quality than an average pair of trainers. I've worn similar priced trainers for many years and not had any issues.


There you go, there's cheap shit and there's cheap shit. The art is choosing the right cheap shit. In this case, lesson learnt 😃🙃😃🐱

Report
Neil Williams 06 Jan 2020
In reply to bpmclimb:

FWIW I had a pair of Meindls last me 10 years including "off-label" use such as kicking fires on Scout camp

Report
Neil Williams 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

> To be clear, these cost more than £20 (that's a price someone else, not me mentioned) and these shoes are much lower quality than an average pair of trainers. I've worn similar priced trainers for many years and not had any issues.

How much did they cost?  I got £20 by searching on that company's site for walking shoes.

Report
Deadeye 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

You're wrong about the Trading Standards - either you've been mis-advised (unlikely) or you've misinterpreted/misunderstood/mis-reported.

You have up to 6 years to bring an action; there is no blanket "the product must remain as desacribed under normal use for 6 years".  If you can't see that that is obvious (think cars, white goods, anything really) then, honestly, you're an idiot.

Report
mountain.martin 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

You are getting a hard time on here, but you are coming across as having unrealistic expectations of cheap shoes.

I once bought a pair of karrimor "walking" shoes from sports direct for £29.99, because I'm old enough to remember karrimor being a top outdoor brand. When they started falling to pieces after 6 months of not very intensive use I was dissapointed but didn't think about asking for a refund. Lesson learnt I don't buy cheap shoes anymore.

Just looked at the mountain warehouse website and see that 8 out of 10 pairs of walking shoes are range between £20 - £40, The two other pairs they have are £65. I wouldn't take a pair under £40 on one proper mountain walk, OK for a years use on gentle terrain possibly. Even a £65 pair I wouldn't be surprised if they started having problems after a year. The wear on the sole in your picture doesn't look like light use.

As others have said, sometimes you do get what you pay for, and footwear is one of the areas where this usually holds true.

How much did you pay? I would have accepted the credit note and though myself lucky.

Report
mountain.martin 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis

> Think how many Mountain Warehouse hiking shoes there are being thrown away after a year or two, and needing replacement. I believe this is the philosophy of all Mountain Warehouse products - make it cheap, sell it cheap, sell a replacement a few months later. At a time when we need to be reducing waste and thinking about the environment, Mountain Warehouse have revealed themselves to be a deceitful brand that doesn't care about the waste it produces and sells products that may look tempting, but don't do what they are sold to do.

Yep, you've sussed out their business model, lots of companies have the same approach in different markets and will continue to operate like this as long as we keep buying from them. 

>I personally will be avoiding Mountain Warehouse at all costs going forward.

Good plan if you want decent, durable equipment. That was also my decision after one look round one of their shops, apart from one time when I needed gas and there was no nearby alternative

Report
ColdWill 06 Jan 2020
In reply to mountain.martin:

IO bought a merino base from them that's still good after a year... but it cost more than the shoes. 

Report
Stuart the postie 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

When my kids were younger, 7yrs or so, bought a couple pairs of shoes for them. I quickly realised how poor their footwear was, same thing happened with their soles! Good designs, poor materials, construction.

I did buy several of their childrens waterproof jackets, which I found to be very good value!

Stuart

Report
Neil Williams 06 Jan 2020
In reply to Stuart the postie:

For kids that's understandable, though, as they grow out of them quicker than a decent pair will wear out.

More sustainable to buy decent ones and sell used, I suppose, but that's not modern culture (though it might well make a comeback).

Post edited at 17:33
Report
tom_in_edinburgh 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

I bought some walking poles from them once, they lasted about 15 minutes.   If you get a year out of their sh*t you're doing well.

Report
Stuart the postie 06 Jan 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

They never grew out of them within weeks!

The soles would expose holes (like yours), very little wear anywhere else! They were pish.

Stuart

Report
Wanderer100 06 Jan 2020
In reply to Stuart the postie:

I bought 2 base layer long sleeve tops and a pair of long John's for a Himalayan trip from Mountain Warehouse. 3 years later and still regularly used as a winter cycling baselayer (not the long johns) they are still going strong and I'm really pleased with them. £60 for the lot IIRC.

