General Chat

Well lookie here, a franchise opportunity with Optical Express, enticingly described as a ‘new shared venture partnership business model’. [SVP]
www.aop.org.uk/ot/industry/high-street/2...iness-model-roll-out

My personal interpretation of this SVP is more along the lines of, ‘need to get some money in because we’re in deep sh*t business model’

SVP brochure:
www.judyolsen.eu/SiteAssets/Pages/Work/S...p-Brochure-Jun09.pdf

"Optical Express SVP is a type of franchise, although we do not ask you to pay an upfront licensing fee, nor do we limit you to a short-term lease. Franchises in the UK have very low failures rates. In 2006, 93% of franchisees reported a profit – and these are overall figures, not just those for big brands and key players.”

Curious that OE quote statistics from a 2006 BFA franchise survey, what about something more recent?

OE also offered franchises in 2005, although I am unaware of any who took up this offer. (If I’m wrong please let me know.)
www.opticianonline.net/news/optical-expr...joint-venture-scheme

Nor was I aware of this fact

"Moulsdale, who opened a Specsavers franchise in Livingston in 1990* before launching Optical Express a year later, said the key ingredients for joint venture partnership success were 'having owners and managers in place at a local level driving the sales performance of a store'. He said franchisees tended to be 'more commercially focused’** with a keen interest in building long-term relationships with patients.***"

*Interesting, because in 2014 I was corresponding with Specsavers owner Mary Perkins, concerning details (yet to be published) of an alleged financial deal between Specsavers and Optegra, while some of their locum optoms were also working at Optimax and taking commission for referring Specsavers customers for surgery consults - one of whom became an MBE client in June 2013 and ended up in litigation.
**And if franchisees are even 'more commercially focused' than OE themselves, then what hope for customers (not considered patients in business model)!
***And of course the ‘long term relationship’ no doubt refers to the unarguable fact that so many of their customers have to keep returning to OE when left with irreparable post op problems - perhaps why OE have recently refused to provide aftercare beyond 12 months, to make an investment more palatable for potential franchisees!

Points to consider:
• As when you sell a house, is it similarly required that OE fully disclose details of problems/complaints/legal claims (incl past present and pending) to intended franchisee?
• Who will be Defendant in future claims by damaged OE customers, franchisee or OE?
• Will OE tell franchisees about OERML? Although any potential investor would have to be brainless or blind if they hadn’t already found details when googling "Optical Express"!

admin wrote: Optical Express rebranding programme cont'd...

As I've mentioned, the lowlife employee who offered me info in exchange for payment (presumably now ex-employee) told me that OE's marketing team do nothing more than post spam on social media sites.

This likelihood is supported by the content on the LinkedIn page for Jack Maddix, one of Steven Taylor’s Manchester based marketing team, with Jack's listed experience including, ”Digital/Social - Social media management: strategy & content Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram CRM: email/SMS”

I initially contacted the ASA on 13 June 2017, pointing out that Jack Maddix is one of OE’s marketing team...

17 July: ASA Complaints Executive Sophie Marchant replied,
'On receiving your complaint, we contacted Optical Express for more information. They confirmed that, though Jack Maddix is a current Optical Express employee, he had eye surgery with Optical Express six years ago (funded by himself) and it is coincidental that he then decided to work for Optical Express. The advertiser confirmed that none of the other participants are or ever have been employees of Optical Express, and received no other payment other than nominal travel expenses. Therefore, as we consider that all stories are genuine and are not likely to mislead people, we will not be taking further action on this case.'

I immediately phoned Sophie to explain why I disagreed with the ASA decision.

Yesterday I received this response from Sophie,
'As discussed on our telephone call earlier this month, after speaking to yourself and my colleagues, I considered that the webpage did need to make clear that Jack Maddix was an Optical Express employee. I can see from the “Patient Stories” webpage that Optical Express have now updated this and made his position sufficiently clear.'



It's not much, but every little bit helps

In memory of Hazel Jones, who died yesterday

Please share - details of the cause of her tragic and untimely death need to go viral!



Hazel was in regular contact with Veronica Luby-Hoey, another OE patient left damaged after lens exchange in Ireland - both operated on by the same surgeon, Dr Kanackal Alex George.

In their most recent conversation, Hazel expressed her anger at the continuing rapid deterioration of her vision... dreading the prospect of not being able to drive in the future, and very depressed with the overall reduction of her quality of life, entirely a result of the lens exchange surgery she was pressured to buy in 2012!

I last spoke with Hazel on 5 July, when I advised her that I needed to speak with her solicitor. I didn’t tell her why, as it concerning shocking information that I had been given concerning Alex George, and I wanted to discuss this with her legal team first.

I am so glad that I didn’t tell her at that time, because it would simply have added even more stress to Hazel Jones' last few weeks alive.

Be assured that this info will be publicised in due course!


www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk/ind...ss/7815-ireland.html

This is scary and of great concern





thanksamillion.opticalexpress.co.uk/

Sickening, because OE’s desperate advertising team are obviously alluding to terrorist attacks, purporting to be rewarding the emergency services involved!

