Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Boots Optician Contact lenses caused eye problems


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2937 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

Hope this is the right place for this. My partner recently picked up some weekly contact lenses from Boots. she wears them frequently, but her normal order had not arrived so she had to pick up a pair to tide her over from the store. almost immediately after she put them in, her vision began to go blurry and her eye felt discomfort. The Boots staff at the store were awful. first they wanted her to wait to see the optometrist, until she made a fuss, when it turned out one was free, then she had to ask three times for them to rinse her eye. Finally they sent her to Moorfield eye hospital, but didn't send anyone with her. She spent several hours in the Moorfields A&E, where the staff were shocked that her eye hadn't been rinsed sooner and more extensively. By this point she was in agony too. So the upshot was she had blurry vision and severe pain for a few days, had to spend the evening at Moorfield's A&E and had to take a hotel for 2 nights as her vision was too poor to take the train home.

 

To be fair, after first saying they would only reimburse her taxi costs, boots did reimburse the hotel and medication costs too.

 

Now, the problem is, after doing some research, we found that these lenses, made for Boots by Coopervision, had a similar issue a few years ago, where they were contaminated with silicon oil, causing horrific injuries for some people and leading to a recall. As my partner put the lenses in in the shop, she didn't keep the cases for them and allegedly neither did the shop, which seems like it ought to be included in some sort of protocol. Anyway, the reason we're here is 1.) Has anyone heard of, or is there somewhere that might know, if there are other recent cases like this? Our primary concern is that no one else suffers due to Boots' inadequate response. 2.) My partner isn't sure if she still has the lenses, but if she does they are in a fresh contact lens holder with fresh saline solution. I appreciate this would have diluted any contaminate, but is it possible, if she can find them, to have the lenses tested, perhaps with a Mass spectrometer, to see what the contaminant was? 3.) this si the most minor concern, but should we and could we seek any compensation from boots? We've accepted reimbursment for our out of pocket expenses - the taxi, hotel and medication, but all of our communication was without prejudice and we stressed that we weren't accepting this in full and final settlement. I know the impact didn't last very long, but she was in agony, terrified of losing her vision, had to spend the evening in Moorfields and was supposed to be chaperoning me following a medical procedure I had had earlier that day that involved sedation. And now, as someone who wears contacts frequently, she is very nervous about wearing new pairs.

 

Thanks for your help

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there, I'm sorry to hear about the problems you've had.

 

I can't comment on the legal side of what you're asking, but I can tell you a story.

 

My husband used to wear contact lenses because he didn't want to wear glasses. Call it pride. One Monday morning, he found he couldn't open his eyes. We were both very worried and I ended up taking time off work to take him to the hospital's eye clinic as an emergency, with me acting as guide dog.

 

We were lucky enough to see a consultant fairly quickly and they sprayed a local anaesthetic onto OH's eyelids. This enabled him to open his eyes for a few minutes, so we knew that he could still see. The consultant said that the lenses had scratched his eyes, I think it was, and that his eyelids had clamped shut in self defence. He said that time would heal this, but that he saw a lot of eye damage from contacts. The thing that sticks in my mind is that he said 'Look at me, I'm a specialist and I wear glasses, not contacts.'

 

OH had to take the week off work to rest and was finally able to open his eyes on the Friday. After that, he decided that he valued his sight more than his vanity and he hasn't worn contacts since.

 

I hope your partner gets sorted soon.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the kind words. It is vanity, but as a glasses wearer, I know that they can be a pain in the butt too. Rain on the lenses, trying to watch a movie on my iPad in bed or a whole host of other things. Laser surgery one day I think

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wear contact lenses and have done for a long time. Very occasionally you get a problem. I had a small foreign body get under a contact lens and it got stuck. Doctor could not wash it out, so local eye hospital had to remove it.

 

Coopervision do make a lot of the optician own brand lenses. From memory they had to withdraw some lenses about 6 years ago due to some issue.

 

In terms of the legal situation, it is a bit tricky. You have to prove that there was an issue with the lens provided and it is was not any other contamination that took place. I have doubts that Boots or Coopervision will help you provide evidence, so you can claim against them. The contact lens patient is entitled to a copy of their records and can make a request, but whether they would help i am not sure.

 

If you made a complaint to the relevant professional body that Boots opticians are signed up to, they can make enquiries and that might be the best way forward.

 

You don't have the contact lens containers they came in, only the lenses in a case in saline. I am not sure how these can be tested for what contaminates exist. If you made a complaint, would Boots have to get them sent of for laboratory tests, due to health concerns raised.

 

From Boots website

Private customer: If you are not happy with our response, please let us know. If you prefer, you can write to the Optical Consumer Complaints Service at 2-8 Market Square ,Bishops Stortford, Hertsforshire, CM23 3UZ or call them on 01279 712584

Read more at http://www.boots.com/en/Opticians/Opticians-Information-Advice/Opticians-FAQ/#pBd6bJxRH21EhkmH.99

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply. I share your doubts with regards to how much Boots or Coopervision will help testing the lens. In fact, I suspect they might either go missing or turn up as being uncontaminated no matter what.

 

Our biggest concerns,. far more than any compensation is that no one else has a problem from contaminated lenses and, if they do, they receive better first aid from the opticians.

 

My partner picked the lenses up from boots, washed her hands and put the contacts in at the store. then immediately returned to their care, moments later, when the problem started but she was totally let down. When she started to remove the lenses, the man with her, who didn't help but who it turned out is the senior optician at the branch, told her not to. Who knows what would have happened if she'd left them in for the time it took to be seen by one of the opticians? And when she did see the optician they totally failed at basic first aid.

 

Anyway, thanks again for your comments and the link

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...