Optimax Patients
- admin
-
Offline
- Posts: 1164
- Thanks: 153
Replied by admin on topic Sasha Rodoy v Russell Ambrose t/a Optimax...
Posted 09 Jan 2016 14:26
In December, immediately after issuing my second claim against Russell Ambrose for his repeated breach of agreement, I realised I hadn't added ’t/a Optimax Unltd’ after his name as 1st Defendant, or included ‘Optimax Clinics Ltd’ as 2nd Defendant.
Duh - Russell was of course not going to let me get away with that mistake!
Sure enough, three days ago his solicitor (Qaiser Khanzada) emailed a copy of his client’s defence:
My reply was short and sweet - 'Lol'!
After taking advice from one of the many lawyers who represent my many clients I contacted the Courts and paid £50 to amend my mistake.
This will no doubt add another month to the litigation process and give Russell more time to think up his next plan to thwart me...
To read a short email lawyers generally invoice their client for a minimum of 6 minutes (1 Unit), adding a second Unit to write a brief response. Lengthier and more complex emails obviously require more Units.
I checked Russell’s itemised costs budget and it appears that Qaiser’s hourly rate is £300 (incl VAT), therefore 1 Unit equals £30, his fee to read a one line email from me. (I will email Qaiser later to check this)
In total we exchanged close to 1,000 emails over a period of twenty months, and if Qaiser was slow in replying to me then I'd send a second message, sometimes a third, and then perhaps a phone call - presumably billed in the same way as emails.
As I’d always predicted he would, Russell agreed to settle my first claim just one week before the trial date on 11/12 November 2015. I told Qaiser that his firm should be sending me a case of champagne as a ‘thank you’ for the amount of money they’d earned out of me!
However, as posted here on 9 December, after agreeing to settle with me Russell then refused to pay my £10,423.48 costs, offering a third of that amount in full and final settlement.
I called Qaiser, and - with repeated use of the word Carrie MacEwen considers obscene, gave him a message to convey to his client!
I have therefore today issued a ’Notice of commencement of assessment of bill of costs’. Russell has 21 days to respond and if he refuses to pay then I will apply to the Court for a provisional assessment before a Judge.
I would expect no Judge to look favourably on Russell’s refusal given that his own costs budget was approx £66,000 (incl VAT) - that I would have had to pay if I’d lost the case (as if).
Because we settled before going to trial I estimate his actual costs for the case were in excess of £50,000.
And if Russell wants to continue playing expensive games with me perhaps it should be two cases of champagne Qaiser?
What upsets me is that Russell is eager to throw away tens of thousands of pounds simply to make my life difficult when the money could be so much better spent helping damaged Optimax/Ultralase patients refused aftercare.
Duh - Russell was of course not going to let me get away with that mistake!
Sure enough, three days ago his solicitor (Qaiser Khanzada) emailed a copy of his client’s defence:
My reply was short and sweet - 'Lol'!
After taking advice from one of the many lawyers who represent my many clients I contacted the Courts and paid £50 to amend my mistake.
This will no doubt add another month to the litigation process and give Russell more time to think up his next plan to thwart me...
To read a short email lawyers generally invoice their client for a minimum of 6 minutes (1 Unit), adding a second Unit to write a brief response. Lengthier and more complex emails obviously require more Units.
I checked Russell’s itemised costs budget and it appears that Qaiser’s hourly rate is £300 (incl VAT), therefore 1 Unit equals £30, his fee to read a one line email from me. (I will email Qaiser later to check this)
In total we exchanged close to 1,000 emails over a period of twenty months, and if Qaiser was slow in replying to me then I'd send a second message, sometimes a third, and then perhaps a phone call - presumably billed in the same way as emails.
As I’d always predicted he would, Russell agreed to settle my first claim just one week before the trial date on 11/12 November 2015. I told Qaiser that his firm should be sending me a case of champagne as a ‘thank you’ for the amount of money they’d earned out of me!
However, as posted here on 9 December, after agreeing to settle with me Russell then refused to pay my £10,423.48 costs, offering a third of that amount in full and final settlement.
I called Qaiser, and - with repeated use of the word Carrie MacEwen considers obscene, gave him a message to convey to his client!
I have therefore today issued a ’Notice of commencement of assessment of bill of costs’. Russell has 21 days to respond and if he refuses to pay then I will apply to the Court for a provisional assessment before a Judge.
I would expect no Judge to look favourably on Russell’s refusal given that his own costs budget was approx £66,000 (incl VAT) - that I would have had to pay if I’d lost the case (as if).
