DirectSight unfit for purpose glasses for pensioner?

Marathonman2000

I think perhaps this has become more of a debate about whether people should use online optical services rather than discussing what happened when I ordered a reglaze from DirectSight.

For my part, I have three pairs of glasses, two if which were reglased by Glases2you and on of which was bought from them. They are all superb glasses and cost me far less than high street opticians would have.

The problem isn't buying optical products and services online. The problem, in my humble opinion, is finding a good company like Glasses2you and avoiding the bad ones like DirectSight, even if they do appear cheaper.

Paul

nedmundo

Is the problem not more like buying optical products online, cutting out the knowledgeable and technical dispensing side in a bid to save money (not withstanding denying the testing Optometrist any opportunity to recoup the costs of providing the eye exam in the 1st place) and then pi***ng and moaning about the poor result?

Don't get me wrong - I'd be mortified if my practice supplied goods of that standard (we wouldn't have supplied that frame for that prescription in the 1st place), but to do it properly takes skill and costs money. But technically, you don't have a case - you ordered some lenses to a specific prescription, in a thinner index to a frame of your supplying. That looks to me as if that is exactly what you got, just a lot thicker and more curved than an expert dispensing would have produced.

nedmundo

And further to that - you are making yourself vulnerable to a lawsuit of libel. Your prescription is probably completely different to your friends and therefore less critical in lens design etc. To tar this company with your smear campaign is going to end in tears.

I have no empathy with online suppliers (I spend enough of my time picking up the pieces when it all goes wrong, like in your case), but if I was one such business, that is exactly what I would be doing.

eskimo26

nedmundo wrote: »

And further to that - you are making yourself vulnerable to a lawsuit of libel. Your prescription is probably completely different to your friends and therefore less critical in lens design etc. To tar this company with your smear campaign is going to end in tears.

I have no empathy with online suppliers (I spend enough of my time picking up the pieces when it all goes wrong, like in your case), but if I was one such business, that is exactly what I would be doing.

Smear campaign? If i asked a company to provide me with a Christmas dinner consisting of an elephant stuffed inside a turkey i would expect them to tell me they can't do it not to attempt it and then drop the whole sloppy mess off to me expecting payment!

Its obvious the options they offered didn't fit the glasses so they should have used some common sense. The pictures of the bodge job they have done on those glasses is diabolical! Sorry but its absurd the company should know better, it is their trade after all !!!!!!. :mad:

nedmundo

eskimo26 wrote: »

Smear campaign? If i asked a company to provide me with a Christmas dinner consisting of an elephant stuffed inside a turkey i would expect them to tell me they can't do it not to attempt it and then drop the whole sloppy mess off to me expecting payment!

Its obvious the options they offered didn't fit the glasses so they should have used some common sense. The pictures of the bodge job they have done on those glasses is diabolical! Sorry but its absurd the company should know better, it is their trade after all !!!!!!. :mad:

But in this instance, the lenses could be fitted into the frame - just not with an optimum finish.

Marathonman2000

nedmundo wrote: »

Is the problem not more like buying optical products online, cutting out the knowledgeable and technical dispensing side in a bid to save money (not withstanding denying the testing Optometrist any opportunity to recoup the costs of providing the eye exam in the 1st place) and then pi***ng and moaning about the poor result?

Don't get me wrong - I'd be mortified if my practice supplied goods of that standard (we wouldn't have supplied that frame for that prescription in the 1st place), but to do it properly takes skill and costs money. But technically, you don't have a case - you ordered some lenses to a specific prescription, in a thinner index to a frame of your supplying. That looks to me as if that is exactly what you got, just a lot thicker and more curved than an expert dispensing would have produced.

Most of the feedback I have seen here has been positive and helpful, whether it has supported DirectSight or myself and Doreen, but yours has been consistently biased, angry and self-centered. There is only one person 'pi***ng and moaning' about this situation and it is not me.

To suggest that having a discussion on this forum leaves me open to libel proceedings is ludicrous. I have presented facts and supported them with pictures and I have expressed my honest felt opinion. I have then asked others to give their opinion. There is nothing libelous about that. If your suggestion was right, this forum probably would not exist.

N.B. You seem to be deliberately ignoring this but I will say it again... The lenses which were in the frames originally were the same prescription and fitted perfectly. They may have been of a slightly thinner index, but they were also described as Ultra Thin so we had every reason to think the new lenses would be the same. The glasses would probably have been wearable if the lenses had been the correct shape and fitted in to the frames rather than hanging out of the back of them. You admit that your practice would not send out glasses of this quality finish yet you still suggest DirectSight are in the right? Bizarre!

Marathonman2000

We requested that DirectSight returned the glasses to us which they have, but they have not returned the original lenses. We emailed them and they initially ignored our emails but eventually replied saying that they do not guarantee to return the original lenses and this is in their terms and conditions. This is the relevant paragraph which they sent to us by email.

7. Reglaze Service

Direct Sight offer a reglazing service which allows you to keep your existing glasses but have them fitted with new prescription lenses. Every effort will be taken to ensure that your glasses are returned to you in a satisfactory condition but please note any damage to the frame or change in the adjustment of the frame as to how it once fitted cannot be held responsible by Direct Sight and it is taken at your own risk when sending your glasses in to us to be reglazed. We cannot be held liable for any costs that may incur to have the frame adjusted or the frame replaced if any such changes or damages occur. We cannot guarantee to return the original lenses.


The grammar isn't great but they are apparently completely absolving themselves from taking responsibility for any damage or loss on THEIR part?

Can they do that?

To me, if they are refusing to send the lenses back they are seeking to permanently deprive Doreen of her property which is theft. If they have destroyed them, that is criminal damage. Surely a little paragraph in their terms and conditions cannot remove them from their liability under criminal law?

We need those lenses as Glasses2you want to use them as a template for the lenses they are going to fit in the frames.

Before you ask, no I didn't read their terms and conditions before placing the order... let the whipping begin!

TonyMMM

No it isn't theft.
No it isn't criminal damage.

It is a dispute with a business about the standard of their work ....

OlliesDad

I would say that this is not a case of theft or criminal damage. Its the same as if you take you car to the garage.. I have never been given the filters, spark plugs or tyres after they have been replace.

Part of theft is that it is "without the owner's consent" which is not the case here.

wealdroam

Marathonman2000 wrote: »

To me, if they are refusing to send the lenses back they are seeking to permanently deprive Doreen of her property which is theft. If they have destroyed them, that is criminal damage.

To me, they are simply disposing of waste after having performed the service.

OK, in your particular situation you might find it useful to have the old lenses back, but I wouldn't mind betting that most people who have their spectacles re-glazed do not want the old lenses returned.

Did you take lots of photographs before sending the specs off... perhaps anticipating problems with the service?
Probably not, because you didn't anticipate problems.
In a similar way, DS probably threw away the old lenses simply because they didn't anticipate these problems either.

I fear you are clutching at straws now.