What would you do? Pay or not pay ...

puddy

i agree, he clearly waited, using the old glasses, needed a new prescription and picked a fancy pair. to simply replace the old pair, you would put your old lenses in a free frame. (although i have been told myself, that spec savers dont guarantee that they wont damage your lenses if you want a new frame, so i always choose new lenses even if my prescription is the same)

how does the voucher work?

JodyBPM

peardrops wrote: »

Good evening all

Invoice states:

Scrivens single vision - Qty 2 - £82.00
Designer Frame - Qty 1 - £79.00
Savings - £39.00

Total £122.00
Voucher B Package : -£26.90
Total: £95.10

Paid to date: £40.00

Balance Outstanding: £55.10

This is the scrawled message on the envelope the invoice came in: "Please find enclosed receipts for xxxx's last set of glasses. If we could get half of the amount back it would be something - £25".

I am livid to say the least! It would be something .... I'm sure it would! Why am I paying for a new prescription set of lens' when it was the arm of the last glasses that broke? I don't see why I'm paying half of the remaining amount for him having a brand new pair of glasses with designer frames???

I won't be responding to them because if I do I will probably say something I would regret. Surely we should be paying for half of the damage to the original glasses, not funding a lovely brand new pair of designer specs??? Also I would be questioning why he needs a pair of designer glasses now and not 3 months ago when the original glasses were broken.

What do you all think?

Firstly, I'm not sure that you can re-use lenses in a new pair of frames.

Secondly, do you know that his last pair were not designer or that they were able to be fixed?

If the last pair were fixable, then I agree that you should pay half the cost of fixing them only. But if they weren't then you need to pay half the pair of a replacement set. Assuming they have bought roughly like for like (ie old pair were designer and new pair are designer) then I think they are being very reasonable in being prepared to accept £25 rather than a full half of the replacement cost.

How would you feel if your son had a pair of designer glasses that someone else broke, and then they said they would only pay to replace them with cheap NHS ones? Would you be happy? Or if it was not possible to get the old lenses re-fitted into new frames that they said they would only pay for half the frame cost leaving you to foot the bill for the new lenses.

At the end of the day the boy had a complete working pair of spectacles before, and you should be paying for half of a replacement pair of working spectacles. Whilst I agree it would be unreasonable if they are trying to replace NHS ones with designer, we don't actually know whether that is the case. I'm inclined to think that since they have chosen designer this time, it is fairly likely that they chose designer before. And they are being very reasonable in being prepared to accept £25.

Morally, I think you should cough up £47.50 ish, sorry. That would be the right thing to do, unless you KNOW that the old pair were NHS freebies, or repairable.

I don't think they are trying to rip you off, on the contrary, I think they are being very reasonable.

puddy

she does know the old pair were nhs, she has posted this earlier, the school and the child confirmed this. and they were 2 years old, so due for renewal at some point

*Louise*

OP - Tell them your son's coat/bag/whatever was ripped in the fight and would they be so good as to contribute half of the cost of the new designer one you have had to buy him....;)



Tbh, after reading your update, I still think they are chancing their luck

JodyBPM

puddy wrote: »

she does know the old pair were nhs, she has posted this earlier, the school and the child confirmed this. and they were 2 years old, so due for renewal at some point

Whoops, I missed that!

In which case, I would decline to pay for the frames, but offer to pay half the cost of the new lenses to go in the frames (because new lenses are necessary to go in the new frames for him to have the equivalent of what he had before - a complete working pair of specs, and they wouldn't have had to pay for the lenses had the old frames not have been broken, )

vax2002

Trying it on, Pay and they will be back for something else, Its easy not to get milked in life, just dont be the cow
.IGNORE

JodyBPM

vax2002 wrote: »

Trying it on, Pay and they will be back for something else, Its easy not to get milked in life, just dont be the cow
.IGNORE

But why should the other parent have to foot the entire bill for a new pair of spectacles when both children were equally responsible for breaking them?

Why should her son get away without paying towards the damage he was partially responsible for.

I know this is a money saving expert, but this kind of response just strikes me as really, really tight and not morally fair.

Surely you are (partially) responsible for breaking something, you would expect towards its repair or replacement?

Lotus-eater

JodyBPM wrote: »

But why should the other parent have to foot the entire bill for a new pair of spectacles when both children were equally responsible for breaking them?

Because that's what happens! If your kid was playing rugby against another team and one of them ripped his jumper, would you send him a bill? Crazy, it's the, someone must always be to blame society.

Kids play, things get broken, poor bloody kids, poor kids if she follows some advice and takes the money from the poor kids pocket money. What's that teaching him, don't play fight, don't be a boy and have fun, don't be a normal kid, but a responsible kid (an adult)

What about if your son was playing football with some others and one kicked the ball and it broke, would you send his parents an invoice? I repeat, crazy.

pulliptears

JodyBPM wrote: »

But why should the other parent have to foot the entire bill for a new pair of spectacles when both children were equally responsible for breaking them?

Because the boy had been wearing these glasses for some time, and had them repaired several times already. Because any one of those existing weaknesses could have caused the glasses to fail.

pigpen

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Because that's what happens! If your kid was playing rugby against another team and one of them ripped his jumper, would you send him a bill? Crazy, it's the, someone must always be to blame society.

What about if your son was playing football with some others and one kicked the ball and it broke, would you send his parents an invoice? I repeat, crazy.

I am starting to think I missed an opportunity when DS2's glasses were broken playing games at school.. and of course the time DS1 had his tshirt shredded playing rugby and the football boots that split when he was playing football... or DS3 had some scrote pull his bag and snap the handle.

I wonder if there woud have been so much fuss from the parents had the trousers torn?

Broken glasses and torn clothes and scuffed shoes are part and a parcel of children.. of both genders but the nature of boys play is usually rougher to resulting in more damage.. In the same circumstances.. horsing around.. I'd have told my son off for getting his glasses broken and refused to fund his comic/online game subscription until the new £20max. replacement was paid for.. they glasses were his therefore his responsibility if they got broken he should have been more careful!! and they would have been replaced within a week.