Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC:

Russell Ambrose's defence... 17 Feb 2016 19:52 #101

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 1076
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 153
It will be interesting to hear what the Judge makes of Russell's defence at the next Court hearing on 7 June, as our 2012 agreement (signed by Russell) states, "This Agreement shall be binding and inure for the benefit of Russell Keith Ambrose..."

It's also his signature on the cheques I had to prise from his hand - literally on one occasion!
:kiss:

Attachments:

Sasha Rodoy v Russell Keith Ambrose 12 Feb 2016 13:42 #102

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 1076
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 153
Posted 29 October ’15, “I also have no doubt that the next time I submit invoices he will again find a reason to refuse to pay them, and then I won’t mess around threatening to do so for two years, I’ll commence litigation immediately."
www.facebook.com/OERML
Re Russell Ambrose t/a Optimax...

As I predicted, after he backed down and settled my first claim without going to trial, when I submitted new invoices in November (totalling £3,598) Russell ignored them and I issued further Court proceedings.



Russell obviously enjoys playing expensive games with me as his legal costs are more than he owes me
:kiss:
Attachments:

Optimax Patients 27 Jan 2016 20:58 #103

  • Jane
  • Jane's Avatar
I've not been on here for a while now, after MANY emails between myself and Russell Ambrose, in December I finally got a full refund for my Lasik surgery. Sadly my eyes are still ruined forever. My eyes are never good, this takes away the joy and ease of life, no one said life wasn't going to be easy but this just isn't fair. Russell may have refunded my money but he will never keep me quiet, slowly I'm spreading the word of my horrendous experience. Optimax need to be stopped and I will be part of their down fall.

Sasha Rodoy v Russell Ambrose t/a Optimax... 09 Jan 2016 14:26 #104

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 1076
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 153
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.
:kiss:
Attachments:

Optimax Patients 20 Dec 2015 20:07 #105

  • Jane
  • Jane's Avatar
All I want for Christmas is my eyes back as they were before Lasik .... not just a refund.
Sadly it's never going to be that way.

Optimax have Ruined My Life.

Optimax Ruined My Life 01 Dec 2015 23:05 #106

  • Caro
  • Caro's Avatar
I believe that anyone who performs laser eye surgery on healthy eyes is unethical, because the truth about the severity of complications and their frequency is always played down.
If people knew the truth when making their decision to have surgery they would surely run a mile, which is why most ophthalmologists choose to wear glasses. If surgeons don't want laser treatment they should not inflict it on others!
Optimax performed laser surgery on my lovely healthy, only moderately short sighted eyes, and now they are completely F*CKED. Sorry for using such language, but the level of constant pain and terrible eyesight is best described that way.
This was the biggest mistake of my life, but I trusted a surgeon and company who betrayed me in return for money.
These people make me sick!

OPTIMAX Ruined My Life 02 Nov 2015 18:31 #107

  • Jane
  • Jane's Avatar
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

Lifetime problems 25 Oct 2015 07:37 #108

  • Caro
  • Caro's Avatar

Jane wrote: Dear Mr Ambrose

What about my lifetime aftercare?

Your damaged patient,
Jane Armstrong (Mrs)

An NHS hospital told me not to worry (as a patient), because they got a lot of patients with complications from the high street clinics. I do indeed find this worrying. A Moorfields doctor also told me they too treat a lot of patients damaged by laser eye surgery.
As for misleading people about the risks of treatments offered, Optimax compared the surgery to a trip to the dentist, and led me to think that if you were extremely unlucky, you might have one complication, which could be treated or would cure itself with time. In fact complications often come in a horrible bundle, and many cannot be treated and don't improve with time, some get even worse. They also play down the severity of complications.
Their life time aftercare guarantee is a joke, and Optimax are a disgrace.

Complaint to GOC 01 Oct 2015 13:58 #109

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 1076
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 153
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!
:kiss:
Attachments:

Linda Ambrose 24 Sep 2015 13:01 #110

  • Jane
  • Jane's Avatar
This often comes up on my Facebook news feed. Browsing through the comments I notice a number from Linda Ambrose.
Any relation Russell!?
Attachments: