Catch of The Day - Very Disappointing

thorpef1 on 28/08/2010 - 17:09

I have recently had a very poor experience with catchoftheday.com.au that i thought i would inform others of

I purchased a pair of leather Sean John shoes from them a few months ago. They were about $60 or so, so not a cheap rubbish pair of shoes, but by far not the most expensive pair of shoes available.

About a month ago i realised that the leather had started to lift from the shoe and crack, this was happening all over both shoes.
I had only worn them a few times and had always make sure that they were clean and in good condition.

Now i have not worn these shoes in the past month and have found that they leather had gotten even worse (with no wear)

So i contacted catchoftheday and they said that there was nothing they could do because of the purchase date.

Even though i told them had they had always been looked after and they had no reason to crack and lift they insisted saying that leather can deteriorate without proper care within 3 months (although i have looked after them as i have a number of leather shoes)

I am very disappointed as my intention was not to pay for a pair of shoes that i would only wear 3 or 4 times.
I am more disappointed that catchoftheday was not able to help me. Their website is full of 'spam'saying that they are Australia's top online store. But what are they without customer service.

I can tell you that they have lost a loyal customer!

General Discussion

Comments

  • neil on 28/08/2010 - 17:34
    +1

    I don't know why you would be contacting COTD about this. Surely, it's Sean John that you need to take this issue up with.

    I bought some Birkenstocks and had an issue with the shoe falling apart a few months in. I contacted Birkenstock and they replaced the shoes.

    • dman801 on 29/08/2010 - 11:35
      +3

      Actually, that is incorrect Neil. As a retailer they are obliged to warrant the merchantability of the product sold, as per the Trades Practices Act and relevant Sale of Goods Act in the state jurisdiction.

      • neil on 29/08/2010 - 12:35
        +1

        I can't speak on behalf of trade law but my understanding was their was some limited time frame for a return policy say 14 days/30 days whatever. Anything over that would be dealt with manufacturer.

        Take for example TV or any electronic sold these days. My Samsung TV comes with a 1 year warranty. If there is an issue I need to call Samsung up for repairs.

        Or XBOX's Red Ring of Death issue which people experienced, you'd have to call Microsoft up for service.

        Not defending COTD as they do have a chequered history with some customers but there's a point in time at which onus is placed upon the manufacturer.

        • lsdbeta on 29/08/2010 - 12:45

          Aside from the arbitrary return policies of stores, there is also the matter of statutory warranties that are outlined in the trade practices and sale of goods act.

          http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/Consumers/Refunds_and_warr…

          more info there.

          • neil on 29/08/2010 - 15:42
            +1

            @lsdbeta:

            For example, a refrigerator is an expensive item. It is not unreasonable to expect it to last longer than 18 months before it’s ready for the scrap heap. Even if the voluntary warranty on the refrigerator has expired, a consumer may still have a valid complaint under the law if it had a structural fault eg. defective insulation not apparent at the time of purchase, which became obvious after only 18 months.

            Interesting. As I interpret that, if say my tv breaks after Samsung's very short warranty period, then I can expect Samsung to replace it.

            It doesn't say what the time limitation is though. Surely, if my tv breaks 6 years down the line I wouldn't be entitled for a refund. I guess you would have to prove your case in a court.

            Who is responsible - the trader or manufacturer?

            If a consumer returns a faulty item, liability can be shared between the supplier and the manufacturer. However, it is ultimately the supplier's responsibility to resolve the complaint. A supplier or manufacturer cannot limit liability by excluding, modifying or restricting the rights and remedies available to consumers under the law in any way for the goods that are normally acquired for personal or household use.

            Interesting. The wording seems vague though and they might just fob you off to the manufacturer.

            In the case of the shoes though, no warranty was offered. Is there a set amount of time by law that one can get a refund or a replacement? Interesting topic, this would be a good to have on the wiki.

        • dman801 on 29/08/2010 - 13:02

          Well, this is the area where many consumers aren't aware of their rights. For instance, when you purchase a television set at your local Harvey Norman - you enter into a contract with that store. They are obligated to ensure that everything they offer for sale is of merchantable quality and fit for its intended purpose. With that television set however, it may have a statutory warranty attached, enforceable against the manufacturer. In the case that the television only shows static, i.e. not its intended purpose to watch the news, sport etc. the store has breached an implied term of the contract and you can claim for compensation – by way of refund or replacement. The limitation of time is based on a court assessed period not arbitrary limit; one would expect that a $2000 product lasts more than 14 days. The retailer can then claim compensation from their supplier for that loss incurred.

  • jason101 on 28/08/2010 - 20:39
    +4

    Yeah, just call Diddy up on his cell and tell him his shoes suck!

    Warning: I posted a complaint on here about Cotd once, it wasn't received too well.

    Not that I think they care but they've lost me as a customer too, so that's two of us.

  • [Deactivated] on 28/08/2010 - 22:00
    +1

    stuff COTD i wouldn't buy a toothbrush from them

    They sold it to yiou they should offer you an exchange but good luck with that

  • [Deactivated] on 29/08/2010 - 06:37
    +1

    They tell lies as well, I had a cock and bull story about why my item hadn't turned up earlier, something about getting lost in the post but after it eventually did arrive I checked the post mark and it had only been posted the day before.

    • aussman on 29/08/2010 - 16:31

      well that was quick postage only one day hehehe ;)

    • Tenebrae on 30/08/2010 - 00:22

      It's not possible that after your complaint they sent you another item?

  • [Deactivated] on 30/08/2010 - 07:50

    2 weeks after maybe, there were several excuses though like one time they also said they were waiting for the right item to turn up (it was supposed to be in stock already when I purchased) Then they said the wrong item had been packaged and they were going to repackage and then send it out that day. The whole process took a month.

  • infernal_max on 31/08/2010 - 04:42
    +1

    i think its understandable that they referred you to the manufacturer(after a few months), im not suggesting you are lying, but businesses like woolworths and coles have shoplifters that steal from them and try to get a refund, so some people can see a cock and bull story coming, which I cant help but suspect, but thats just my initial opinion

    But atleast they didnt ask you to take photo after photo, like grays online did to me, id rather be stuck with a pair of shoes that a bookcase with a major flaw that they even acknowledged but wanted more photos of

  • [Deactivated] on 31/08/2010 - 13:44

    they wont last long, i bought maybe 2-3 things from there had a few dramas, no more COTD for me.

    by the looks of alot of other stories if heard about them i dont think they will last long.

    • aussman on 31/08/2010 - 16:58
      +2

      they been round for more than 18 months don;t thhink they going anywhere

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join