Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me


Has anyone succeeded in suing OE 13 Dec 2016 18:57 #31

  • Mandy Gee
  • Mandy Gee's Avatar
I had lens replacement surgery in Oct 2014. It has been a disaster with many of the issues others are reporting, and in addition, at the time of my first operation the anaesthatist put a canula in my hand but was busy on his mobile phone to a broadband company and by being distracted, did not administer a sedative. I have contacted lawyers and I am in the process of pursuing a claim against OE but just wondered if anyone had had success and any helpful info they could add.
admin: Be assured that a number of people have successfully sued OE, with hundreds more currently in litigation. Claims are usually settled out of court, with the exception of Stephanie Holloway - much to OE's regret!
For more info send email to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Small claims court 13 Dec 2016 14:15 #32

  • Tracey
  • Tracey's Avatar
Help? I had lens replacement and now can't drive at night. The haloes are terrible. I've had so many appointments with conflicting information . I'm now considering small claims. Any advice would be fantastic
admin: Please send email to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. :kiss:

Small claims court 05 Dec 2016 20:23 #33

  • Simon
  • Simon's Avatar
Hi Neil, I'm sorry to hear this and I'm in the same boat and can totally empathise. May I ask which branch you attended? Was it the surgery in Shaftsbury Avenue? I've only had one operation so far and dubious to have another one with them. My right eye is -1.50 our and the left one is at least -1.0 as well. I'm currently trialling contacts to get the prescription right before considering having it done again.

Small claims court 11 Oct 2016 15:00 #34

  • Neil
  • Neil's Avatar
Hi, Am I assuming that if you take recordings of conversations during your consultations with OE Consultants and staff it is illegal or not admissible in court?
I am having major problems with OE after surgery x 2.
I would love some advice on this as I'm about to issue court proceedings.
Firstly for buggering my sight up and secondly for them saying my vision is 20/20 when clearly it is not. asked for a refund but to no avail and they keep sending the standard you signed all the forms etc.
Help required!!!
admin: I advise everyone to record! For more details please email with your phone number This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Small claims court 27 Sep 2016 09:53 #35

  • CML
  • CML's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 13
  • Thank you received: 0
There are a few members already in the process of going through the small claims court.
Please can anyone point me in the right direction to claim via small claims court?
Thank you in advance

Update re Carmel Robertson v Optical Express 28 Aug 2016 22:59 #36

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 1071
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 153
Case Management Conference @ Croydon County Court on 17 August. (read previous post for history)

12 August: the Defendant’s lawyers hand delivered an application to the Court asking that the claim be struck out on the grounds that Carmel had incorrectly named the Defendant as Optical Express, instead of 123 Leeds Ltd, formerly Optical Express Southern Ltd, both companies now dissolved.

Plexus Law Ltd also advised Carmel that they objected to my providing 'advocacy services’ and intended to inform the court that, 'Ms Rodoy is not independent and that she will have a conflict of interest in acting in your best interests’.

Their evidence included a screenshot of my MBE FundRazr page, a copy of my 2015 Daily Mail interview, and the posts I’d published on OERML/Facebook, including an extract from their Court Application and partial transcription of Carmel’s recorded consult with Jonathan Carr (posted 14 August).

One of my legal advisers warned me that it was probable the Judge would have no choice but to agree with the Defence’s objection to me because of my Facebook posts.

Our challenge therefore was firstly to argue for me to stay in the courtroom, and - more importantly - request permission to amend the name of the Defendant to stop the case being struck out!

Plexus Law had sent trainee solicitor Rachel Auld to represent OE, suggesting that they were confident the Judge would strike out the case.

Chatting amicably with Rachel whilst we were waiting, she advised me that it was the first time Plexus Law had represented OE - I hadn't asked!

NB: I’ve since discovered that Russell Ambrose has coincidentally instructed Plexus Law to defend at least one claim issued against Optimax in Scotland.

District Judge Kathryn Major considered the Defence's objections to my presence and ruled in their favour. She did however listen to what I had to say about Optical Express, and read some of the documents I’d provided to the Court to help explain why they were so desperate to keep me out of the court room. I had also included a copy of reports filed by the police noting concerns for my safety due to threats from an OE employee, 'a murder suspect’.

She advised me that, knowing I was attending the Conference I should not have published the details I had, which stopped me being ‘independent', and that was the reason I was not allowed to remain and assist Carmel on this occasion. Judge Major did however assure me that this did not affect other actions I am helping people with.