Report
Le Sapeur 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

I can empathise with your annoyance, however given that you spent £20 the effort you are going to seems a little extreme.

I bought a pair of Meindl shoes last year and the soles are so slippery that it's difficult to walk up some city streets if it's been raining. They cost £140. I also took them back to the shop and the sales assistant suggested I rubbed sandpaper on the soles. Seems it's a common problem with Meindl, 85% of their reviews on Trustpilot give 1 star and that's probably because there is no zero star option. 

Your £20 shoes look ok compared to my £140 pair, and you could buy 7 pairs that would last 7 years which is far better value than my Meindl's. Time to get over it.

Report
Neil Williams 06 Jan 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

Interesting re Meindl - have they had a change of ownership?  I've had a couple of pairs over the years and was impressed with them both times, one pair lasted 10 years.

Report
r0x0r.wolfo 06 Jan 2020
In reply to Stuart the postie:

Part of that is your tendency to suplinate, I have shoes that are worn on one side for the same reason. I doubt the shoes are designed to correct that. 

Report
Le Sapeur 06 Jan 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

I'm not sure. They were my first (and last) pair. They certainly had a good reputation in the past.

The Trustpilot reviews are worth a look.

https://www.trustpilot.com/review/www.meindl.de

Report
Stuart the postie 06 Jan 2020
In reply to Wanderer100:

I praised their kids waterproofs, though they were very good. Have experience of other items of MWH outdoor clothing, no issues.

Just their shoes are rubbish.

Stuart

Report
hang_about 06 Jan 2020
In reply to ScottTalbot:

> I only ever get a Year out of Scarpa's and they cost about £140. I wouldn't consider a few trips to the mountains plus a bit of around town use as heavy either.. It just is what it is. Nothing is made to last. Accept it and get on with your life.

I had that with Scarpas. The soles got very slippery within a few months. I bought another make at £80 (can't recall what) and they're going strong after the same length of use.

Report
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

> If it looks to good to be true, it very probably is.

> I'm only a gear snob for certain things. Footwear is one. I don't buy shoes or boots made by brands I don't trust.

> T.

To quote Primo Levi (well, someone he met at Auschwitz):

"Remember, when there is war, the first thing is shoes, and second is eating. Because if you have shoes, then you can run and steal. But you must have shoes."

Report
captain paranoia 06 Jan 2020
In reply to Rigid Raider:

> I've never shopped at Mountain Warehouse but I'd guess that 95% of their stock is manufactured in the Far East, same as Decathlon and other budget outdoor gear suppliers.

Everyone manufactures in the Far East, the likes of Arc'teryx included.

'Made in China' is not a synonym for 'shit'. It's all about design, specification of materials, rigorous QA and developing a relationship with your suppliers.

Decathlon is in a different league to Mountain Warehouse.

Report
Jmacquarrie 06 Jan 2020
In reply to hang_about:

I've had the same problem, my last pair of Scarpa's had Vibram soles and despite no longer being waterproof still have decent grip. My new pair that replaced them have a Scarpa sole and after a summer's scrambling / walking the sole has worn down to not feeling safe on rock.

Not saying I didn't get my money's worth, just I'll be making sure the replacement for these has a Vibram sole.

Report
Bobling 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

I once brought a pair of brogues from M&S, which I wore walking to and fro from work.  After a few months the sole split and water started getting sucked in.  Took them to M&S and got a replacement pair as I thought it was an aberration.  3 months later same thing happened and I replaced them...wahay I thought I'm on to a lifetime pair of shoes here as I just refresh them every three months.  Sadly on the fourth lap they'd changed their design and they didn't fall apart again.

I'm an absolute hoot at dinner parties!

Report
Guy 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

Their trek towels are great.  They feel horrible but they dry you quickly and dry out quickly, perfect for a trek towel.  Should have used those vouchers on towels!

