Just to play devil's advocate, it does give them an opportunity to dump a loss making service on the basis of a (perhaps exaggerated) couple of incidents during a period where their sales may not be brilliant.
"never owned a pair of their boots, but one thing i noticed when reading their communiqué: if i had a pair of originally waterproof boots refurbished. i would expect them to be waterproof again when done.
they appear to think that is unreasonable?"
I think that you will find that the bootie liner that is the part that makes the boot waterproof cannot be retrospectively be replaced. It is exactly this assumption ( that they will be as good as new) that is the problem. That and a growing number of rude objectionable people who are all too happy to then use the Internet as a way of anonymously slagging people off. Ultimately it will be the consumer that looses out ( as in this case)
Just to play devil's advocate, it does give them an opportunity to dump a loss making service on the basis of a (perhaps exaggerated) couple of incidents during a period where their sales may not be brilliant.
I wasn't suggesting they're wrong to drop the service, just highlighting, perhaps, some disingenuity over the reasons.Maybe so, but how many of us want to run a loss making service? How many businesses can afford to these days?
I think the key point here is the need for upfront clarity on what the service does provide.
If leaking boots will remain leaking post refurb, then it just needs to be made clear before the service is ordered.
It does seem slight over reaction on their part. A clear description of what to expect, possibly backed-up with a contract would protect them.
My boots are still good after 6 years or so.....

Refurbish isn't quite the same as renovate.
) but if my boots keep water out when new I'd expect them to do similar when refurbished (or renovated or restored)
never owned a pair of their boots, but one thing i noticed when reading their communiqué: if i had a pair of originally waterproof boots refurbished. i would expect them to be waterproof again when done.
they appear to think that is unreasonable?![]()


Bet their 'undesirables' were Tossers going down the old tired 'not fit for purpose' route.
![]()
Bet their 'undesirables' were Tossers going down the old tired 'not fit for purpose' route.
![]()
The idea that a new lease of life can be given to a pair of boots that have become as comfortable as slippers cannot be rated too highly............. IMHO
+1 Well said - I do hope they reinstate the refurbishment process but perhaps are a bit more specific about expectations so they can avoid similar negative feedback in future. Great Boots, Great Folks and really nice company to do business with......and mine.....well said......![]()