Lesson learned, and a mistake I definitely won’t make again!

On this occasion my silence happily worked in Carmel’s interests, who was not required to say much at all thanks to Judge Major’s consideration.

She began by telling Rachel that she would not be striking out the claim, and then severely admonished her for ‘telling’ the Court that they MUST strike out the claim.

She told her that if OE wanted to make an application to have it struck out then they should have done it in the appropriate way, but it certainly wasn’t going to be considered that day, and she took a 'very dim view' of the way it had been dealt with.

Judge Major said they first had to deal with the issue of who the Defendant was.

Young Rachel was apparently confused when the Judge asked if OE was a franchise with independent companies trading under their name. Rachel agreed that it was her understanding that it was indeed a franchise.

Judge Major was completely baffled when numerous other company names were mentioned, and she told Rachel that if she was unable to understand the company structure then it was impossible that Carmel as a litigant in person would!

She quizzed Rachel about Optical Express’ connection to DCM Optical Clinics Ltd and 123 Leeds - the latter in liquidation.

She told Rachel that she did not accept that there was no connection between Optical Express, 123 Leeds and DCM Holdings Ltd, and if companies wind up to avoid liability then the Courts need to know about it!

Clever Judge Major made two rulings, (i) Optical Express (DCM Holdings Ltd?) ordered to provide statements of the company structure to Carmel within 2 weeks (due Wednesday) (ii) Carmel given permission to then amend name of Defendant

Carmel said the Judge appeared to think her claim is for medical negligence, warning her to check the time limitation, presumably because this is what the Defendants incorrectly based their argument on, but Carmel was too nervous to correct her!

A second Case Management Conference will be listed in due course, when Carmel will instruct a solicitor to represent her.

Croydon County Court @ 11am, 17 August 2016 15 Aug 2016 07:53 #37

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 1071
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 153
You behave more like an outlier than a zebra in the middle of a pack well away from the lions… like a snail tracking over your pillow… getting oil off the windscreen… pushing the bread layer into the sandwich filling… I don’t want to push you off the dry eye cliff… ‘

Dozens more similes and metaphors like these from Dr Jonathan Carr to his damaged patient Carmel Robertson during her consultation with him in April 2014.

When she gets a rare word in Carmel asks, following her first lasik surgery in March 2012 (regressed after only five months), was it the lasek (re)treatment in 2013 that caused her problems? Without hesitation Jonathan Carr unreservedly replies, ‘Yes!’

He goes on, ‘My late mother in law would say, “Of course - you didn’t have a problem… Jonathan scratched the eye, procedure number two, and you got the problem!"'

Yet another simile, 'When we have scratched the eye we will get out a laser in a polishing mode… the way to think of that is, you know when people are cleaning the lobby in a nice building with that hovering thing? It’s a bit like that with a laser.'

He tells Carmel that her problems are rare, but that for him ‘rare things are common’, because of the numbers of problems OE refer to him to deal with!!

He recommends that she should seek an external opinion outside ‘The Company’ [OE] and he would help arrange that. He recommended three surgeons, two of whom I know OE have sent many of their damaged patients to, and the third, NHS surgeon Bruce Allan, who, said Dr Carr, ‘has three children so he’s a good guy’!!!

The only time he was stuck for words was when Carmel passionately stated that she wished she had NEVER had laser eye surgery!

Oh Carmel, don’t we all!

The recording is far too long for me to transcribe in its entirety, almost forty minutes, but, if Carmel were not out of limitation time to sue for negligence, I believe Jonathan Carr dug himself a hole so deep that he and OE would have been begging to settle out of court!

In March 2016 Carmel issued small claims proceedings under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, 'purchase not as described/not fit for purpose’ (see below).

Claim no: C6QZ001V, the case management hearing is listed for 11am on Wednesday 17 August @ Croydon County Court.

Unfortunately Carmel didn’t ask for my help until 8 August, the same day that Jamie Colman wrote to advise her that Plexus Law had 'been appointed to act on behalf of Optical Express in place of Clinical Services Director, DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd.’ (Clinical Services Director is of course Tweedledum aka Stephen Hannan.) Carmel received the hard copy letter on 10 August.

On Friday Plexus Law made an ‘URGENT’ Court application to have the claim struck out (see below).

Also on Friday, Carmel advised Jamie Colman that she’d asked me to represent her and that he was to forward all correspondence to me.