Report
Beanmanclimb 06 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

You've worn the heel out of a cheap pair of shoes after hiking in them every weekend for a year then you're going to moan for a refund. Then you carry on the moaning by starting a thread on here. Are you like this with everything you buy? How entitled are you, get a grip. This is like buying a McDonalds and asking for a refund after eating it because it wasn't as nice as the Michelin star restaurant you've been to before.

Report
pcassels 07 Jan 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> For kids that's understandable, though, as they grow out of them quicker than a decent pair will wear out.

> More sustainable to buy decent ones and sell used, I suppose, but that's not modern culture (though it might well make a comeback).

I once made the mistake of buying my daughter mountain warehouse boots thinking she'd out grow them before they wore out. They lasted a whole 3 months and the soled were worn through (used everyweekend). Lesson learnt next pair cost me £80 from George Fisher but i can trade them back in for a slight discount off the next pair. She comfortable and happy and they will last.

On a side note ive got her fleeced and thermals from mountain warehouse at that are well priced and do the job.

Post edited at 08:00
Report
Doug 07 Jan 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

I bought a cheap pair of shoes (about €40) from Decathlon about 6 months ago thinking I'd wear them for walks in the valley & for pottering about so as to save my much more expensive approach shoes for longer /more mountainous walks (I live in the French Alps). They don't have a goretex liner or equivalent but I've ended up wearing them several times a week including many >15 km walks & they show almost no signs of wear so far. I'm tempted to buy another pair to keep for the future as my experience is that models of shoe have a limited life before they are replaced by something else.

But I wish it was easier to buy walking shoes without goretex liners, even when they exist in the catalogue, its often difficult to find them in a shop. My current 'good' pair have liners as that was all I could find in my size & they definitely feel damp inside (on a dry day) compared to the previous pair from the same company without a liner (end rant)

Report
Neil Williams 07 Jan 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Decathlon is in a different league to Mountain Warehouse.

My experience of Decathlon is of good designs made of cheap materials and so don't necessarily last that long but perfect for occasional types of use.  They cut costs in other ways, though, such as by the entire process being in-house other than (I think) the manufacturing itself (or do they have their own Chinese factory?), so there are only two potential profit cuts (manufacturer and retail) rather than many in traditional retail.

Post edited at 08:01
Report
ScottTalbot 07 Jan 2020
In reply to hang_about:

> I had that with Scarpas. The soles got very slippery within a few months. I bought another make at £80 (can't recall what) and they're going strong after the same length of use.

I find it hard to find boots that are comfortable, so have been sticking with Scarpa, as they fit my feet. It's probably time to widen my search a bit though.. When this pair die, I'm going to shop around for something else.

Report
HB1 07 Jan 2020
In reply to HB1:

> FFS - you buy a cheap pair of shoes, from a cheapskate shop, wear them down for a year, and then expect the shop to replace them, and then, to cap it all, moan about it to us. Get real!

I've got 81 likes for posting this hasty comment. I'm feeling somewhat ashamed of myself now. We all buy cheap stuff from time-to-time - sometimes it's a bargain, other times not (I'm a regular TK Maxx customer - just picked up a Spyder Polar fleece for £24 (RRP around £150) seems a bargain, but it might not be, and if not I can live with it. So I apologise  to the OP (and tbh I don't approve of the like/dislike button) and just hope he/she sticks around with us a little longer!

Report
Philb1950 07 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

I cannot believe anyone is even engaging with you. You,re akin to the Maccy D advert like getting your moneys worth. Grow up, £20 shoes wearing out. Just fancy that. Makes you wonder why anyone would ever pay £100+ for hill walking shoes when Mountain Warehouse have the answer. Other than t shirts would anyone buy anything for serious outdoor or mountain (pardon the pun) use from M.W.

Reminds me of many years ago when Paul Nunn arrived at least 2 hours behind us on the Marsden Edale fell run wearing Reebok trainers, unfortunately missing both soles. But they were cheap!

