Rock Shoe Returns - query

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Greenbanks 02 Jan 2019

I was given a pair of rock shoes as a Christmas gift (nice...). Unfortunately a half-size too small. On returning to the shop where they were purchased, I was told that 'we don't normally exchange rock shoes, as we classify them as 'safety equipment" '. After a bit of a grumble, the chap reluctantly "on this occasion, and as a gesture of goodwill(sic)" said they'd allow the exchange.

The shoes were quite obviously unworn and in the original packaging, with receipt for purchase.

On looking at the shop's website (a well-known online/high street climbing equipment supplier, I found this:

"Please note that for the safety of all our customers, we are unable to exchange or issue a refund for any new or unused climbing equipment and all helmets (including ski) bought in store, once they have left our premises".

No specific mention of shoes. Anyone else encountered this? Or find the position taken (by them) to be somewhat unreasonable?

Happy New Year by the way!

 nacnud 02 Jan 2019
In reply to Greenbanks:

Shoes aren't PPE, this was a mistake on the shop keeps behalf. 

 Bulls Crack 02 Jan 2019
In reply to Greenbanks:

Cotswold? 'Please note that for the safety of all our customers, we are unable to exchange or issue a refund for any new or unused climbing equipment and all helmets (including ski) bought in store, once they have left our premises. '

However:' The Distance Selling Regulations allow climbing equipment and helmets bought online to be returned within 14 days' 

J1234 02 Jan 2019
In reply to Bulls Crack:

>

> However:' The Distance Selling Regulations allow climbing equipment and helmets bought online to be returned within 14 days' 

This is a real oddity which means shops can be selling items such as helmets, ropes, slings and the like that have been returned. A regulation to protect the consumer, in this instance potentially working against the consumer.

 Martin W 02 Jan 2019
In reply to Bulls Crack:

> However:' The Distance Selling Regulations allow climbing equipment and helmets bought online to be returned within 14 days' 

Hmm, I suspect that statement hasn't been updated in a looooong time: the Distance Selling Regulations were superseded by the Consumer Contracts Regulations in June 2014...

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-contracts-regul...

 Lakesclimber24 03 Jan 2019
In reply to J1234:

Having worked for a well known outdoor retailer, if a helmet etc was returned to us due to being bought online and not being wanted (typically fit) within the 14 days, we weren't allowed to resell it. It had to be packaged up and was sent to be destroyed.

Knowing people who work for Cotswold, they list climbing shoes as footwear with climbing equipment being things like cams, nuts etc. Sounds like you just had an unhelpful assistant.

1
J1234 04 Jan 2019
In reply to Lakesclimber24:

> Having worked for a well known outdoor retailer, if a helmet etc was returned to us due to being bought online and not being wanted (typically fit) within the 14 days, we weren't allowed to resell it. It had to be packaged up and was sent to be destroyed.

>

That is absolutely wicked, if that is the case, they should not sell Helmets online.

1
OP Greenbanks 04 Jan 2019
In reply to Greenbanks:

This episode still makes little sense to me. Bang goes the impulsive gift of certain kit items, bought by well-meaning relatives...who in their right mind would buy anything potentially/marginally related to climbing if such an approach was maintained? This applies to on-line or direct.

With regard to climbing shoes, I think the argument that they are 'safety-related' is a red-herring. For shoes obviously not worn, I can't see a problem in making the same kind of arrangement as for a pair of any other shoes...

As correctly assumed, the supplier was Cotswold - who I've had very positive dealings with in the past.

 Luke90 04 Jan 2019
In reply to Lakesclimber24:

> if a helmet etc was returned to us due to being bought online and not being wanted (typically fit) within the 14 days, we weren't allowed to resell it. It had to be packaged up and was sent to be destroyed.

How certain are you about that process? I find it hard to believe. Could you or the person explaining it to you have got the wrong end of the stick? Perhaps the kit just got sent back to the manufacturer/distributor so that they could inspect it?

Quite apart from the environmental consequences, that seems like it would be far too expensive for whoever takes the hit to maintain.

J1234 04 Jan 2019
In reply to Luke90:

> >

> How certain are you about that process? I find it hard to believe. Could you or the person explaining it to you have got the wrong end of the stick? Perhaps the kit just got sent back to the manufacturer/distributor so that they could inspect it?

>

To actually make the helmet probably costs the manufacturer about £3, all the rest of the cost is R & D, buying the moulds, packaging, marketing, testing etc. To send back and non destrutivley test would I suspect be impossible. They have to be seen to destroy them, because if there was an accident and they got sued and there was a possiblity a helmet had been re sent out, they would be toast.

Helmets and ropes etc, should either be non return or not sold by mail order.

3
 steveb2006 04 Jan 2019
In reply to Greenbanks:

I wouldnt touch the mentioned supplier with a barge pole these days. Any other decent climbing shop has been happy to let me get used to rock shoes at home (as long as not used outside) for a bit and its not been a problem at all to replace or refund if Ive not been happy with them in the end. 

 Luke90 04 Jan 2019
In reply to J1234:

I don't know much about the costs and profit margins in gear but three quid strikes me as unlikely. Are you basing that on anything? On top of that, some packaging and distribution costs would have to be included in the loss and that's even assuming that the manufacturer is the one eating the cost. It seems more likely to me that the retailer accepting the return would be the party making a loss and they'd be paying a pretty high fraction of the sale price, particularly if we're talking about a low-margin, online-only operation.

I wasn't suggesting full, non-destructive testing of the gear so much as a confirmation that the packaging is intact and unopened, perhaps with a quick visual inspection of the gear itself as well. I'd be comfortable with buying climbing gear that somebody else might have returned unopened. Yes, it would be possible to envision some kind of weirdo subtly sabotaging it without damaging the packaging but why would they? If we're going to start worrying about that, there are plenty of other points in the supply chain where a bad actor could wreak havoc but probably wouldn't because there's no motivation to do so.