He responded, 'Dear Mrs Robertson, please note that the Defendant does not recognise Ms Rodoy as she is not regulated under the Legal Services Act to provide litigation or advocacy services, or to engage in any restricted activity. Consequently, we will continue to provide to you as the interested party in the litigation all relevant documents regarding the conduct of the claim. It is obviously a matter for you as to whether you make an application to the Court to be permitted to have in court a McKenzie Friend. We will however inform the court that Ms Rodoy is not independent and that she will have a conflict of interest in acting in your best interests.

Yours sincerely

Jamie Colman
Plexus Law
Peninsular House
30-36 Monument Street
London EC3R 8NB

I am very much looking forward to Jamie (or barrister?) explaining to the Judge why I am 'not independent’, and what my 'conflict of interest' is that he claims would affect my acting in Carmel’s best interests - will they perhaps claim that they are acting in her best interests?

Sadly, I believe that I am the ONLY person - other than the lawyers representing my clients - who does the utmost to act in the best interests of damaged patients.

Regardless of the outcome, this is more very bad publicity for Optical Express :kiss:

Ireland 12 Aug 2016 12:28 #38

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 1071
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 153
I love a good show - and with such an impressive cast list I have no intention of missing this one in Dublin!

Trial date is expected to be set for late February, and I will of course post details when confirmed...

With the OE v Associated Newspapers (Daily Mail) trial on 31 January, listed for 15 days, it looks like I'm fully booked for February.

Plymouth County Court - date tbc! 03 Aug 2016 14:51 #39

  • Megan
  • Megan's Avatar
I was 23 years old when I decided to go ahead with lasik eye surgery at Optical Express in Cardiff in 2012 at a cost of £2500. It was a lot of money to me and I took out a loan.
A few years later I was back to wearing glasses again!
After numerous attempts to contact Optical Express with no resolution I sought the help of Sasha Rodoy at Optical Express Ruined My Life.
She helped me file a claim under the Sales of Goods Act 1982 - the surgery I was sold was not as described and not fit for purpose.
Optical Express and the surgeon Luca Antico requested mediation and Sasha agreed to represent me in the telephone mediation appointment on 25/07/16. However we were not happy with the offer made which was a fraction of the claim! Optical Express said they were “shocked" that I’d agreed to mediation if I wasn’t going to accept their offer!
The next step is a hearing at Plymouth County Court. Sasha has agreed again to represent me and I’ll let you know when I have the date.
All I want is my money back plus the court fee I had to pay to get the small claims track started.

Croydon County Court 17 August, 2016 01 Aug 2016 16:16 #40

  • Carmel
  • Carmel's Avatar
March 2012: I had Lasik treatment performed by Dr Jonathan Carr.

August 2012: Sight began to regress.

November 2012 to May 2013: I attended 7 post operative consultations, where my prescription was monitored for stability.

May 2013: Lasek enhancement was performed on my right eye.

Within a short time I started experiencing dry eyes, with Corneal Erosions in my right eye.

For the next 20 months I attended appointments in Harley Street, Optical Express, where I was given various drops and ointments to try.

Early 2014: I asked my GP to refer me to the NHS. I was seen by Dr Jaramillio at Queen Victoria Hospital in East Grinstead. He diagnosed me as having signs of Meibomian Gland Disfunction, which I now know to be common and a side effect of laser eye surgery.

April 2015: I attended a meeting with Dr Jonothan Carr, who advised me to have further laser treatment to cure the Corneal Erosion. I have since been informed by Dr Tom Flynn, at Moorfields Eye Hospital, that there is only a 50/50 chance of being successful with this and in fact I could be worse off. Dr Carr agreed that the Corneal Erosions were due to the Lasek Treatment.

I asked him why he had not discussed the potential risks and complications prior to surgery and his reply was "Not everyone gets erosions. The exhaustive detail we summarise, so that patients can read through and get a better understanding".

Optical Express did not advise me that should a cataract operation be necessary, having laser surgery makes it more difficult. Bearing in mind that I was 57 years old when I had the Lasik and Antonio Ucedes-Monatanes, one of their own surgeons, has stated that after late 40s laser surgery is not advisable.

May 2016: I issued a claim for £19,000, in the small claims court.

17 August 2016: Case Management Hearing in the County Court at Croydon

Sasha Rodoy has agreed to represent me as Lay Representative.