Small Claims Case Against Specsavers

Tr33house

I believe the original lens were around £120 but I do not have the receipt. Obviously specsavers do have them. 

Because I'm unable just to buy new lenses for my existing frame (as they needed to send them off which would leave me not being able to see anything) the new glasses and lens from Boots were £310. And that's with a 10% discount. 

In all honesty at this stage it's more about principle than the money for me. And as to the question of store manager/owner then I don't see why the owner wouldn't deal with these issues. It's their business and they should be the one who takes responsibility or they are a bad owner/manager. 

I have no doubt that if we do go to hearing the judge will not be impressed that that person actively  avoided talking to me. 

In terms of experts, I wouldn't know where to find an expert who didn't work for an optician. And if I did find one then of course if they were about to charge me £200 for that letter/evidence then I should drop the case as it ends up putting me out of pocket. 

I do have the luxury of time though as I doubt this would get to course for at least a couple of months assuming I continued, leaving me with time to try and get the evidence I need. 

eskbanker

Tr33house said:

And as to the question of store manager/owner then I don't see why the owner wouldn't deal with these issues. It's their business and they should be the one who takes responsibility or they are a bad owner/manager. 

I have no doubt that if we do go to hearing the judge will not be impressed that that person actively  avoided talking to me.

The judge at a hearing will be referring primarily to legislation and your rights under it, so not being able to interact with a specific individual at a company doesn't affect those - that's not to say that you wouldn't get the opportunity to introduce that subject at all, but IMHO it would be best not to put any significant reliance on it, and it could work against you to digress away from matters that are relevant to the legalities of the situation!

Okell

sheramber said:

If Boots and VisioNn Express won't put it in writing that the lenses are faulty how much credence can you give to what they say?

It is in their interest to say it, in the hope you will give them your trade in future. 

It worked for Boots,  because you then purchased glasses from them.

I know  

If this ever gets in front of a judge (which it won't) I'd love to see Specsavers tear apart any report from Boots*.

Boots offer only a 12 month guarantee against manufacturing etc defects yet they are trying to say that the Specsavers lenses should have lasted 3+ years.  So Boots are accepting that their lenses won't last as long as specsavers?

It always makes me chuckle when I see see one and two year guarantees offered on products that ought to last much much longer.  Do manufacturers and traders have so little faith in what they manufacture and sell?

(I'll plug again the Tilley Hats lifetime guarantee which I took advantage of - no questions asked! - on a hat that was over 20 years old.  Thats proper quality and a proper guarantee!)

*Don't know about VisionExpress.  They have a 100 day "change of mind" return guarantee but I can't see anything about a faulty product guarantee

ArbitraryRandom

Tr33house said:

In terms of experts, I wouldn't know where to find an expert who didn't work for an optician. And if I did find one then of course if they were about to charge me £200 for that letter/evidence then I should drop the case as it ends up putting me out of pocket. 

As previously - have you tried an independent high street optometrist (not a chain with a corporate policy), which you can find via google. I would expect a report to cost be maybe ~£30-50... If the report is in your favour, then you could reclaim the cost as part of your claim (If you win). 

Separately, how have you gone on finding something saying your glasses should have lasted longer than three years?

Because that's the other side of the claim. You could find something like sales materials, insurance policies/warranty terms, manufacturing standards... to evidence why you reasonably expect that specific coating should last for 4, 5 or 6 years (not the independent report unless that optician uses that specific coating). 

There's not really much point paying for a report to support the fault is inherent (not your misuse) if you can't prove they weren't at the end of life anyway. 

Okell

Tr33house said:

I think you are also going to have difficulty persuading anybody that the above is evidence of a lens coating coming away rather than evidence of physiacl damage.  It looks like the result of some kind mechanical scouring or abrading action.  Why have you left it three years?  It doesn't look like the sort of damage that would just happen overnight...

RefluentBeans

born_again said:

RefluentBeans said:

When you say ‘store director’ do you mean the store manager or the managing director of the whole company? It seems very unrealistic to expect the latter.

As SpecSavers is a franchise model. Then each store tends to have it's own owner. Unless the same person owns several stores.

So the owner (or what ever you want to call them) is often instore overseeing the running of their shop.

Which is why if you do not go to the store you bought from, they will have to request details from the store you bought from & may not fix any issues, unless really simple.

Ah that makes a lot more sense. Out of interest, is SpecSavers a full franchise model - as in each branch (or franchise) is discrete in terms of finances from the overall brand and so the lawsuit should be against SpecSavers Chester (or the company that owns them) rather than SpecSavers the company? Fundamentally I guess my question is who is the sales contract with, as if it is with the wrong entity the lawsuit has no basis regardless of the facts of the case. 

