DirectSight unfit for purpose glasses for pensioner?

boo_star

If you paid with your card, you are the customer, not Doreen.

It may be easier for them to discuss the issue directly with Doreen but they can't insist on it.

That said, in the interests of being as accommodating as possible (just in case you go down the Small Claims route) it might be worthwhile getting them to contact you or you them when you're with Doreen so she can explain the issues from a personal point of view.

I wouldn't let them contact her directly, pensioners are far too easy to dupe (sorry pensioners that are savvy.)

Marathonman2000

MamaMoo wrote: »

Here are the photos. I have to agree, the lenses do not fit into the frame appropriately at all.

Thank you for posting the pictures. You are a star!

Hopefully people can see what I mean about the very poor fitting, wrong shape etc which makes them unwearable. It isn't just the thickness of the lenses, although I still personally fail to see how anyone could describe those as 'Ultra Thin'

Initially we asked that they be put right. But the response we got has led us to think the only thing we want now is a full refund and nothing more to do with DirectSight.

Paul

Marathonman2000

boo_star wrote: »

If you paid with your card, you are the customer, not Doreen.

It may be easier for them to discuss the issue directly with Doreen but they can't insist on it.

That said, in the interests of being as accommodating as possible (just in case you go down the Small Claims route) it might be worthwhile getting them to contact you or you them when you're with Doreen so she can explain the issues from a personal point of view.

I wouldn't let them contact her directly, pensioners are far too easy to dupe (sorry pensioners that are savvy.)

Unfortunately Doreen used her Tesco's Credit card as she wanted the Clubcard points bless her. I'm going to look in to involving the card provider but I seem to remember that most card providers only protect purchases over £100?

I hear what you are saying about letting Doreen contact them directly. She gets muddled talking on the phone at the best of times so I will definitely be with her if she calls them. At the moment we are trying to get them to resolve the matter in writing, via email. There is a nice audit and evidential trail that way should we have to involve the courts. I take your point about not wanting to seem unaccommodating though. I'm a bit concerned as to why DirectSight have decided to take this 'Direct contact only' stance after over a month of dealing with me and Doreen though?

Thank you for your advice. It is very much appreciated.

wealdroam

Marathonman2000 wrote: »

...I seem to remember that most card providers only protect purchases over £100?

Not so.

Have a read of MSE's Chargeback article.

Marathonman2000

wealdroam wrote: »

Not so.

Have a read of MSE's Chargeback article.

Thanks for the link.

I've had a read and they both (Chargeback and Section 75) seem to be for purchases over £100?

'What is chargeback?

A 1970s law means your credit card company must take responsibility if things go wrong in a purchase — for example, if goods are faulty or the retailer goes bust. But it only covers purchases of over £100 made on a credit card.'

and ...

'What is Section 75?

It's a vital law made in the 1970s which means your credit card company must take responsibility if things go wrong with a purchase. In a nutshell...

Pay for something costing between £100 and £30,000 on a credit card and the card issuer's equally liable if something goes wrong.'

I'm a bit confused (it has been a long day) as to whether Chargeback is part of Section 75 or whether they are separate?

Very interesting reading and a lesson for the future, as this whole sorry episode has been!

Thanks again.

wealdroam

Marathonman2000 wrote: »

Thanks for the link.

I've had a read and they both (Chargeback and Section 75) seem to be for purchases over £100?

'What is chargeback?

A 1970s law means your credit card company must take responsibility if things go wrong in a purchase — for example, if goods are faulty or the retailer goes bust. But it only covers purchases of over £100 made on a credit card.'

and ...

'What is Section 75?

It's a vital law made in the 1970s which means your credit card company must take responsibility if things go wrong with a purchase. In a nutshell...

Pay for something costing between £100 and £30,000 on a credit card and the card issuer's equally liable if something goes wrong.'

I'm a bit confused (it has been a long day) as to whether Chargeback is part of Section 75 or whether they are separate?

Very interesting reading and a lesson for the future, as this whole sorry episode has been!

Thanks again.

Chargeback and Section 75 are two separate things.

That article is poorly worded in the bit you quote.
It is trying to say that Section 75 (of the Consumer Credit Act 1974) is only for purchases over £100.
(This confusion comes from the time that both Section 75 and Chargeback were in the same article, but when they were split into two articles perhaps it could've been done cleaner.)

Chargeback is not enshrined in statute, but is part of the service provided by Visa, Mastercard, etc.

If you read more of that article you will find there is generally no minimum purchase value (£10 min with Mastercard).

If you want to read about Section 75, another MSE article will help: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shopping/section75-protect-your-purchases
but I suggest you give that a miss for the moment, as it doesn't appear to be applicable to your situation.

boo_star

Marathonman2000 wrote: »

Thanks for the link.

I've had a read and they both (Chargeback and Section 75) seem to be for purchases over £100?

'What is chargeback?

A 1970s law means your credit card company must take responsibility if things go wrong in a purchase — for example, if goods are faulty or the retailer goes bust. But it only covers purchases of over £100 made on a credit card.'

and ...

'What is Section 75?

It's a vital law made in the 1970s which means your credit card company must take responsibility if things go wrong with a purchase. In a nutshell...

Pay for something costing between £100 and £30,000 on a credit card and the card issuer's equally liable if something goes wrong.'

I'm a bit confused (it has been a long day) as to whether Chargeback is part of Section 75 or whether they are separate?

Very interesting reading and a lesson for the future, as this whole sorry episode has been!

Thanks again.

Charge backs & S75 don't really matter here (in my opinion)

You got what you bought (a higher prescription than the previous lens) and unless you can show other providers would give a slimmer one I think you're out of luck.

mountainofdebt

Personally there are things that I am happy to buy on line and others I'm not ....and glasses fall into the later category.

Sometimes its more moneysaving to pay a little extra

Marathonman2000

wealdroam wrote: »

Chargeback and Section 75 are two separate things.

...

If you read more of that article you will find there is generally no minimum purchase value (£10 min with Mastercard).

I confess I didn't get too far in to the article. That may well transpire to be the solution.

Again, thank you!

Marathonman2000

boo_star wrote: »

You got what you bought (a higher prescription than the previous lens) and unless you can show other providers would give a slimmer one I think you're out of luck.

The prescription is exactly the same as the previous lenses. I have never said different? The lenses were being replaced as there were scratches on them.

Again, the issue is the poor fitting, badly made lenses, not just the lens thickness. But thanks for your input.