364 comments Add a comment
I have always bought Clarks shoes and 58 years after national service, I still stick to the "wear them - polish them" philosophy. I have quite a few pairs and wear them infrequently. Recently however, the sole and heel has started coming away from a virtually unworn pair and the welt just peeled away altogether.
They offered me £10 which I refused...
The manager of a Clarks shoe shop told me that they had had problems with some of the materials on that type of shoe and after speaking to Customer services, they offered me £10 which I refused.
I returned the shoes to the Clarks shoe shop as requested and following complaints to the Chief Executive, they reluctantly increased the offer to £30.
I am disinclined to accept this latest offer either as it would cost me at least £60 to get a new pair and that is virtually what they were.
They did initially have a moan about the age of the shoes, but they are only a few years old and as it happens totally unworn. I have much older, cheaper, leather shoes which are still perfect condition. After all this fiasco I doubt seriously if I will ever wear Clarks shoes again.
I have since asked them to keep the shoes so that they can be returned to me, but I doubt if they will, in which case I will take this to Trading Standards or the small claims court. I am as impressed with Clarks customer service as I am with the shoes.
Has anyone else had a similar experience Clarks shoes?
By: Bouncer
Leave a comment










Thank you for taking the time to respond to my email correspondence and for confirming when and where your shoes were purchased.
I would also like to thank you for sending the Watchdog statement, which I am familiar with. The voucher amount for hydrolysis is £10.00, but this is for shoes with this condition and are over 6 years old. However, as you are claiming that your shoes are only a year old, this condition should not occur in shoes of this age, as we no longer use these materials.
As you can appreciate it is really difficult to comment on your shoes, without having the opportunity to examine them. Due to the age of your shoes, I do believe that the store has misinformed you, for which I do sincerely apologise.
Without having any proof of purchase or images of your shoes, I am unable to assess the quality of your shoes and see how much you have paid. With this in mind, and also recognising your loyalty to Clarks, I am offering you a £50.00 e-gift as full an final settlement to your complaint. Alternatively, if you prefer, I can send a gift card, please respond with your preference.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us and for your patience in this matter. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused.
Kind regards
Debbie Pierce
Customer Care Manager

Had two pairs of Clark’s shoes disintegrate, offered a £10 refund for a pair of shoes that cost £82. Having failed to have my complaint addressed by the shop that sold the shoes or their customer service department I submitted my complaint to their new CEO to response from his office I sent the following: The shoes were purchased from your Plymouth Store, I paid cash for the shoes, I did not keep the receipt, I therefore did not expect a cash refund, however as the shoes were unworn I did expect an exchange or offer to repair. They were stored in a dry cupboard in my bedroom. An older, worn pair also disintegrated but as they were approximately 4 years old and had been worn I was prepared to accept that I had had a reasonable amount of use from them. This was not the case with the second pair which were unworn and purchased in 2018.
The point here, is that my consumer rights were ignored both in store and when I spoke to your Customer Services Department. The shoes supplied were not fit for purpose the soles of shoes should nor degrade in storage in less than two years. I bring to your attention the statement your company made to the Watchdog BBC tv Program.
“As both a manufacturer and a retailer, we carefully follow the guide lines set down by Trading Standards. As such, we give consideration to complaints on adult’s footwear up to six years after purchase, the period that Trading Standards deems reasonable for manufacturers to be held responsible for the breakdown or deterioration of products materials. However in this case, to ensure that we treat all of our customers fairly, we took the decision to offer a courtesy voucher to any customer who returns a product experiencing this issue regardless of the time that has passed since purchase and the absence of proof of purchase.”
My experience is that you have lied to me and the the public through the BBC. and failed to meet your obligation to provide a product that is fit for purpose relying on the cost in time and expense in it would take your customers to address the issue, to avoid your obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, in addition to expectation of replacement or an offer to repair, this allows up to six years to take a claim to the small claims court for faulty goods in England.
I know what the rules are, honest clear reviews on social media about poor customer service and defective products is far more damaging to a Company’s reputation and requires a lot less effort than pursuing matters through the small claims court, however to be effective the review must be accurate and supported by evidence. This one is and you know it, as a company you should address the problem you have with your product and the attitude your customer service department is taking towards all your customers about this matter.
It disgraceful and really quite unacceptable that a customer who has been wearing Clark’s Shoes for over 60 years should have to resort to this to have a legitimate complaint addressed.



Sox