Faulty Glasses

Rodders53

Half rim spectacles need a Lab tech to remove/refit...  Specialised work.  MOST optician stores don't have Labs in them so have to send such work away.

M&S Opticians is operated by a brand called Owl Optical and therefore even less likely to have suitably trained Lab staff and equipment in the stores (imho).
https://mandsopticians.com/legal

You should ideally  have purchased two pairs when you got a new 'script made up?  Most of us can manage with the last 'script pair(s) when we get a new one.
Maybe you should get them to make a second (cheap frame) pair up, and then send the rimless away for repair/replacement?

{When we lived in Lowestoft (2006 to 2016) the Specsavers franchise there had a Lab "over the road" and could turn such stuff round quite quick - provided the required bits were 'in stock'. Often while you wait, if necessary.  But they were an exception that proves a rule}.

Alderbank

I agree with you, but in this case it is their fault, and it seems unfair from a consumer perspective.

It is their fault in this case, but in many cases hinge failure is due to abuse by the wearer.

It is quite reasonable for M&S's supplier to want to examine the damaged hinge. I don't think it is unfair.

user1977

jbbjbb said:

I can't imagine buying a new car, the wheels falling off after 9 months, and the dealership saying that if a car is critical to me then I should have a second one ready to go while they repair it. Obviously not the same product or price, but the principle and the impact to me feels the same.

You might in practice get a courtesy car in that scenario, but there's nothing in your statutory rights which entitle you to one.

jbbjbb

I mean, it sounds like that answers my question

PHK

jbbjbb said:

All fair points, thanks. It sounds like the best option would be to find a second pair, and then get these repaired. It is a little frustrating - I can't imagine buying a new car, the wheels falling off after 9 months, and the dealership saying that if a car is critical to me then I should have a second one ready to go while they repair it. Obviously not the same product or price, but the principal and the impact to me feels the same.

Cheers!

I think there's a big difference. Many people have multiple pairs of glasses. They start at under £20 from an online store.  What would you have done if you'd accidentally damaged them?

Many people have glasses for work and best glasses.  

jbbjbb

I imagine a lot of people would be in the same situation with their car. But to my mind, the point is kind of moot - I've never accidentally damaged a pair of glasses in 25+ years, and if that had been what happened, I would have ordered another pair while cursing my short sightedness (pun intended) rather than asking for advice I need a replacement pair because the original pair was not of sufficient quality to last through the guarantee period.

paulttt

Alderbank said:

You are correct that if the time taken for repair or replacement would cause you significant inconvenience you can refuse, but the only remaining option under the Consumer Rights Act would be a (partial) refund, leaving you with no glasses at all. It is hard to see how that would be less inconvenient.

If your only pair of glasses is as essential as you say you should really have more than one pair. Alternatively could you manage for a short time with the ones you used daily before you got these new ones?

Pun intended

jbbjbb

paulttt said:

Alderbank said:

You are correct that if the time taken for repair or replacement would cause you significant inconvenience you can refuse, but the only remaining option under the Consumer Rights Act would be a (partial) refund, leaving you with no glasses at all. It is hard to see how that would be less inconvenient.

If your only pair of glasses is as essential as you say you should really have more than one pair. Alternatively could you manage for a short time with the ones you used daily before you got these new ones?

Pun intended

Not bad, sir.

RefluentBeans

jbbjbb said:

I imagine a lot of people would be in the same situation with their car. But to my mind, the point is kind of moot - I've never accidentally damaged a pair of glasses in 25+ years, and if that had been what happened, I would have ordered another pair while cursing my short sightedness (pun intended) rather than asking for advice I need a replacement pair because the original pair was not of sufficient quality to last through the guarantee period.

You’re absolutely right. And that’s what they’ve given you. Like others have said, glasses are relatively cheap (compared to cars), and can be bought for less than £30. For something like that you should have a redundant pair that can be used if the first pair break. You probably wouldn’t have a second car, but may have a spare tire, or replacement bulbs to perform important maintenance on your car. 

I understand that you feel the quality was subpar, but that doesn’t negate the fact you should’ve had a second pair. No one intends to sit on their glasses, or have them fall in a boat; but they happen all the time. I would order yourself a pair of cheap glasses (SelectSpecs do next day delivery for a fee) and then put in for a replacement/repair of the current pair. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

user1977 said:

"Significant inconvenience" would be making you jump through unnecessary hoops, I don't think merely having to wait for the item to be repaired is going to be deemed to be significantly inconvenient.

I think the time has come for you to get a spare pair of specs...

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/1/3/4/5

Once the consumer has opted for a repair or replacement of the goods, he or she may not ask for the other of these, or exercise the short-term right to reject, without first allowing the trader a reasonable time to complete that chosen remedy. However, if waiting a reasonable time would cause the consumer significant inconvenience then the consumer can pursue an alternative remedy without doing so.

Guidance notes would imply the type of inconvenience the OP is referring to (being without their glasses) is the type intended rather than referring to the trader making the consumer jump through hoops  

Of course the issue for the OP if they refuse to repair/replace then there's the right to reject or a price reduction which also causes inconvenience.