As the Chinese saying goes, “The craftsman who wishes to work well has first to sharpen his instruments”. To sports enthusiasts, having high-performance and high-quality footwear is likewise vital. The sports shoe market is highly competitive in Hong Kong, offering numerous sales outlets from specialty stores, authorised retailers, sportswear chains, to online shops and more. When consumers face product quality issues and are met with dissatisfactory after-sales service by traders, disputes can easily arise. Among the many complaint cases on sports shoes received by the Consumer Council from time to time, one involved a trader denying quality issues to newly sold shoes found to be fading in colour, and one on refunds retrieved only after months of back-and-forth negotiations for sports shoes that were not waterproof as claimed. In another case, the soles of a pair of trail running shoes were found to be crumbling after the first use, but poor communication between the retailer and brand agent gave rise to a dissatisfactory after-sales service experience for the consumer.
The Council urges the industry to improve the designs and quality of their products, as well as the after-sales service across all sales channels to ensure a smooth repair, return or exchange process. In case of quality-related disputes, procedures such as return for inspection or product exchange should be promptly handled to ensure a good customer experience. Under the principles of fair purchase, consumers should also be responsible for safeguarding their own rights, particularly by paying heed to the return and exchange policies of traders, and to thoroughly inspect their sports shoes within the given timeframe.
Case 1: Trader Claimed Fading of New Shoes Caused by Natural Wear and Tear and Denied Return
The complainant purchased a pair of blue and white sports shoes from an authorised retailer of Brand A for $750. After just one wear, the white outer rim and shoelaces were stained blue. The complainant ruled out being wetted by water as the cause as there was no rain that day. A month after reporting the issue to Brand A, the complainant received a response attributing the fading to “natural wear and tear”, and no return or exchange was granted. The complainant subsequently filed the case with the Council.
Brand A informed the Council that they had followed a professional quality inspection process, and their results showed that the quality and materials of the concerned shoe model perfectly conformed to factory standards. They opined that it was normal for sports shoes, being consumables, to show depreciation and natural wear and tear. Brand A added that the storage and usage conditions, frequency of wear as well as maintenance habits could all have an effect on sports shoes, and therefore the cause of fading could not be determined, despite the complainant claiming to have only used the shoes once. As no agreement was reached, the Council recommended the complainant to consider seeking legal advice.
Case 2: Waterproof Sports Shoes Found with Seepage
80% Refund After a Lengthy Dispute Spanning Over 6 Months
The complainant bought a pair of waterproof sports shoes for around $1,170 from Specialty Store B. After wearing them 5 times, he noticed water seeping into the shoes and returned them to the store for inspection. About 3 months later, the store acknowledged the water seepage issue, and agreed to replace the shoes with a new pair of the same model. However, when the complainant wore the new pair 2 months later, he still experienced the same issue, and once again returned them for factory inspection. After another 2 months, the trader informed him that no water seepage issue was found. Meanwhile, the complainant noticed the inner rubber trim of the shoes was peeling off. The store staff however claimed this issue was not covered by warranty and refused to follow up, instead advising the complainant to repair the shoes himself. Frustrated by the lengthy back-and-forth with the trader, the complainant sought intervention from the Council and demanded a full refund.
Specialty Store B reiterated to the Council that detachment of the rubber trim was not part of warranty. Nevertheless, they agreed to refund 80% of the shoes’ retail price ($935) after discussion among the management, which the complainant accepted.
Case 3: Trail Running Shoes Crumbled
Lack of Communication Between Retailer and Agent Aggravated After-Sales Experience
The complainant bought a pair of trail running shoes for $1,500 from Sportswear Chain Store C. After her first use, during which she completed a 15km trail run, she noticed rubber crumbs falling off the area right above the heel. Concerned about the durability and quality of the material, as well as the appearance of the shoes, she contacted Retailer C and requested a return or exchange. The staff told her that they would send the shoes to Agent D for inspection. The goods return form indicated that the inspection would take approximately 7 to 14 working days. In a subsequent follow-up, the complainant however was informed that the process would take 21 working days, and the staff handwrote the changes on the form. A month after returning the shoes, she finally received a reply that Agent D had declined the return or exchange request, stating that rubber crumbs would not affect the shoes’ functionality. The complainant thus filed a complaint with the Council.
Retailer C admitted to mishandling the return procedure by using an outdated goods return form. As for the quality issue of the running shoes, they had forwarded the case to Agent D for follow-up. In their response, Agent D explained that the issue of rubber crumbs falling off the shoes could be due to external impact or friction, and they agreed to offer the complainant a 50% discount on her next shoe purchase from the same brand. During further following up with Retailer C, the Council observed poor communication between the two parties, as Retailer C was unaware of the said discount arrangement, and needed to reconfirm with Agent D several times before honouring the offer. The complainant eventually accepted the offer.
Sports shoes are functional items, and consumers would naturally expect satisfactory functionality and reasonable durability. It is essential for manufacturers to exercise stringent quality control, as inconsistent product quality or poor after-sales service could potentially lead to disputes. Below are some recommendations for consumers when shopping for sports shoes:
- Thoroughly review the design and features of sports shoes to ensure they meet personal needs. Consider elements such as the materials, grip, weight, toe spring angle, sole thickness and shaft height. Pay special attention when looking for technical features, such as water resistance, shock absorption, slip resistance, etc.;
- Sports shoes may not be used immediately after purchase. Keep in mind that the lifespan of shoes depends on various factors including their materials, storage conditions and frequency of wear. If shoes are left unused for a long time, their soles could age and deteriorate. Therefore, it is not advisable to stock up on too many pairs;
- When shopping online for sports shoes, consumers should first verify if they are authorised products or parallel imports. Additionally, check the return policy in advance, as some stores may allow exchanging the same item for an alternative size at no cost, while others may adopt a no-return policy. Read the respective terms and conditions before placing an order, so as to avoid wasting money on misfitting and non-returnable products.
Download the article (Chinese only): https://ccchoice.org/574-shoes-complaints
Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.