We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
DirectSight unfit for purpose glasses for pensioner?
Marathonman2000
Posts: 34 Forumite
Hello all,
When Doreen, an elderly friend of mine told me she was looking to get new lenses put in her existing spectacle frames, I suggested she get them done online as you can save a considerable amount of money. As she is a 71 year old pensioner, saving money is important to her.
I ordered a reglaze from www Directsight co uk - a decision I deeply regret.
The glasses arrived and they were completely unwearable. The lenses are far too thick and heavy, badly fitted in the frames and completely the wrong shape for the glasses. They stick so far out of the back of the frame that they dig into Doreen's face. That makes them dangerous in my opinion, as does the fact that they can also touch Doreen's eyes making them very unhygienic.
You can see pictures of the glasses and decide for yourself at the Facebook Group page I have set up regarding this but unfortunately I cannot put the link in this page. Anyone who would like to see the group, please feel free to message me and I will send you the URL or you can search Facebook for 'Ripped off a pensioner?'.
Surely the so called experts at DirectSight should have seen that these glasses were unwearable and advised us of this prior to making them and certainly after inspecting the completed glasses?
I sent the glasses back but now DirectSight stating the following:
1. The lenses are by no means 'Ultra Thin' and therefore not as described, contrary to consumer law.
2. The lenses were badly fitted and therefore not of merchantable quality, contrary to consumer law.
3. The lenses dig in to the wearers face and touch the wearers eyes, making them unsafe to use, contrary to consumer law.
After a long exchange by email, DirectSight replied with this:
________________________________________________________
Hi Deborah (her name is Doreen!)
the lenses were traced exactly from the original lenses that were in the frame. They have again been checked and they are exactly the same shape and size. The only difference is the thickness. This is because the original lenses were 1.74 high index and the lenses that you have ordered from us are the 1.67 (not as thin).
The glazing passes all optical standards. There is a gap around the lens in between the metal frame and the lens as the lens is held in by a thin wire. If the lenses were a 1.74 it would sit flush against the metal. The thicker 1.67 lens that you have ordered from us protrudes from the metal as it is thicker.
If you wish a refund then the reglaze charge and postage will be refunded but unfortunately the cost of the lenses would be deducted as there is no optical fault with the lenses. They have been made exactly as ordered.
Alternatively we will refit the original lenses, process a refund for the reglaze charge and postage minus the cost of the lenses. There is no optical fault or glazing error with the lenses therefore they are fit for purpose. As previously stated the lenses are thicker than your original lenses due to a lower index lens being ordered than you previously had fitted in the glasses..
_________________________________________________________
They are basically refusing to put them right or give a refund. Am I right in thinking there does not have to be a manufacturing fault in order for them not to be fit for purpose?
I emailed Buckinghamshire County Council Trading Standards Service and complained about DirectSight. Here is what they replied:
_________________________________________________________
'Trading Standards no longer provides a comprehensive consumer advice service to all. Due to rising demands for our service and limited capacity, we are unable to give advice on or investigate every consumer complaint we receive and are therefore unable to advise on or investigate your specific complaint.'
_________________________________________________________
They no longer investigate consumer complaints!? So who does enforce consumer law now? Bucks Trading Standards directed us to Citizens Advice Bureau but they are not an enforcement agency.
So what do you think? Have DirectSight breached Doreen's statutory rights and should they correct the faults free of charge? More to the point, should they just give Doreen a full refund?
Thank you all for any help and advice you can offer.
Best regards,
Paul
When Doreen, an elderly friend of mine told me she was looking to get new lenses put in her existing spectacle frames, I suggested she get them done online as you can save a considerable amount of money. As she is a 71 year old pensioner, saving money is important to her.
I ordered a reglaze from www Directsight co uk - a decision I deeply regret.
The glasses arrived and they were completely unwearable. The lenses are far too thick and heavy, badly fitted in the frames and completely the wrong shape for the glasses. They stick so far out of the back of the frame that they dig into Doreen's face. That makes them dangerous in my opinion, as does the fact that they can also touch Doreen's eyes making them very unhygienic.
You can see pictures of the glasses and decide for yourself at the Facebook Group page I have set up regarding this but unfortunately I cannot put the link in this page. Anyone who would like to see the group, please feel free to message me and I will send you the URL or you can search Facebook for 'Ripped off a pensioner?'.
Surely the so called experts at DirectSight should have seen that these glasses were unwearable and advised us of this prior to making them and certainly after inspecting the completed glasses?