Report
Tom V 07 Jan 2020
In reply to Philb1950:

>  Makes you wonder why anyone would ever pay £100+ for hill walking shoes when Mountain Warehouse have the answer. 

The notion of paying £20 for a pair of walking shoes doesn't make me wonder about people half as much as the notion of paying £600 for a jacket.

Report
tonanf 07 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

My mountain whouse story:

it was my 40th birthday, i was in lakes. i wanted to go up scafell for my first time. i needed boots. went to m.whouse bought some hitec type boots, high ankle, soft sole, black leather, m.house own make. they were dirt cheap, really comfy.

went up scafel, it was torrid, october, storm wind, rain. missus bailed out on walk so I ran up, down wrong side, back up great gable( i think) then over another little hill then back to bus stop. about a 5 hour mountain run. in brand new boots. they were brilliant, traction, comfort etc. BUT, they fell apart, seams, soles the lot. As it was one days wear i took them back, felt cheeky but tried. They refunded me no probs!

Good cheap stuff. Dont moan!

Report
tonanf 07 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

Anatoms are now my boot and shoe of choice, made in romania i think.

Report
tonanf 07 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

what a brilliant thread!

Report
Guy Hurst 07 Jan 2020
In reply to tonanf:

> what a brilliant thread!


Unlike the sort MW use in their shoes.

Report
TobyA 07 Jan 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> My experience of Decathlon is of good designs made of cheap materials and so don't necessarily last that long but perfect for occasional types of use. 

I've got two pairs of Decathlon softshell trousers, one pair is probably 15 years and the other pair which is at least 7 years old (but more likely 8 or 9), I use both pairs still pretty regularly. They've been brilliant regardless of the cost, but even more so when you think how cheap they were, so at least them (and actually a fleece I use loads, and cycling kit that gets used loads) I say good designs, cheap (but not poor) materials that last rather well.

Report
captain paranoia 07 Jan 2020
In reply to Neil Williams:

> My experience of Decathlon is of good designs made of cheap materials and so don't necessarily last that long but perfect for occasional types of use

Their cheaper range products use poorer materials. But their top of range own brand products use some of the same materials as the 'name' brands; Rab 'Matrix' soft shell fabrics, for instance. They might not call them the same name, but they are the same fabric, from the same mill.  If not, they are very good copies.

Those top of range products are still only about 1/3 the price of equivalent branded products.

Report
Lankyman 08 Jan 2020
In reply to Guy Hurst:

> Unlike the sort MW use in their shoes.


My experiences of MW boots is fine - you get what you pay for to an extent? I used to buy Scarpa GTX 's and had numerous pairs of these after trying cloth boots and the old Brashers. Everything was fine but I'd only get about a years worth of wear before they were getting trashy and holed. At the time, I was using them for work (walks guide on the fells) and personal use so quite a heavy load, probably more than most? Then Scarpa (like a lot of manufacturers?) decided to 'improve' things and put in goretex linings. Great in theory but in practice the boots took days to dry out which in reality for me often meant not at all. Now I'm not too bothered about dry tootsies (never wear gaiters) but the costs of said boots were becoming eye-watering given the time they'd last me and the non-lined version was getting harder to find.

Cue - Mountain Warehouse! I could get a pair of fabric boots (back then they were called Hurricanes) for half to one third the price of the GTX's. They were very comfortable, not quite as 'grippy' on scrambles but I'm agile enough to compensate. I've worn them for everything from scrambling up Scafell last February to plodging round the mud of Morecambe Bay most weeks. Currently I have two pairs on the go the older of which I've been using for nearly 3 years and is probably almost done for. Some of the eyelets have popped but that is unique to that pair and is down to the salt-water immersion they had when I drowned my car last year and they were in the footwell. Leaving them sitting in a plastic bag for two weeks afterwards probably didn't help either - do you think I should complain to MW (or trading standards)?

Report
GrahamD 08 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

Is this one of those wind up another forum trolls ? If so, great work. 9/10.

If you're serious, get real.