Because we settled before going to trial I estimate his actual costs for the case were in excess of £50,000.
And if Russell wants to continue playing expensive games with me perhaps it should be two cases of champagne Qaiser?
What upsets me is that Russell is eager to throw away tens of thousands of pounds simply to make my life difficult when the money could be so much better spent helping damaged Optimax/Ultralase patients refused aftercare.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Jane
Replied by Jane on topic OPTIMAX Ruined My Life
Posted 02 Nov 2015 18:31
Right now I'm at indoor football with my 5 year old son. The pitch is a blur to me.
I can't enjoy these moments with my kids like I used to and this is what hurts the most.
20/20 vision yeah right thanks Optimax
I can't enjoy these moments with my kids like I used to and this is what hurts the most.
20/20 vision yeah right thanks Optimax
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- admin
-
Offline
- Posts: 1164
- Thanks: 153
Replied by admin on topic Complaint to GOC
Posted 01 Oct 2015 13:58
Nine months ago I registered my complaint with the General Optical Council (GOC) against Swati Malkan, the specs wearing optometrist who recommended I had Lasek surgery in 2011 - not only unfortunate for me, but for the high street industry too!
In response to my allegations Swati finally submitted her ‘representations’ to the GOC last week, four pages long, and very obviously written by a solicitor, presumably Optimax’s inexpensive in-house solicitor.
I claimed that I was not fully informed, and the paragraph below is Ms Malkan’s excuse for the reason she didn’t discuss monovision with me (Patient A).
Please note that I most definitely did not indicate that I had no objection to wearing reading spectacles, because it was NEVER discussed with me!
After my consult was over, on my way out of the clinic I stuck my head round Ms Malkan’s door and said that, btw, I needed +2 readers to read a menu when wearing contact lenses, which I rarely wore.
Ms Malkan's reply was brief - one sentence in fact, and she most definitely did not explain that I would need reading glasses for ALL close up tasks, such as peeling an apple, washing dishes, programming the washing machine… and did not explain “in detail” that I wouldn’t be able to see my watch, my nails, text messages, labels on bottles, etc…
“Critical of their vision"? Surely every person is critical of their vision if they're unable to see clearly - aaaaargh!!
I would not have considered monovision any more than I would have lens exchange, and had either been suggested I wouldn’t be sitting here now, and none of you would know my name, and the industry would be carrying on business as usual!
I had lasek and have ALL of the side-effects listed by Swati as being more likely with monovision! Confirmed recently by three surgeons in reports for my forthcoming trial v Russell Ambrose t/a Optimax.
Swati Malkan has lied through her specs, and I have yet to write my comments to her representations.
But now I’ve finished writing my witness statement for my claim against her employer I will make sure I leave no stone unturned and hope that the GOC’s case examiners are more stringent with Swati than the GMC are with negligent surgeons!
Ms Malkan goes on to say, “I’m sorry that Px A (me) was dissatisfied with the outcome of her surgery and it is unfortunate that that Px A went from being shortsighted to longsighted.”
Unfortunate? I call it tragic - but then I suppose I am a teeny weeny bit biased!
Swati goes on to pour salt into my wounded eyes by claiming that every effort was made to clearly explain the side-effects of laser eye surgery!
Of course it was Swati - that's why this intelligent woman ignored all your efforts to dissuade me and decided to play Russian roulette with her precious, priceless, healthy eyes!
It should be noted that I actually liked wearing glasses, and spent a lot on money on designer frames. I had surgery to save money, not for vanity - not realising that my stable prescription was unlikely to change any time soon, therefore less expenditure without new lenses!
I didn’t ask my opticians opinion as I thought they wouldn’t encourage me as they would lose sales. In fact they make far more money off me than ever before!
Ms Malkan should pray that she never meets me, just as Dr Hoe should run very fast in the opposite direction if he ever sees me! Because, although I’m not a physically violent person, I am simmering with so much anger that I don’t know how I would react if I met either of these people complicit in damaging my eyes and ruining my life.
I told Stephanie Holloway that I admired her restraint in keeping her hands from Joanna McGraw’s throat in court last year, because I’m not sure I would be able to exercise the same self control.
Though if I were to do something extreme the court would probably excuse me on grounds of diminished responsibility due to unreasonable provocation by way of physical assault and abuse on my person.