I sent the glasses back but now DirectSight stating the following:
1. The lenses are by no means 'Ultra Thin' and therefore not as described, contrary to consumer law.
2. The lenses were badly fitted and therefore not of merchantable quality, contrary to consumer law.
3. The lenses dig in to the wearers face and touch the wearers eyes, making them unsafe to use, contrary to consumer law.
After a long exchange by email, DirectSight replied with this:
________________________________________________________
Hi Deborah (her name is Doreen!)
the lenses were traced exactly from the original lenses that were in the frame. They have again been checked and they are exactly the same shape and size. The only difference is the thickness. This is because the original lenses were 1.74 high index and the lenses that you have ordered from us are the 1.67 (not as thin).
The glazing passes all optical standards. There is a gap around the lens in between the metal frame and the lens as the lens is held in by a thin wire. If the lenses were a 1.74 it would sit flush against the metal. The thicker 1.67 lens that you have ordered from us protrudes from the metal as it is thicker.
If you wish a refund then the reglaze charge and postage will be refunded but unfortunately the cost of the lenses would be deducted as there is no optical fault with the lenses. They have been made exactly as ordered.
Alternatively we will refit the original lenses, process a refund for the reglaze charge and postage minus the cost of the lenses. There is no optical fault or glazing error with the lenses therefore they are fit for purpose. As previously stated the lenses are thicker than your original lenses due to a lower index lens being ordered than you previously had fitted in the glasses..
_________________________________________________________
They are basically refusing to put them right or give a refund. Am I right in thinking there does not have to be a manufacturing fault in order for them not to be fit for purpose?
I emailed Buckinghamshire County Council Trading Standards Service and complained about DirectSight. Here is what they replied:
_________________________________________________________
'Trading Standards no longer provides a comprehensive consumer advice service to all. Due to rising demands for our service and limited capacity, we are unable to give advice on or investigate every consumer complaint we receive and are therefore unable to advise on or investigate your specific complaint.'
_________________________________________________________
They no longer investigate consumer complaints!? So who does enforce consumer law now? Bucks Trading Standards directed us to Citizens Advice Bureau but they are not an enforcement agency.
So what do you think? Have DirectSight breached Doreen's statutory rights and should they correct the faults free of charge? More to the point, should they just give Doreen a full refund?
Thank you all for any help and advice you can offer.
Best regards,
Paul
0
Comments
-
Lost the will to live before the end I'm afraid.0
-
Marathonman2000 wrote: »So what do you think? Have DirectSight breached Doreen's statutory rights and should they correct the faults free of charge? More to the point, should they just give Doreen a full refund, including the cost of posting the glasses back, as she understandably no longer wants anything to do with DirectSight.
From your description it appears they have supplied exactly what was ordered. It's irrelevant whether that is usable by the customer or not. From what I can tell of your description, the same order from another supplier would result in the same outcome.
As they say, the new glasses are made with a plastic of lower refractive index, hence the lenses are thicker. The only get-out might be if they have supplied a different refractive index to that which you ordered.
I suggest you refund Doreen her money, as she is out of pocket due to your mistake.0 -
-
And what have CAB told you?Marathonman2000 wrote: »So who does enforce consumer law now? Bucks Trading Standards directed us to Citizens Advice Bureau.
Have you even mentioned this point to DirectSight?Marathonman2000 wrote: »One other thing we noticed is that DirectSight have replaced one of the nose pads on the frame. They clearly broke one and fair enough they replaced it. But the other (existing) pad is far darker in colour and compared to the shiny new one they have fitted, it stands out a mile and it looks ridiculous. Are DirectSight really that penny pinching that they could not have replaced both pads? How much would one of those pads cost to a company this size? I think that speaks volumes about their standards of customer service.
It appears not.
You really cannot criticise them without giving them the opportunity to put the problem right.
I think that if you order lenses that are thicker than the frames, then you must expect them to... err... be thicker than the frames.Marathonman2000 wrote: »So what do you think?
On the information given, no, I don't believe so.Marathonman2000 wrote: »Have DirectSight breached Doreen's statutory rights and should they correct the faults free of charge?
Effectively you are asking to cancel the order.Marathonman2000 wrote: »More to the point, should they just give Doreen a full refund, including the cost of posting the glasses back, as she understandably no longer wants anything to do with DirectSight.
As the specs/lenses are custom made, you have no statutory right to cancel the order.