Given the number of post op problems suffered by their customers, OE might as well be working with Isis/Daesh!

It is of course another advertising scam, circumventing the ICO ruling in 2014, because those targeted who respond to the ads are thereby inviting contact from OE!


panopticonblog.com/2015/09/03/blindly-fu...and-optical-express/
marketinglaw.osborneclarke.com/marketing...ter-7506-complaints/
dma.org.uk/article/uk-tribunal-rules-aga...rmed-and-unambiguous
ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events...sance-text-messages/

How OE will decide who is unlucky enough to be selected for free surgery needs to be questioned. And, where will we find the evidence that they are in fact ‘giving away £1million of laser eye surgery’?

I guarantee that many of these applicants will be told they’re unsuitable for laser and pressured to pay for lens exchange instead… and it’s only a matter of time before some of them (laser or lens) will be contacting OERML!

The ad also says, ‘Each month we’ll select a number of people to have a consultation to establish if they are a suitable candidate.’

How many people each month? Five, ten, a hundred? Because this ‘£million’ giveaway could run for years - if OE last that long of course!

The targeted Emergency Service workers are integral to the UK’s health and safety infrastructure, and if damaged by OE, they will not only lose their jobs, but the country will lose their valuable skills!

I already represent clients from all these emergency services, and hope that if reading this, they will share OERML wherever possible to stop others in their profession putting their healthy eyes at risk!

Sadly ironic that so many of OE’s damaged patients are forced to rely on the NHS for aftercare and OE are now targeting these very people!

I’m meeting with Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell next week and sent him this info earlier today, because the government need to stop pretending the problems with this industry don't exist and address the scandal as a matter of urgency.

PLEASE PLEASE share this post - via email, SMS, WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter - especially if you work in any of these services, or know someone who does!!

Apologies to all those still waiting for me to respond to emails, but I've been advised to rest my eyes as much as possible due to eye pain and intermittent blurred vision - easier said than done!

I will do my best to catch up asap

Meanwhile, I am aware that many people who follow this forum are unaware of 'Sasha Rodoy’ & ‘OERML' Facebook pages (I publish identical content on both).

You can read the posts and comments without needing a Facebook account.
www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003049068810
www.facebook.com/OERML

And to all Twitterers, please follow @OERMLuk

The last batch of online videos from 8ish years ago were rife with staff. I was one of them that got made to do it!

Optical Express rebranding programme cont'd...

As I've mentioned, the lowlife employee who offered me info in exchange for payment (presumably now ex-employee) told me that OE's marketing team do nothing more than post spam on social media sites.

This likelihood is supported by the content on the LinkedIn page for Jack Maddix, one of Steven Taylor’s Manchester based marketing team, with Jack's listed experience including, ”Digital/Social - Social media management: strategy & content Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram CRM: email/SMS”


www.linkedin.com/in/jackmaddix/?ppe=1

But in fact spamming is not all Jack has been doing



"12 Patients, 12 wonderful stories. Find out how we've helped our amazing patients enjoy more of the things they love to do in life!”

patientstories.opticalexpress.co.uk/

If they’ve had to resort to passing off their own employees as happy satisfied patients then Optical Express must have even more damaged patients than I thought!

This is of course misleading advertising, because - even if they have undergone surgery - there is no mention that any of these people are employed by Optical Express.

Deceptive at best, fraudulent at worst - but certainly immoral!

Lowlife insider told me that Jack Maddix is not the only OE employee amongst the 12 profiled patients, and true or not, it is certainly a question the ASA will be asking following my complaint on Tuesday.

Dammit! Now I suppose I'll have to update OERML's logo...

Because Optical Express are in the midst of a ‘rebranding’ programme, with a new logo not a name change as I thought might be the case...


www.opticalexpress.co.uk/news/norwich-gr...s-on-optical-express

So perhaps they do intend to pay the Daily Mail’s legal costs after all (story yet to be told).

As part of their rebrand ‘Dr’ Hilary Jones has replaced Stephen Schallhorn as OE’s consent video spokesman.

(Might not be their best move however, because if you Google "Hilary Jones Optical Express" up pops OERML!)

Hilary Jones is a true Judas goat, not least because he had his eyes operated on at the same clinic responsible for damaging Anneka Rice's eyes, and was paid to advertise the clinic who also freely (allegedly) operated on him!



Although, according to what was said on ITV's Lorraine (@ 1.55), Hilary’s eyes must have deteriorated quite soon after the surgery.



‘Slut’ is the most appropriate word I can find right now to describe the cheesy doctor in regard to his endorsement of absolutely anything he can earn money from - I have no doubt he’d advertise Catnip if he could persuade people it's beneficial to their health!

Quite ironic that Hilary also promotes a product he claims has been "proven" to help MGD, dry eyes, and blepharitis, alleging that he too previously suffered with MGD!

It should also be mentioned that Hilary is fully aware of the many problems suffered by OE patients (we first exchanged correspondence in 2013), and in February this year I questioned his ethics in relation to his support for the company.

