Potential debt collection? Please help!

deethebee

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Errr... the OP herself linked to them all the way back on post #8.

No, the ts and cs do not make mention of ANY minimum spend. Those are the terms that I said don't exist that they are trying to enforce. You are clearly not understanding what I've said.

Hermione_Granger

deethebee wrote: »

Who said I don't want people to respond? You're arguing over an interpretation and it's irrelevant.

If you are going to argue a point, at least try to be consistent.
Above, you stated that it's irrelevant.
But here:

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.

You clearly stated that it was irrelevant unless a specific time was specified.

Using your own statement, as a specific time was given to the OP, then the wording of "at the time of the test" must be relevant.

Aylesbury_Duck

deethebee wrote: »

No, the ts and cs do not make mention of ANY minimum spend. Those are the terms that I said don't exist that they are trying to enforce. You are clearly not understanding what I've said.

I understand you perfectly well, I just don't agree with you.

The minimum spend is irrelevant because the OP didn't adhere to the terms of the voucher. Technically, Specsavers could have refused the voucher if OP was spending £500.

deethebee

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

If you are going to argue a point, at least try to be consistent.
Above, you stated that it's irrelevant.
But here:

You clearly stated that it was irrelevant unless a specific time was specified.

Using your own statement, as a specific time was given to the OP, then the wording of "at the time of the test" must be relevant.

"At time of test" is not a specific time, it's very vague. It could be at any point that the user goes to have the test done. You clearly are not going to realise that, but it's irrelevant anyway. It does not relate to the fact that the voucher ts and cs make no mention of any minimum purchase and this cannot be enforced.

elsien

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Errr... the OP herself linked to them all the way back on post #8.

I'm with the OP. There is no mention of a minimum spend anywhere.
So if I'd presented the voucher at the time of the test and they'd tried to add that on I'd have been arguing that they were imposing terms and conditions that don't apply and probably reporting them for misleading customers. Especially if she can demonstrate she's used the same offer before and it was accepted.
They really need to sort their voucher out if they do now want a minimum spend.

deethebee

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

I understand you perfectly well, I just don't agree with you.

The minimum spend is irrelevant because the OP didn't adhere to the terms of the voucher. Technically, Specsavers could have refused the voucher if OP was spending £500.

Except that's not what happened is it? The store tried to force her to buy glasses worth £69 or more in order to get the free test, which they can't do. Yes, if the terms stated a specified time during the visit that the voucher had to be presented they could have refused it. But they don't and they didn't.

Edit: the word "time" is synonymous with the words occasion, period, stage, phase, while and also means: an indefinite period.

Aylesbury_Duck

elsien wrote: »

I'm with the OP. There is no mention of a minimum spend anywhere.
So if I'd presented the voucher at the time of the test and they'd tried to add that on I'd have been arguing that they were imposing terms and conditions that don't apply and probably reporting them for misleading customers.
They really need to sort their voucher out if they do now want a minimum spend.

I agree, their voucher needs to be much clearer and that's why I don't think they'll enforce the charge. However, as it stands, the OP hasn't adhered to the voucher's terms and so technically I think Specsavers are correct, albeit clumsily so. Had OP presented the voucher at the time of the test and the minimium spend wasn't mentioned, then it's an easy case of it being misleading. Had they done so and the miminum spend WAS mentioned, they'd have had the chance to walk away. They didn't create that opportunity because they accepted the service and then tried to present the voucher as payment for something a "normal" customer would have had to pay for.

Aylesbury_Duck

deethebee wrote: »

Except that's not what happened is it? The store tried to force her to buy glasses worth £69 or more in order to get the free test, which they can't do. Yes, if the terms stated a specified time during the visit that the voucher had to be presented they could have refused it. But they don't and they didn't.

Edit: the word "time" is synonymous with the words occasion, period, stage, phase, while and also means: an indefinite period.

So your argument now hinges on an infinitely elastic definition of time? Right.

No one forced the OP to do anything. As I read it, she got the £25 glasses and hasn't paid for the test.

deethebee

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

So your argument now hinges on an infinitely elastic definition of time? Right.

No one forced the OP to do anything. As I read it, she got the £25 glasses and hasn't paid for the test.

No, my argument hinges on the fact that the word "time" does not mean what you are suggesting it means and can mean a number of things and in this scenario it is not suggested that the "time" indicated has to be the point in time right before which the eye test is about to take place, or the point at which she entered the premises. It means the occasion, the duration that she is on the premises. It's vagueness in the way it's used is exactly why it means this.

Aylesbury_Duck

deethebee wrote: »

No, my argument hinges on the fact that the word "time" does not mean what you are suggesting it means and can mean a number of things and in this scenario it is not suggested that the "time" indicated has to be the point in time right before which the eye test is about to take place, or the point at which she entered the premises. It means the occasion, the duration that she is on the premises. It's vagueness is exactly why it means this.

I think you're being overly liberal in your interpretation. I think it's quite clear what "at time of test" means but there you go.

I've enjoyed the debate but I don't think we're going to agree on the philosophical definition of time so I'll stop contesting your posts. In summary my view is that Specsavers need to tighten their voucher terms, that on this occasion they are technically right and that OP owes them £25 but that it's unlikely they'll enforce that.