Potential debt collection? Please help!

Pollycat

deethebee wrote: »

Except that's not what happened is it?
[BThe] store tried to force her to buy glasses worth £69[/B] 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.

Who says the store tried to force the OP to buy glasses worth £69?
The OP doesn't:

jemmarocks wrote: »

This is a really bizarre situation and need advice on what to do next-

I just took my partner to a well known opticians chain for an eye test that I booked on their website. As per their website, there was a voucher for a free eye test when purchasing any glasses which we took with.

He had the eye test and picked the glasses he wanted (they were £25). The total at the till came to £50. We mentioned the voucher and the staff stated that this voucher was only applicable on frames of £69 or more though this is not stated on their website anywhere or on display in the store.

We refused to pay the £25 for the sight test. The store manager advised that they would pursue this £25 charge through a debt collector. Are they able to do so?

They have both of our address details on our system already. Is there anything that we can do next to prevent further steps?

deethebee

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

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.

Liberal? I'm using actual synonyms and definitions. I also think it's quite clear what "at time of test" means, and it's not the same as what you think it means. Specsavers are NOT right. They cannot enforce minimum spend terms that don't exist in their terms and repeating that they are right won't change that. Even a customer who isn't abiding by the ts and cs does not give them the right to try and enforce terms that don't exist. They can refuse the offer, but they can't say the offer means something else.

Pollycat

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

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.

Aylesbury Duck
I've agreed with all your posts on this thread and same with this one.
Especially the bit in bold.

deethebee

Pollycat wrote: »

Who says the store tried to force the OP to buy glasses worth £69?
The OP doesn't:

It was either buy the glasses for £69 or more, or pay for the test - and she did neither. They still tried to force the those terms on her though. My full quote was: “The store tried to force her to buy glasses worth £69 or more in order to get the free test".

Aylesbury_Duck

Pollycat wrote: »

Aylesbury Duck
I've agreed with all your posts on this thread and same with this one.
Especially the bit in bold.

Thanks. I hope the OP is reassured by the answers she's had but the lesson for all consumers is to read the terms of the voucher before you use it and if you feel the need to consult a theoretical physics text to understand the absolute nature of time and how it is relevant to the voucher's conditions, to ask for clarification before going to the store, accepting the service and then trying to use it.

deethebee

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Thanks. I hope the OP is reassured by the answers she's had but the lesson for all consumers is to read the terms of the voucher before you use it

She did read the terms before she used it.

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

and if you feel the need to consult a theoretical physics text to understand the absolute nature of time and how it is relevant to the voucher's conditions, to ask for clarification before going to the store, accepting the service and then trying to use it.

Or you can just look in a dictionary or use some common sense...? Have you ever used a voucher at a restaurant/shop/anything and been refused because you didn't present it at the exact point you arrived? I haven't and I doubt you'll find anyone who has.

jemmarocks

Wow, wasn't expecting all these responses, thanks so much for everyone's points of view!

I think the whole experience was a total fiasco and as many of you have said, Specsavers need to make their t&c's clear on any voucher/offers they have prior to a test. Or at least advise staff to make customers aware of charges prior to a test.

Thankful that it's unlikely this will be taken further and I'll go back to my usual local opticians where I can happily pay more and be treated better. Only went to Specsavers for a cheapy pair of back up glasses, instead I wasted 2 hours of my life there and an afternoon worrying. Lesson learned!

Aylesbury_Duck

jemmarocks wrote: »

Wow, wasn't expecting all these responses, thanks so much for everyone's points of view!

I think the whole experience was a total fiasco and as many of you have said, Specsavers need to make their t&c's clear on any voucher/offers they have prior to a test. Or at least advise staff to make customers aware of charges prior to a test.

Thankful that it's unlikely this will be taken further and I'll go back to my usual local opticians where I can happily pay more and be treated better. Only went to Specsavers for a cheapy pair of back up glasses, instead I wasted 2 hours of my life there and an afternoon worrying. Lesson learned!

It's so often the case with shops and service providers. And you'll be helping to (hopefully) keep their business going.

MothballsWallet

OP, Specsavers would be the ones who would have to take you to court, and only once they've exhausted the preaction protocol (PaP).

Also, they'd have to go through small claims track, and that would cost them £25 (if filed online) or £35 (if filed on papers). There's also the de mimimis rule, which means that courts don't deal with trivial (to them) matters.

But, if it were me, I'd go at a busy time, ask for the manager, pay the £25 and say "by the way, because your voucher terms aren't crystal clear, we won't be coming back to this branch again."

deethebee

OP please don't pay the fine as some are suggesting. There's no way in hell Specsavers can enforce those terms on you unless they are in the voucher ts and cs