OT: disputing a credit card payment

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I know some don't get on with varifocal or bifocal - and first time ever specs can take a little getting used to. But neither was the case here - unless some info has been omitted.

[Harry Stottle]

It seems to me that the spectacles supplied were not fit for purpose, and so could be rejected, and a refund demanded, on that basis. I am surprised Trading Standards did not suggest this.

[R D S]

You rang?

It is normal to send patients off to get used to the specs if they aren't

100% convinced they are bob on but only when the lenses have been checked against the new prescription which in turn should be checked against the old one to see if there have been any large changes which could highlight a potential error on the part of the optom.

Problem is that these days most of the people dispensing specs are clueless.

Oh... we call em plano!

[R D S]

Wasn't Optical Express was it?

[R D S]

So much of the above is such absolute bollocks I don't know where to start, I might come back to it later.

[willie]

Trading Standards may not have suggested this because she would have been deemed to have accepted the goods, you can accept in any one of thee ways:

1) Intimating acceptance 2) Acting in an inconsistent manner with rejection 3) Lapse of time

The consumer acted inconsistently with rejection of the goods - although she told the trader that they weren't suitable in the shop she still took them away with her (accepting through method 2). Also she has allowed 2 weeks to pass now before further action (accepting though method 3). This is why the consumer shouln't be eligible for a refund at this stage, the trader should be given a chance to either repair or replace the glasses. Obviously issues with the quality of workmanship and the advice that was offered regarding waiting two weeks, but nevertheless there should be a repair or replacement first before it would move to the refund stage if it proved the trader could not provide suitable glasses.

Kind regards

Willie

[Bruce]

Not of merchantable quality. Not of the standard that could reasonably expected of an optician.

[geoff]

Prolly why he needs glasses ...

[Michael Chare]

Some time ago I ordered a pair of pair of specs from Boots, when they came I found that my distance vision of one eye was not quite right. I complained and the lady who server me tried to fob me of by saying that I would get used to them. This utter rubbish somewhat annoyed me. My eyes were retested by the same man as before and he agreed that the perscription was wrong. I asked him about this and he did say that this happened sometimes.

I can understand that for some reason the perscription was wrong. But I thought that the attitude of the Boots staff telling me that I would get used to lenses that were in fact wrong was appaling. I have never bought anything else from Boots Opticians.

My main use for glasses is driving my car.

[Appelation Controlee]

On a roughly similar range to men, I wouldn't be surprised.

[Tim Downie]

A problem I came across once with Specsavers was that there doesn't seem to be a single method of recording the lens corrections. I forget the details now but I recall an optometrist telling me that there were two different systems which seems to me to be a recipe for confusion. Certainly it caused the lens maker to get mine all wrong on one occasion.

Tim

[Peter Parry]

"Merchantable quality" was replaced many years ago by "satisfactory quality". However in this case she does not have to rely upon the SOGA implied rights but the much simpler specifics of the contract. The contract was to provider her with a pair of glasses to correct her vision. The test was carried out correctly (it seems) but then a clerical error which the opticians has freely admitted to was made. The result was the lenses supplied did not conform to the contract. Nothing else is needed.

Irrespective of legality the simplest, quickest and almost certainly most satisfactory solution remains to allow the optician an opportunity to provide the right glasses.

[Mark]

Agreed. However, if you cannot reach a satisfactory conclusion, then you can claim for a refund from the opticians or your credit card.

I would expect a claim directly with the opticians would be quicker because credit card companies often allow long periods to give the other party time to respond. I'd only recommend going via the credit card if you have reason to expect that the company cannot pay (e.g. if they have gone out of business).

Remember that, as your specs are less then 6 months old, the onus is on the opticians to prove that the specs were satisfactory when you paid for them. You do not have to prove anything.

[Appin]

The message from "The Medway Handyman" contains these words:

Who said she had any cleavage? :-)