The more this thread goes on, the more I’m convinced that this is just a disaster that will unfold if it ever gets in front of a judge. I have questions about the evidence of the OP’s claims (as the fault isn’t clearly a defect, and there is no supporting factors from other reports, yet), whether financially it makes sense to pursue the claim, and whether the right entity is even being named in the claim (that’s already submitted). 

Tr33house

I wouldn’t damage my own glasses and then try and claim another pair from specsavers and go through all this trouble if I damaged it myself that’s the logical part of the answer. 

I didn't happen overnight. I noticed it a lot earlier, but remember this was over Covid and it wasn't bad enough to warrant me going to specsavers and as I said before my eyes adjusted to the damage. Until last October I could no longer ignore it. Which is why I contact them. 

On the subject of the lifespan of the glasses - and I'm open to being corrected here - I do not believe that consumer law has any mention on lifespan of goods - only that you have 6 years. If the manufacturer guarantee/warranty doesn't last 6 years that doesn't matter. 

They should last a reasonable amount of time and I would argue that as long as I can use them and my eyes do not change then they should last as long as wear and tear allows. And in this case only one lens shows the fault which to me says that it is faulty. If the left lens was the same as the right I’d have no issue with my vision and I’d have never complained. 

powerful_Rogue

Tr33house said:

I wouldn’t damage my own glasses and then try and claim another pair from specsavers and go through all this trouble if I damaged it myself that’s the logical part of the answer. 

I didn't happen overnight. I noticed it a lot earlier, but remember this was over Covid and it wasn't bad enough to warrant me going to specsavers and as I said before my eyes adjusted to the damage. Until last October I could no longer ignore it. Which is why I contact them. 

On the subject of the lifespan of the glasses - and I'm open to being corrected here - I do not believe that consumer law has any mention on lifespan of goods - only that you have 6 years. If the manufacturer guarantee/warranty doesn't last 6 years that doesn't matter. 

They should last a reasonable amount of time and I would argue that as long as I can use them and my eyes do not change then they should last as long as wear and tear allows. And in this case only one lens shows the fault which to me says that it is faulty. If the left lens was the same as the right I’d have no issue with my vision and I’d have never complained. 

You have six years to make a claim, not that the product should last six years.

You mention a reasonable amount of time, many articles on the internet state 2-3 years, to it appears they have lasted a reasonable amount of time.

ArbitraryRandom

Tr33house said:

On the subject of the lifespan of the glasses - and I'm open to being corrected here - I do not believe that consumer law has any mention on lifespan of goods - only that you have 6 years. If the manufacturer guarantee/warranty doesn't last 6 years that doesn't matter. 

They should last a reasonable amount of time and I would argue that as long as I can use them and my eyes do not change then they should last as long as wear and tear allows. And in this case only one lens shows the fault which to me says that it is faulty. If the left lens was the same as the right I’d have no issue with my vision and I’d have never complained. 

Six years is the practical limit in UK law for bringing an action - not the expected lifespan for goods should last in normal use... and while your rights are not limited by the manufacturer warranty or guarantee - if one exists and is for 6+ years, it would act as evidence the reasonably expected lifespan of the product is also 6+ years.  

The act specifically references 'durability' as one of the factors to consider when assessing if goods are of satisfactory quality - and durability means "ability to last over time". To quote from the official guidance for businesses: 



And as previously stated, there's a lot of information around saying glasses last an average of 2 or 3 years, with better quality (more expensive glasses) possibly lasting longer - so if you are saying it's reasonable for you think your 'cheap' glasses should have lasted 4+ years then you are likely going to need something to support that argument. 



Especially given the life expectancy is relevant to the amount you can claim (which would be the price you paid minus the portion of the reasonable life expectancy that you have had use of them): 



https://www.businesscompanion.info/sites/default/files/CRA-Goods-Guidance-for-Business-Sep-2015.pdf

born_again

Tr33house said: And as to the question of store manager/owner then I don't see why the owner wouldn't deal with these issues. It's their business and they should be the one who takes responsibility or they are a bad owner/manager. 

The thing is the owner does not have to engage with you. They employ staff to do that & also may not have any relevant optical experience. Only that they have funded the franchise purchase.

Think of it like complaining to Sainsburys, Do you expect their CEO to deal with you?
Like any business you complain to & contact CEO, it gets passed to the complaints team (Only regulated business need to have a complaints team) to deal with you.