He chose not to reply.

At the same time a number of damaged OE patients also posted on his Facebook page, and surprisingly the comments have remained - if you’d like to add to them!

To be continued...

After this week’s excitement, with the election results still the focus of most people’s attention, I intend to take a break until Monday.

In the meantime I'll leave you with one example of how unhappy patients are viewed by companies eager to take our money, but desperately avoiding responsibility when they leave us irreparably damaged!

Michelle was 28 yrs old when she underwent Lasik eye surgery in February 2012 with Panagiotis Theoulakis (aka Panos Theoulakis) - and if his operating skills are bad as his YouTube video then it explains a lot!



Left with post op problems, which included floaters, dry eyes, starbursts, glare, contrast sensitivity, also unable drive at night, Michelle had Lasik ‘enhancement’ treatment eight months later in October 2012, this time with Manek Patel.

For the record, I loathe the industry’s misuse of the word ‘enhancement’ to describe a retreatment, which is in fact an attempt to repair the first unsuccessful surgery: the primary surgery is surely an ‘enhancement’ according to the dictionary definition!

After Manek Patel’s repair Michelle was left with the same problems, including increasingly bothersome floaters.

In June 2014 I accompanied Michelle to a consultation with retinal specialist Miss Louisa Wickham, paid by OE, although Tweedles told Michelle it was ‘a goodwill gesture’!

Miss Wickham discussed a number of potential solutions to the floaters, including vitrectomy. But she explained to Michelle, that due to her age, there was a 6% risk of further visual complications, and a potential increased risk of developing cataracts if she did this.

I asked specs wearing Miss Wickham if she would ever consider refractive eye surgery herself, and - similarly to many other specialists I’ve also asked - she replied that her vision is too valuable!

Now aged 32, Michelle is likely to suffer these complications (described by the industry as 'side effects’) for the rest of her life, and unable to find lawyers willing to represent her for an expected small settlement, in January 2017 she issued a County Court claim against both Optical Express and Panagiotis Theoulakis.

Michelle also sent a Subject Access Request (SAR) to Optical Express…

Although they neglected to disclose all documents - including details of having provided Michelle with eye drops past the expiration date - amongst the docs she did receive Michelle was horrified to notice an email exchange between Tweedledum and Jan Venter, in which she was described by Jan Venter as "a difficult lady”!



• I don’t know who Jennifer Cameron is.
• Redactions courtesy of OE.

Tweedledum says how inspiring it is “to follow a patient’s journey and see their immediate reaction to improved vision gain.”


www.opticalexpress.co.uk/_assets/media/p...n-hannan-profile.pdf

Interestingly he makes no mention of the reaction of the many thousands of patients whose vision was NOT improved, or of the hundreds of letters he sends to people like this every month, telling them the 12 months is up and no more free aftercare - no matter what they were promised when they handed over their money.

SARs are incredibly time consuming and costly for OE or any provider to collate, and for that reason alone I recommend it worth all patients paying £10 to get their personal information, if only to read what they’ve said behind your back after smiling to your face!

Also helpful if you’re in litigation, because information that is disclosed under your SAR - such as internal emails - is not usually disclosed in the course of a legal claim.

More surprises next week

At last, the post you’ve been waiting for



I trust the following extracts from the Optical Express finance meeting that David Moulsdale so kindly - if unwittingly - invited me to partake in last Friday morning are enough to end your day with a smile!

I joined the conversation when legal matters were under discussion, but because of the potential value to lawyers and those in litigation I am not publishing everything I learned.

David Moulsdale angrily told his colleagues present at the meeting, and I quote,

“[OE] lost FOUR MILLION quid this year…"

“We’re not busy, operating on sixty percent capacity…”

“I can’t pay the surgical team a bonus on less than ten patients day, we used to treat twenty, twenty-four patients a day… [blurred words] made four thousand a patient… retail price was more…”

“Got f*cking refunds, got f*cking complaints…"

David Teenan wasn’t present but he did get a name check from his boss.

And something I didn’t know previously, it’s not only OE surgeons optoms and sales people who are paid bonuses, nurses are too!

Not sure how ethical that is, but probably no longer an issue according to what David said,

"I’m not paying a nurse to treat less than ten patients a day - I’m not a f*cking charity, I’m not the NHS…”

“Ten patients is three hours work, no way I’m paying bonuses!”

“Four complex enhancements and three YAG a day… YAG should not be ‘treatment!’” (Presumably because bonuses are only paid on actual ‘treatments’.)

“Nurses not to be paid bonus on less than twelve patients… less than 15 patients - NO BONUS!”

Spitting out numbers he said,
“Twenty [£] at fifteen [patients], forty at sixteen, fifty at twenty…"

Then changing his mind,
“Twenty, thirty, forty…”

“They [nurses] going to make a f*cking fortune!”

It continued along those lines until the call suddenly cut off.

I know that many people - me included - have been shouting at their phone to see if Siri woud call someone that way.

If anyone has succeeded please let me know, because my only other theory is too far fetched!