Do you have a general problem with online shops? Your first post in this thread was being outraged that they might resell returns. Then you were horrified that they might destroy them. I think online sales have to include a return option, there's good reason why that was included in the distance selling laws, and I don't think turning back the clock to a point where PPE was only sold in store is likely or desirable.

 nufkin 04 Jan 2019
In reply to Martin W:

Looks like shops could make a case for safety-critical equipment being exempted from the 14-day return period:

'There are some circumstances where the Consumer Contracts Regulations won’t give you a right to cancel.

These include, CDs, DVDs or software if you've broken the seal on the wrapping, perishable items and tailor-made or personalised items. They also include goods with a seal for health protection and hygiene reasons that's been broken.'

But I suppose that'd be at each shop's discretion, and maybe more trouble to argue that it's worth, given that in most cases (nuts, cams even harnesses) it's fairly obvious if something's been sneakily used and wouldn't be re-sellable

 

J1234 04 Jan 2019
In reply to Luke90:

> I don't know much about the costs and profit margins in gear but three quid strikes me as unlikely. Are you basing that on anything?

Nothing at all, just a total guess, but the material/manufacturing cost will be very small after all the other costs I mentioned, how much do you reckon it costs to make one, once everything else is in place?

> I wasn't suggesting full, non-destructive testing of the gear so much as a confirmation that the packaging is intact and unopened, perhaps with a quick visual inspection of the gear

I do not believe that would suffice for safety kit.

> Do you have a general problem with online shops?

Not really, I have one, but when returning something results in such as wasteful result as total destruction of a helmet or anything else for that matter, I just do not think it is a good thing from an environmental perspective. And I do not think a group such as the outdoor community who maybe one would think would cherish the environment more than many should condone such practices.

 

2
 Luke90 04 Jan 2019
In reply to J1234:

> Nothing at all, just a total guess, but the material/manufacturing cost will be very small after all the other costs I mentioned, how much do you reckon it costs to make one, once everything else is in place?

I have no idea really, I'm just betting that it would be quite a bit higher than three quid. It seems neither of us really knows but in any case the more relevant question is the cost to whoever's actually sustaining the loss from returns. With the exception of faulty kit, which isn't relevant here, I can't see how the manufacturer would be the one absorbing the loss from a return to a retailer so the cost to manufacture is a bit of a red herring. Shops will be paying a substantial proportion of the sale cost to buy the gear so I can't imagine them being able to afford to destroy it.

> I do not believe that would suffice for safety kit.

Really? You don't think gear that hasn't even been opened, let alone used, could be safe for resale? Why not? What do you think could have happened to make it unsafe? I can only think of examples which are either very unlikely or could just as easily occur to gear at other points in the supply chain. A madman could buy a rope, inject corrosive chemicals and return it but firstly, that seems pretty unlikely and secondly, he'd be much harder to trace if he just did that in a quiet corner of a shop.

> Not really, I have one, but when returning something results in such as wasteful result as total destruction of a helmet or anything else for that matter, I just do not think it is a good thing from an environmental perspective.

I absolutely wouldn't support the practice of destroying returned gear and I'm not defending that. What I'm saying is that I doubt it's actually happening. If it is, then it is indeed outrageous and I will eat my words and sign up for whatever campaign you fancy starting against it.

 joeldering 04 Jan 2019
In reply to J1234:

How many helmets etc. bought online are actually returned though? I'm also pretty doubtful that smaller retailers are simply destroying returned climbing kit...

In reply to Greenbanks:

Any decent climbing shop should be fine taking unworn, packed shoes back - a quick inspection will easily confirm if they are fine!

Post edited at 13:35
J1234 04 Jan 2019
In reply to Luke90:

>

> Really? You don't think gear that hasn't even been opened, let alone used, could be safe for resale? Why not? What do you think could have happened to make it unsafe?

>

It is not what I think that matters, it is what the HSE would think. If there is a tragedy, and you are involved and there is some suspicion of negligence, the first thing they do is read you your rights, then you have to prove your innocence. A paper trail proving that returned PPE are destroyed would be part of that. That Algie in stores has climbed for 30 years and gave it the once over and said would be reet, would not.

 

1
 Luke90 04 Jan 2019
In reply to J1234:

I understand the liability argument, I just think that pragmatism and economic reality must and should outweigh it in this case. It's not feasible for climbing stores, particularly small ones, to destroy every piece of returned climbing gear.

I just asked Outside and they told me that returned climbing gear can be resold after inspection. To me, that's good news. Their returns policy does, of course, require that any PPE is returned in an unopened, unused state.

"Our returns policy does still apply to Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as climbing hardware, ropes, helmets etc. It is particularly important that these are returned to us unused and unopened, in their original packaging and with all tags. Ropes can only be accepted if they are still factory coiled in their original packaging."

 MischaHY 04 Jan 2019
In reply to Luke90:

> I just asked Outside and they told me that returned climbing gear can be resold after inspection. To me, that's good news. Their returns policy does, of course, require that any PPE is returned in an unopened, unused state.

> "Our returns policy does still apply to Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as climbing hardware, ropes, helmets etc. It is particularly important that these are returned to us unused and unopened, in their original packaging and with all tags. Ropes can only be accepted if they are still factory coiled in their original packaging."

I work for an online outdoor shop and our policy is that if the packaging remains on the item and the item passes an inspection it can be resold. 

The idea of destroying perfectly good kit because it's been tried on and doesn't fit is ludicrous. 


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...