Opticians failed to charge correct amount.

Lifeforms

You need to check your paperwork from the original contract, as well as any changes over the years to see what it says regarding inclusiveness and total price.

What is the difference between her current monthly payments before, and now the mistake has been found? If its a few quid fair enough, if not then I would be asking for them to provide the information of what the cost is including.

Buying from an optician usually means buying an (overpriced) package of care and goods, and honestly after 3 years payments and they've only picked this up now, would be something I'd be looking to either find out the new sign up price and thus looking at a deal to cover some extra payment, but not the lot. 3 years is taking the weewee!

I'd maybe look to buy elsewhere, or cancelling the contract to buy on your own, and take a contact check In a different place. You might find that they see it differently if you ask to cancel. Hah pun alert!

Fire_Fox

nickcc wrote: »

Obviously not as she presumed that the price she was being charged included the cost of the lenses and the fluid. It would appear that you assume my Daughter has taken advantage of the opticians mistake, this is the wrong assumption for you to make as you neither know my Daughter or myself.

It doesn't appear that at all unless YOU assume a nasty 'tone' where there is none, the post contained relevant questions not statements and could perfectly well be read with a surprised or clarifying 'tone'.

Presuming doesn't answer the question nor necessarily let your daughter off the hook, does the price she has been paying match the paperwork/ contract/ agreement she was given at the start? If not she should have realised and really ought to pay but could ask to do so by instalments. If the original paperwork/ contract/ documents are very unclear or incorrect then your daughter might write asking for the amount to be written off.

Not really sure why you are involved, is it your money or was she a minor when the contract was agreed?

ValHaller

Fire_Fox wrote: »

It doesn't appear that at all unless YOU assume a nasty 'tone' where there is none, the post contained relevant questions not statements and could perfectly well be read with a surprised or clarifying 'tone'.

Presuming doesn't answer the question nor necessarily let your daughter off the hook, does the price she has been paying match the paperwork/ contract/ agreement she was given at the start? If not she should have realised and really ought to pay but could ask to do so by instalments. If the original paperwork/ contract/ documents are very unclear or incorrect then your daughter might write asking for the amount to be written off.

Not really sure why you are involved, is it your money or was she a minor when the contract was agreed?

I think you are calling this wrong. meer53 very clearly and definitely assumes that the money is owed and in that context, the questions read to me as negative rhetorical inferences.

ValHaller

meer53 wrote: »

So she's had goods that she hasn't paid for for 3 years ? Didn't she realise she wasn't paying ?

I think their offer to accept monthly payments is fair. Telling the optician to "do one" isn't a good idea. They might take her to court.

This advice is plainly wrong as it stands. In situations where a supplier alleges and undercharge and attempts to collect, the first step is to establish whether there was actually an undercharge.

The onus of proof is on the supplier, who should establish that the product they are attempting to back charge for was in fact contracted for and that what was supplied was unmistakeably what was contracted for - and that the charge made was less than the amount contracted. It is a tall order to show that the lensfluid was neither a freebie nor an integral part of the product.

Basically, it strikes me as a big bold try on and I think the best approach is to attend the supplier with a witness and say that the new charges will be accepted going forward, but if the retrospective charges are not dropped, then she will change supplier.

This behaviour from a retailer is unacceptable, they should take the loss on the chin. They are probably doing it to a large number of their customers too.

pmduk

ValHaller wrote: »

Basically, it strikes me as a big bold try on and I think the best approach is to attend the supplier with a witness and say that the new charges will be accepted going forward, but if the retrospective charges are not dropped, then she will change supplier.

I disagree about the best approach. Just find another optician for future supplies. Explain to the past supplier that you have paid in full the amount requested and you consider the amiount closed. Yes, they could try suing, but it'll cost them a fortune with little chance of success.

ThumbRemote

pmduk wrote: »

I disagree about the best approach. Just find another optician for future supplies. Explain to the past supplier that you have paid in full the amount requested and you consider the amiount closed. Yes, they could try suing, but it'll cost them a fortune with little chance of success.

Agree. They are unlikely to pursue it without clear evidence that they undercharged - and if there is clear evidence, you may as well pay it.

ValHaller

pmduk wrote: »

I disagree about the best approach. Just find another optician for future supplies. Explain to the past supplier that you have paid in full the amount requested and you consider the amiount closed. Yes, they could try suing, but it'll cost them a fortune with little chance of success.

The advantage of going this way is that you stand a chance of getting a witnessed dropping of the retrospective charges and you still get the chance to change supplier. This might be preferable to worrying about whether it goes to court and if it does, worrying about fighting it. For those of us who are really confident about our rights, we wouldn't even ask the question here. But someone who asks here may want a way forward which can fend off court action.

somethingcorporate

I wonder if they could even prove they have been supplying the fluid in that period they have asked.

It comes down to the paperwork.

How much money are we talking about? the value obviously has an impact on how likely they are to pursue it. If less than say <£100 I don't think they'd bother as just not worth their time.

nickcc

somethingcorporate wrote: »

I wonder if they could even prove they have been supplying the fluid in that period they have asked.

It comes down to the paperwork.

How much money are we talking about? the value obviously has an impact on how likely they are to pursue it. If less than say <£100 I don't think they'd bother as just not worth their time.

£6 per month for 3 years, that's what they are telling my Daughter. She's now looking at changing to Tesco's opticians as we have a local store with optician close by, they also state that they will beat all on line prices.

pmduk

what does the paperwork say is included for the price your daughter has been paying. If that says inclusive then tell them to take a hike. If it just says lenses you may be on a less secure footing. Is it a chain or an independent optician?