New glasses

The site at goggles4u.co.uk has featured elsewhere on these forums because for some years it has been trading illegally, passing itself off as American Eye Vision Inc., a US company, but the registrant was identified only as "Skybeans", at a residential address in Swindon (132 Redcliffe Street, Rodbourne, Swindon SN2 2BY).  Recently, a UK accommodation address was added (1-11, Alvin St, Gloucester, GL1 3EJ), but this is simply a mail forwarding address and is not an address at which legal process can be served.

Nominet UK is the registrar for the ".uk" top level domain and, although the goggles4u.co.uk domain is actually registered with 123-Reg Limited, a domain reseller, that company has failed to properly identify the domain registrant as required by Nominet UK's contractual terms and conditions, despite being required to do so by Nominet UK in 2017.   Nominet UK finally took direct action over this breach recently by suspending the domain, and details of the current registrant have finally been provided, and it is not American Eye Vision Inc.  The registrant is World Eye Vision Limited, registered at Companies House as a limited company on 21 November 2018 in England with company number 11689155, registered office address 114 High Street, Cranfield, Bedford, England, MK43 0DG (the company accountants, Jonathan Vowles Accountants).  The sole director is a Farrukh Khan, resident in the USA, and this company describes American Eye Vision Inc. as an "associated company that is registered in the USA".

The significance of all this?  The terms and conditions state that California law applies to purchases via the UK site but as World Eye Vision Limited is the registrant and is incorporated in England with assets within the jurisdiction of the UK Courts, it's likely that those assets arise out of purchases by UK consumers and that, despite the "California law" terms and conditions, UK consumer protection legislation - particularly the Consumer Rights Act 2015 - can be enforced against World Eye Vision Limited in the County Court.  It's certainly worthwhile exploring this option as it is completely impractical to try to do so in the USA, and a "Part 27" claim - currently applying to claims of up to £10,000 - doesn't need the involvement of a solicitor.

Personally, I'd never buy eyewear from a trader that conducts its business in this way, but if you do, and the purchase is unsatisfactory (well-known online sites do list complaints about quality and delivery delays) there is at least now a potential remedy if all else fails.