Report
yesbutnobutyesbut 08 Jan 2020
In reply to tonanf:

> My mountain whouse story:

> it was my 40th birthday, i was in lakes. i wanted to go up scafell for my first time. i needed boots. went to m.whouse bought some hitec type boots, high ankle, soft sole, black leather, m.house own make. they were dirt cheap, really comfy.

> went up scafel, it was torrid, october, storm wind, rain. missus bailed out on walk so I ran up, down wrong side, back up great gable( i think) then over another little hill then back to bus stop. about a 5 hour mountain run. in brand new boots. they were brilliant, traction, comfort etc. BUT, they fell apart, seams, soles the lot. As it was one days wear i took them back, felt cheeky but tried. They refunded me no probs!

> Good cheap stuff. Dont moan!

How can 'walking boots' be good that fall apart on one 5 hour hike ?

It's cheap s h i t. Nothing more

Report
artif 08 Jan 2020
In reply to Lankyman:

> Some of the eyelets have popped but that is unique to that pair and is down to the salt-water immersion they had when I drowned my car last year and they were in the footwell. 

There has to be more to this story, you cant leave us hanging like that................

Report
Lankyman 08 Jan 2020
In reply to artif:

I was driving out of Glasson Dock, heading down to Wales to see an old friend. Before it reaches the main road junction the road runs beside the tidal River Conder. A very high tide was in and a few cars ahead of me had gone through the water which was now across the road. It didn't look too bad but they must have had better clearance than me. My Focus stalled just yards from safety at the junction. I've had a few lows in my life recently but this felt like a new one, sat there with water flowing through the doors and watching the swans gliding by beside me. If I'd been a cigar smoker it could have been like one of those classic cigar ads ('Happiness is a cigar called 'Hamlet'). I called the emergency services and waded the short distance to dry land. It was quite impressive - police, ambulance, fire brigade and coastguard - but I felt like a complete wally. The car was a write-off but no animals were hurt in the production. Sadly, the road was clear of water just minutes later. If only I'd set off just a little later.

Report
artif 08 Jan 2020
In reply to Lankyman:

I'm laughing in sympathy as I remember the Hamlet ads, this would have a perfect one.

Thanks 

Report
Billhook 08 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

Along with the others who've pointed it out, I'm afraid your 'consumer' expert at CA is wrong.  The statute of limitations is six years.  Does nothing wear out or break down before 6 years is up?

How long should boots last for (Or anything else), it depends on what they were designed to do, how they were made - were there any faults and so on and your usage of them.  

If we all had an automatic  right to return boots within six years, they'd be lots of people on here, possibly including me, who walk rather long distances and we'd all be returning boots!!

Expecting  a pair of boots from a cheap shop to last that long is unreasonable and they cannot control your use of them and   You may well have been walking over sharp limestone for all we know carrying an enormous rucksack.

Report
Billhook 08 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

Oh, and looking at a couple of the photos of the soles, I'd suggest you buy something with a Vibram sole.  I would expect those to last six years or longer!  But they'd cost a little more perhaps?

Report
webbo 08 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

My understanding of trading standards with something that is not fit for purpose, you are entitled to return the item and get a refund for what is worth at the time you return it. So you are not entitled to a full refund on a pair or year old shoes, you are entitled to refund for the value of a pair of year old shoes.

So put your year old MW shoes on eBay and see what you are offered and that’s what MW should refund you. You might be able buy a pair of socks if you are lucky.

Report
Ridge 08 Jan 2020
In reply to Billhook:

> Oh, and looking at a couple of the photos of the soles, I'd suggest you buy something with a Vibram sole.  I would expect those to last six years or longer!  But they'd cost a little more perhaps?

I wouldn't expect any sole to last 6 years.

Report
TheDrunkenBakers 09 Jan 2020
In reply to Ridge:

My £200 Meindle soles dont last 6 years with decent usage and I certainly wouldn't send them back if they didnt as the ^ 2000 walking miles in them would constitute proper usage.

Report
ClimberEd 09 Jan 2020
In reply to rbdavis:

get over yourself.

Do you really feel the need to create a profile on a forum and post about this. 

Report

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.