Specsavers 2 for 1 illegal?

born_again

Manxman_in_exile said:

I'm a bit surprised that more posters here don't agree with the OP.  (That it's misleading I mean.  I don't think it's illegal - may be unlawful)

What's misleading?

Op did not take up 2 for 1 offer. Retailer then offers a discount, That they did not have to do as it's not listed on the promo material.

Winner all round.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

born_again said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I'm a bit surprised that more posters here don't agree with the OP.  (That it's misleading I mean.  I don't think it's illegal - may be unlawful)

What's misleading?

Op did not take up 2 for 1 offer. Retailer then offers a discount, That they did not have to do as it's not listed on the promo material.

Winner all round.

I think that’s the problem.

If you have 2 offers running of 2 for 1, or buy 1 at half off that would be fair enough.

To have 2 for 1 and then say well if you don’t actually want 2 we’ll only charge you half instead means the 2 for offer isn’t really 2 for 1 as you are basically paying for both, which I’m sure one way or another you are anyway as it’s all a load of marketing nonsense but that nonsense should be in line with acceptable practices.

I’m sure if Specsavers were asked they’d say that what the OP was supposedly offered isn’t official policy as it would clearly be misleading the consumer. 

Manxman_in_exile

Thank you.

Money_Grabber13579

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

born_again said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I'm a bit surprised that more posters here don't agree with the OP.  (That it's misleading I mean.  I don't think it's illegal - may be unlawful)

What's misleading?

Op did not take up 2 for 1 offer. Retailer then offers a discount, That they did not have to do as it's not listed on the promo material.

Winner all round.

I think that’s the problem.

If you have 2 offers running of 2 for 1, or buy 1 at half off that would be fair enough.

To have 2 for 1 and then say well if you don’t actually want 2 we’ll only charge you half instead means the 2 for offer isn’t really 2 for 1 as you are basically paying for both, which I’m sure one way or another you are anyway as it’s all a load of marketing nonsense but that nonsense should be in line with acceptable practices.

I’m sure if Specsavers were asked they’d say that what the OP was supposedly offered isn’t official policy as it would clearly be misleading the consumer. 

I agree with this too. By reducing the price by £48 for only taking one pair, it means everyone else is effectively paying £48 for their second ‘free’ pair. Which is fine if all those people wanted a second pair in the first place but I suspect that the majority didn’t want a second pair and only took it because it was free. Except it wasn’t, based on the OP’s experience.

Manxman_in_exile

Money_Grabber13579 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

born_again said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I'm a bit surprised that more posters here don't agree with the OP.  (That it's misleading I mean.  I don't think it's illegal - may be unlawful)

What's misleading?

Op did not take up 2 for 1 offer. Retailer then offers a discount, That they did not have to do as it's not listed on the promo material.

Winner all round.

I think that’s the problem.

If you have 2 offers running of 2 for 1, or buy 1 at half off that would be fair enough.

To have 2 for 1 and then say well if you don’t actually want 2 we’ll only charge you half instead means the 2 for offer isn’t really 2 for 1 as you are basically paying for both, which I’m sure one way or another you are anyway as it’s all a load of marketing nonsense but that nonsense should be in line with acceptable practices.

I’m sure if Specsavers were asked they’d say that what the OP was supposedly offered isn’t official policy as it would clearly be misleading the consumer. 

I agree with this too. By reducing the price by £48 for only taking one pair, it means everyone else is effectively paying £48 for their second ‘free’ pair. Which is fine if all those people wanted a second pair in the first place but I suspect that the majority didn’t want a second pair and only took it because it was free. Except it wasn’t, based on the OP’s experience.

Exactly.  I'm surprised so many posters don't see this.

Manxman_in_exile

... perhaps they should have gone to specsavers... 

photome

what was the cost of the glasses before the £48 discount

spakkaman

I have gone for two pairs. Top of the range.  And the two for one offer was actually that based on their open price structure. No add ons.  I think for cheaper frames you can get hit with a few add ons.  Mine were varifocal too so approx £250.

The assistant said do you want two for one and I said why wouldn’t I.  It was then she said I could have one pair for £48 less ie just over £200.  No haggling just bosh have one pair cheaper.  And bearing in mind I’m surrounded by promo messages saying two for the price of one it jarred.

I didn’t say anything.  But I understand this practice to be misleading ........and if it was a car dealer I don’t think it wouldn’t be accepted by customers or officialdom.  

eddddy

The law that Specsavers are potentially breaking is "Consumer protection from unfair trading regulations 2008".


The legislation says an offence is committed if:

5.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if....


(b)it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.


Link: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/regulation/5/made

Saying something like 

• "Glasses £100. 2 pairs for the price of 1"

... without saying, at the same time, 

• "or you can buy one pair for £52"

sounds like it breaks that law. (Lots of people probably would decide to buy only one pair, if they knew that would cost £52.)

It's up to Trading Standards and/or the ASA to enforce/prosecute. So you can complain to Citizens Advice (who'll pass it on to Trading Standards), or the ASA.

Realistically, Trading Standards would probably only investigate if they got lots of complaints.

(As some people say, Specsavers might argue that you were offered a special one-off, personal deal. So it would depend on whether lots of other people were routinely offered the same deal. And/or maybe Trading Standards would decide to do test purchases.)

Ditzy_Mitzy

It's a funny situation.  The actual price charged in the 'two for one', when the discount is considered, would appear to be retail price (cost plus whatever to make profit) of the first pair in addition to cost price only for the second pair.  Presumably, then, when one purchases a single pair only, the branch is obliged to offer discount equivalent to the second pair's cost price; one would otherwise be paying for goods one does not receive.  If it's not possible to buy one pair only at list price, then it would appear not to be a genuine two for one deal. 

Incidentally this explains a rather odd experience I had in Specsavers.  I wanted two pairs of glasses, main and reserve.  I chose a designer pair as main, and bog standard pair as reserve.  They were from different ranges.  The lady got a bit funny when I explained this.  She said that both pairs 'should really be from the same range'.  I said that I didn't see why, as the 'free' frames I wanted were from a range down from the designer pair.  As I recall I was then obliged to swap my chosen 'free' frames for more expensive 'free' frames.  Perhaps this is another facet of the same issue?  Choosing a frame costing less than the 'cost price' contained within the two for one price would require a discount to be offered, maybe. 

n.b.  The Specsavers glasses were rubbish and gave me constant headaches.  I was obliged, after a year or so, to go to an independent optician.  She carried out a proper eye test and had two more pairs of glasses made up to a slightly different prescription.  The new glasses are superior in every way, if more expensive.