During one of our meetings, talking about OE, Russell Ambrose said to me, “Why would (David Moulsdale) want to make you angry…” (recorded). The fact that Russell would think for one second that I wasn’t angry with him, or had forgiven him, is an indicator of how these businessmen regard damaged patients - we are simply an inconvenience.
I’ve never heard a sincere apology from any of them - on the rare occasion one is even offered. Their only concern is how cheaply the patient can be paid off!
In response to my allegations Swati finally submitted her ‘representations’ to the GOC last week, four pages long, and very obviously written by a solicitor, presumably Optimax’s inexpensive in-house solicitor.
I claimed that I was not fully informed, and the paragraph below is Ms Malkan’s excuse for the reason she didn’t discuss monovision with me (Patient A).
Please note that I most definitely did not indicate that I had no objection to wearing reading spectacles, because it was NEVER discussed with me!
After my consult was over, on my way out of the clinic I stuck my head round Ms Malkan’s door and said that, btw, I needed +2 readers to read a menu when wearing contact lenses, which I rarely wore.
Ms Malkan's reply was brief - one sentence in fact, and she most definitely did not explain that I would need reading glasses for ALL close up tasks, such as peeling an apple, washing dishes, programming the washing machine… and did not explain “in detail” that I wouldn’t be able to see my watch, my nails, text messages, labels on bottles, etc…
“Critical of their vision"? Surely every person is critical of their vision if they're unable to see clearly - aaaaargh!!
I would not have considered monovision any more than I would have lens exchange, and had either been suggested I wouldn’t be sitting here now, and none of you would know my name, and the industry would be carrying on business as usual!
I had lasek and have ALL of the side-effects listed by Swati as being more likely with monovision! Confirmed recently by three surgeons in reports for my forthcoming trial v Russell Ambrose t/a Optimax.
Swati Malkan has lied through her specs, and I have yet to write my comments to her representations.
But now I’ve finished writing my witness statement for my claim against her employer I will make sure I leave no stone unturned and hope that the GOC’s case examiners are more stringent with Swati than the GMC are with negligent surgeons!
Ms Malkan goes on to say, “I’m sorry that Px A (me) was dissatisfied with the outcome of her surgery and it is unfortunate that that Px A went from being shortsighted to longsighted.”
Unfortunate? I call it tragic - but then I suppose I am a teeny weeny bit biased!
Swati goes on to pour salt into my wounded eyes by claiming that every effort was made to clearly explain the side-effects of laser eye surgery!
Of course it was Swati - that's why this intelligent woman ignored all your efforts to dissuade me and decided to play Russian roulette with her precious, priceless, healthy eyes!
It should be noted that I actually liked wearing glasses, and spent a lot on money on designer frames. I had surgery to save money, not for vanity - not realising that my stable prescription was unlikely to change any time soon, therefore less expenditure without new lenses!
I didn’t ask my opticians opinion as I thought they wouldn’t encourage me as they would lose sales. In fact they make far more money off me than ever before!
Ms Malkan should pray that she never meets me, just as Dr Hoe should run very fast in the opposite direction if he ever sees me! Because, although I’m not a physically violent person, I am simmering with so much anger that I don’t know how I would react if I met either of these people complicit in damaging my eyes and ruining my life.
I told Stephanie Holloway that I admired her restraint in keeping her hands from Joanna McGraw’s throat in court last year, because I’m not sure I would be able to exercise the same self control.
Though if I were to do something extreme the court would probably excuse me on grounds of diminished responsibility due to unreasonable provocation by way of physical assault and abuse on my person.
During one of our meetings, talking about OE, Russell Ambrose said to me, “Why would (David Moulsdale) want to make you angry…” (recorded). The fact that Russell would think for one second that I wasn’t angry with him, or had forgiven him, is an indicator of how these businessmen regard damaged patients - we are simply an inconvenience.
I’ve never heard a sincere apology from any of them - on the rare occasion one is even offered. Their only concern is how cheaply the patient can be paid off!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Jane
Replied by Jane on topic Linda Ambrose
Posted 24 Sep 2015 13:01
This often comes up on my Facebook news feed. Browsing through the comments I notice a number from Linda Ambrose.
Any relation Russell!?
Any relation Russell!?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Jane
Replied by Jane on topic Optimax After "care"
Posted 15 Sep 2015 11:40
Russell Ambrose is clearly receiving my emails, however he has chosen not to reply to my latest email, so I'd like to share this email trail with everyone!
