Potential debt collection? Please help!

deethebee

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

That's where the misunderstanding has crept in. It's not "at time of purchase", it's "at time of test", so not WHEN you purchase at all. The terms are quite clear. Had OP notified them of their intention to use the voucher at the time of the test, they would probably have been informed of the restrictions.

There is no misunderstanding. It means the same thing. At time of test or at time of purchase does not matter. It does not mean BEFORE the test, DURING the test or AFTER the test. It means when you go to have the test - it does not specify at what point this has to be. And there is no disclaimer of any sort that suggests that if the voucher is not presented BEFORE the test then any other terms may apply. Once again, they cannot impose terms that are not on the voucher or on any of the literature, otherwise they could make up all sorts of terms and force them on people.

Aylesbury_Duck

deethebee wrote: »

There is no misunderstanding. It means the same thing. At time of test or at time of purchase does not matter. It does not mean BEFORE the test, DURING the test or AFTER the test. It means when you go to have the test - it does not specify at what point this has to be. And there is no disclaimer of any sort that suggests that if the voucher is not presented BEFORE the test then any other terms may apply. Once again, they cannot impose terms that are not on the voucher or on any of the literature, otherwise they could make up all sorts of terms and force them on people.

Ok, it's quite clear to me but we disagree on that. The retailer clearly thinks the money is owed although I don't think they'll pursue it.

Pollycat

deethebee wrote: »

There is no misunderstanding. It means the same thing. At time of test or at time of purchase does not matter. It does not mean BEFORE the test, DURING the test or AFTER the test. It means when you go to have the test - it does not specify at what point this has to be. And there is no disclaimer of any sort that suggests that if the voucher is not presented BEFORE the test then any other terms may apply. Once again, they cannot impose terms that are not on the voucher or on any of the literature, otherwise they could make up all sorts of terms and force them on people.

I have a different interpretation to you.

pinkshoes wrote: »

Their voucher T&Cs states "Present voucher at time of test".

To me, 'at time of test' would be as I walked into the shop for my appointment.
i.e. up front so there could be no confusion whatsoever that I was expecting to have a free eye test.

deethebee

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Ok, it's quite clear to me but we disagree on that. The retailer clearly thinks the money is owed although I don't think they'll pursue it.

The retailer is wrong, unless they can prove these terms exist in any of the literature. They cannot just make up terms verbally when it's quite clear that no minimum purchase is required according to the terms of the voucher.

deethebee

Pollycat wrote: »

I have a different interpretation to you.


To me, 'at time of test' would be as I walked into the shop for my appointment.
i.e. up front so there could be no confusion whatsoever that I was expecting to have a free eye test.

Interpretation does not matter. Unless a specific time of when the person arrives on the premises is specified, then it's irrelevant what it means to each person. There should not be ANY confusion as the terms are all there in black and white and the retailer cannot impose any additional terms verbally.

Pollycat

deethebee wrote: »

The retailer is wrong, unless they can prove these terms exist in any of the literature. They cannot just make up terms verbally when it's quite clear that no minimum purchase is required according to the terms of the voucher.

According to pink shoes it's in the voucher T&C's.

pinkshoes wrote: »

Their voucher T&Cs states "Present voucher at time of test".

Aylesbury_Duck

deethebee wrote: »

The retailer is wrong, unless they can prove these terms exist in any of the literature. They cannot just make up terms verbally when it's quite clear that no minimum purchase is required according to the terms of the voucher.

Again we disagree. I can find the terms within a minute of searching and according to OP's own account, the voucher was presented at the time of purchase, not at the time of the test.

You're welcome to disagree but it's quite straightforward to me. Nothing has been made up verbally.

Hermione_Granger

Pollycat wrote: »

I have a different interpretation to you.


To me, 'at time of test' would be as I walked into the shop for my appointment.
i.e. up front so there could be no confusion whatsoever that I was expecting to have a free eye test.

That's how I would also interpret it.
If Specsavers gave me an appointment card, it would state "Time of test" or "time of appointment" and it would then show a time.

The voucher stated "Present voucher at time of test" so I see nothing wrong in them requiring that the voucher be given to them at the time the test was due to start.

Pollycat

deethebee wrote: »

Interpretation does not matter. Unless a specific time of when the person arrives on the premises is specified, then it's irrelevant what it means to each person. There should not be ANY confusion as the terms are all there in black and white and the retailer cannot impose any additional terms verbally.

I meant that you've interpreted some words in one way, I've interpreted the same words in a different way.

Hermione_Granger

deethebee wrote: »

Interpretation does not matter. Unless a specific time of when the person arrives on the premises is specified, then it's irrelevant what it means to each person. There should not be ANY confusion as the terms are all there in black and white and the retailer cannot impose any additional terms verbally.

Which, as the OP had an appointment booked, would be the case.