Small Claims Case Against Specsavers

Tr33house

They look like that because they are faulty. You can see the other lens isn’t like that. I am careful with my glasses.

I wanted them to mediate with me, not to want to go to court, and as I said it may not even be needed that I have a report because the reasons for not having one are valid.

BoGoF

Tr33house said:

They look like that because they are faulty. You can see the other lens isn’t like that. I am careful with my glasses.

I wanted them to mediate with me, not to want to go to court, and as I said it may not even be needed that I have a report because the reasons for not having one are valid.

In your eyes they are valid but it seems you expect a judge to look at year 3 year old pair of glasses and say they are faulty. Thats not how it works.

HillStreetBlues

Tr33house said:

They look like that because they are faulty. You can see the other lens isn’t like that. I am careful with my glasses.

I wanted them to mediate with me, not to want to go to court, and as I said it may not even be needed that I have a report because the reasons for not having one are valid.

I don't think the right lens looks great, just not as bad as the left one

HillStreetBlues

BoGoF said:

Tr33house said:

They look like that because they are faulty. You can see the other lens isn’t like that. I am careful with my glasses.

I wanted them to mediate with me, not to want to go to court, and as I said it may not even be needed that I have a report because the reasons for not having one are valid.

In your eyes they are valid but it seems you expect a judge to look at year 3 year old pair of glasses and say they are faulty. Thats not how it works.

Not surprising with glasses like that.

ArbitraryRandom

Tr33house said:

They look like that because they are faulty. You can see the other lens isn’t like that. I am careful with my glasses.

I wanted them to mediate with me, not to want to go to court, and as I said it may not even be needed that I have a report because the reasons for not having one are valid.

You can't force anyone to mediation - and if they're not going to compromise, then it would be a waste of money anyway. 

As you are already aware, your rights are that the product should be free from defect and last a reasonable time given factors such as the type, price and quality of the item. 

You are of the opinion that the damage is a fault and that they should have lasted longer than three years - Specsavers disagree. 

As it's been more than 6 months, to enforce your rights, you have to prove you are correct on BOTH points by getting an independent expert report.

If you get a report that unambiguously agrees with you on both points, Specsavers may be willing to compromise without court action being required.   

If you choose not take the steps required to enforce your consumer rights, then there's not really anything else you can do... or how you think we may be able to help?

Tr33house

My intention is to get a report - but I cannot be sure I can - it isn’t really surprising that no other optician would want to have that in writing. 

I will try a smaller local optician but otherwise I would be out of options.

GingerTim

I can't see any optician willing to risk the legal jeopardy of putting their name to a report which states that a rival's lenses are faulty. 

Alderbank

GingerTim said:

I can't see any optician willing to risk the legal jeopardy of putting their name to a report which states that a rival's lenses are faulty. 

That's a little unfair. I've always found opticians, and particularly independent opticians, to be extremely helpful.

But high street opticians, or optometrists, to use their proper name, don't really grind and polish spectacle lenses. They are trained to test your vision, examine your eyes and fit your spectacles but they don't actually make them. They just send the prescription to an optical laboratory who sends them back ready made.

It's the same as your GP doesn't actually make up the medicine he prescribes. He just writes the prescription and another professional (the pharmacist) actually prepares it.

You need to look for an ophthalmic technician to give a report about the manufacture of your lenses.
Is there an ophthalmic laboratory in the town where you live?

Okell

For the benefit of others who might be considering whether or not to sue a retailer and have come across this thread having read the phrase small claims court in the title, I would suggest that they follow the advice often given on the Consumer Action Group website.

That is, never send off a letter before claim (let alone actually issue a claim) unless you are fully ready and prepared to go to court.   Don't find yourself in the position where your best hope is mediation.  Be ready to argue your case in court if the respondent doesn't cough up - preferably before you've sent your Letter Before Claim and certainly before you've actually issued a claim.

That means that you must fully intend to follow through on your threat to sue, and you must have already assembled (or be in a position to assemble) all the evidence you intend to rely on before you reach the stage that the OP here has reached.

[Edit:  of course you might have sent a Letter Before Claim as a legitimate ploy where you have a strong case and in the hope that the retailer would back down and cough up in the face of being sued, but if they don't you are left with nowhere to go if you aren't prepared to follow through and sue.  Just sending off a LBC or issuing a claim in the absence of any evidence to support it is a waste of time and money]

ArbitraryRandom

GingerTim said:

I can't see any optician willing to risk the legal jeopardy of putting their name to a report which states that a rival's lenses are faulty. 

I'm not sure how it's any different to any other industry or product whereby you would reasonably be expected go to someone else who makes or repairs the product type in question to get a report? 

They're not being asked to say the rival's lenses are faulty... but if, in their professional opinion, that specific product was manufactured with an inherent fault or if the damage was more likely caused by normal wear/misuse.