________________
From: Jane
Sent: 21 August 2015 13:11
To: Russell Ambrose
Cc: Pushpa Patel
Subject: RE: Free laser eye surgery consultation & info pack Plus £500 off!
Dear Mr Ambrose,
I have never 'opted into' receive marketing spam emails from any 'third party provider' of any description, and definitely not this one!
Why should I have to unsubscribe from something I didn’t subscribe to?
I suggest that YOU contact the company and unsubscribe me as you are the one paying them to harass and upset me!
I will be complaining to the ICO.
Your damaged patient,
Jane Armstrong
________________
From: "Russell Ambrose" <Russell.Ambrose@Optimax.co.uk>
Sent: 21 August 2015 14:47
To: "Jane"
Cc: "Pushpa Patel" <Pushpa.Patel@Optimax.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Free laser eye surgery consultation & info pack Plus £500 off!
Dear Ms Armstrong,
Please see the unsubscribe message at the bottom of the email. Only you can unsubscribe from it. I cannot do this on your behalf.
I have contacted all companies we deal with and have asked them not to email you again. This may not be as effective as a direct request from you to unsubscribe.
I am sorry about this.
Regards
Russell Ambrose
________________
From: Jane
Sent: 21 August 2015 15:03
To: Russell Ambrose
Subject: RE: Free laser eye surgery consultation & info pack Plus £500 off!
Dear Mr Ambrose,
But not sorry about ruining my eyes and life? Or willing to provide me with the medication I desperately need to help the pain and cannot afford to pay for myself with two young children to care for who are my priority.
I will be in court to support Sasha Rodoy in November and I look forward to meeting you in person.
Your damaged patient,
Jane Armstrong
_________________
From: "Russell Ambrose" <Russell.Ambrose@Optimax.co.uk>
Sent: 21 August 2015 15:19
To: "Jane"
Cc: "Pushpa Patel" <Pushpa.Patel@Optimax.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Free laser eye surgery consultation & info pack Plus £500 off!
Dear Jane,
I am very sorry for what has happened and how you feel. However once you place matters in solicitors hands all requests have to go through them.
Regards
Russell Ambrose
________________
Dear Mr Ambrose
What about my lifetime aftercare?
Your damaged patient,
Jane Armstrong (Mrs)
________________
From: Jane
Sent: 21 August 2015 13:11
To: Russell Ambrose
Cc: Pushpa Patel
Subject: RE: Free laser eye surgery consultation & info pack Plus £500 off!
Dear Mr Ambrose,
I have never 'opted into' receive marketing spam emails from any 'third party provider' of any description, and definitely not this one!
Why should I have to unsubscribe from something I didn’t subscribe to?
I suggest that YOU contact the company and unsubscribe me as you are the one paying them to harass and upset me!
I will be complaining to the ICO.
Your damaged patient,
Jane Armstrong
________________
From: "Russell Ambrose" <Russell.Ambrose@Optimax.co.uk>
Sent: 21 August 2015 14:47
To: "Jane"
Cc: "Pushpa Patel" <Pushpa.Patel@Optimax.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Free laser eye surgery consultation & info pack Plus £500 off!
Dear Ms Armstrong,
Please see the unsubscribe message at the bottom of the email. Only you can unsubscribe from it. I cannot do this on your behalf.
I have contacted all companies we deal with and have asked them not to email you again. This may not be as effective as a direct request from you to unsubscribe.
I am sorry about this.
Regards
Russell Ambrose
________________
From: Jane
Sent: 21 August 2015 15:03
To: Russell Ambrose
Subject: RE: Free laser eye surgery consultation & info pack Plus £500 off!
Dear Mr Ambrose,
But not sorry about ruining my eyes and life? Or willing to provide me with the medication I desperately need to help the pain and cannot afford to pay for myself with two young children to care for who are my priority.
I will be in court to support Sasha Rodoy in November and I look forward to meeting you in person.
Your damaged patient,
Jane Armstrong
_________________
From: "Russell Ambrose" <Russell.Ambrose@Optimax.co.uk>
Sent: 21 August 2015 15:19
To: "Jane"
Cc: "Pushpa Patel" <Pushpa.Patel@Optimax.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Free laser eye surgery consultation & info pack Plus £500 off!
Dear Jane,
I am very sorry for what has happened and how you feel. However once you place matters in solicitors hands all requests have to go through them.
Regards
Russell Ambrose
________________
Dear Mr Ambrose
What about my lifetime aftercare?
Your damaged patient,
Jane Armstrong (Mrs)
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: admin, Sasha