If you wish to find a reason to cancel the order, e.g. poor quality, not to spec, etc., you will probably need an independent report staing the issue, now that DS have said there is nothing wrong.
You seem to have ignored TS's advice to get in touch with CAB.Marathonman2000 wrote: »As Trading Standards no longer seem to deal with poor trading standards, can anyone help with where we should go for action against this company?
Have you read MSE's How to Complain article?0 -
ThumbRemote wrote: »From your description it appears they have supplied exactly what was ordered. It's irrelevant whether that is usable by the customer or not. From what I can tell of your description, the same order from another supplier would result in the same outcome.
That's not the case. They are the wrong shape so they stick out of the back of the frame. The are a deeper curve than the frame. They are not fitted to the centre of the frame, they are barely hanging on to the back edge of the frame, causing them to jut out of the back of the fame even further. I wish I could show you the pictures and you would see the poor workmanship.ThumbRemote wrote: »As they say, the new glasses are made with a plastic of lower refractive index, hence the lenses are thicker. The only get-out might be if they have supplied a different refractive index to that which you ordered.
The lenses which were in the frames we sent to DirectSight were much thinner than those they fitted. Those original lenses were also described as 'Ultra Thin' by the supplier. One pair perfect and wearable, the other pair completely unwearable and yet both described the same way. How is that fair?ThumbRemote wrote: »I suggest you refund Doreen her money, as she is out of pocket due to your mistake.
I already have. I have a conscience.0 -
And what have CAB told you?
I have written to them and am awaiting a response. Work commitments mean I cannot get there during their opening hours and their telephone advice is limited to whether they would be able to offer advice on the issue we have.Have you even mentioned this point to DirectSight?
It appears not.
You really cannot criticise them without giving them the opportunity to put the problem right.
The point is they should never have supplied them in that state. They should not need me to point out their poor workmanship to them. I think it is fair to mention it here as it gives an indication of the level of care they take in their processes.I think that if you order lenses that are thicker than the frames, then you must expect them to... err... be thicker than the frames.
Don't you think that is a little rude and patronising? As I have stated, the problem is not solely that the 'ultra thin' lenses are too thick, but they are also badly fitted (not in the centre of the frames) and the wrong shape (they curve away from the frames towards the wearers face, at the outer edges.)
If they were the same shape as the frames and fitted centrally, they may be wearable.On the information given, no, I don't believe so.
Thank you. I respect and appreciate your opinion.Effectively you are asking to cancel the order.
As the specs/lenses are custom made, you have no statutory right to cancel the order.
I would prefer that the order be canceled now but initially we were just looking for the glasses to be corrected. I am not asking for anything under the distance selling regulations so the 'custom made' issue does no apply.If you wish to find a reason to cancel the order, e.g. poor quality, not to spec, etc., you will probably need an independent report staing the issue, now that DS have said there is nothing wrong.
I think that is the way forward. I will have to ask them to return the specs to me so that I can get them inspected.Have you read MSE's How to Complain article?
Yes.0 -
Here is a link to the Facebook group:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1402082866677252/?fref=ts
I am not an expert on glasses at all, but the gaps between the frame and lens don't look right at all.
Unfortunately "Ultra Thin" is not a specific measurement and presumably it just means it is a lot thinner than the thickest ones.
Have you tried tweeting them?0 -
I am not an expert on glasses at all, but the gaps between the frame and lens don't look right at all.
Unfortunately "Ultra Thin" is not a specific measurement and presumably it just means it is a lot thinner than the thickest ones.
Have you tried tweeting them?
Thank you for adding the link. I think the pictures tell the story far better than I ever could.
I have indeed tweeted them. I have invited them to join in the Facebook Group via Twitter and Facebook but they just seem to be ignoring everything. I will email them inviting them to view this forum and the Facebook Group again.
Please let me assure everyone I have done all I can to try to get this resolved between DirectSight and myself, before coming here for advice. I am not simply naming and shaming, although I am not denying there is a bit of that going on! I am genuinely disgusted with what DirectSight supplied and even more so with their attitude to my complaint.
Thanks again.
Paul0 -
I had a reply from DirectSight stating that due to customer (or patient depending on which of the replies you read) confidentiality they do not wish to discuss the matter on a website forum.
They also now appear to be saying they will only deal with Doreen direct, even though it is me they have been dealing with all along.0 -
Here are the photos. I have to agree, the lenses do not fit into the frame appropriately at all.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 355.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.8K Spending & Discounts
- 247.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.8K Life & Family
- 262.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards