Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You could also ask about Jeremy Hunt and the multiple flats purchase he didn't declare properly. Or Lord Ashcroft about how much tax he saved while he was a non-dom. According to Private Eye, in Ashcroft's book he says Rayner avoided paying £3,500 to HMRC. Meanwhile he's estimated to have saved £112m by being a non-dom between 2000 and 2010.
    • Can you still log into your account and see if it will accept a defence ?
    • I see the poops are still trying to deflect from their own criminality and and abuses by whinging on about raynors buying her council house - now about election registration - anyone who owns a flat or house understands that you dont give up your and your childrens home just because of a new relationship and while we are on about that ..   lets start with When is jenrick being revisited for both lockdown abuses and self admitted (claims estate is his main home - not the property in his electorate or his london property) 'possible (lol) electoral registration abuses as he claimed he was at his estate 'main home' away from both London and his electoral 'home'  - much of which paid for by the taxpayer     Cabinet Minister Robert Jenrick 'breaks lockdown rules twice' by going to 'second home' - Mirror Online WWW.MIRROR.CO.UK Key Cabinet Minister Robert Jenrick drove 150 miles to his 'second home' after urging the nation to remain in their homes in a bid to...   ... perhaps follow with more self admitted lobbying while in a potion where they shouldn't “A few of us in parliament have lobbied the government – and with the help of the Treasury select committee, the chancellor has listened,” John Baron wrote.   Tory MP faces lobbying questions over Treasury committee role | Investing | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Co-owner of investment management firm called for ‘urgent’ post-Brexit changes to City rules at committee meetings     About time labour got in the game and started pressing for these self admitted/bragged Tory abuses were properly investigates.
    • No I didn't I got the dates mixed up.   
    • Sorry about that, TJ. The person who posted it specifically said it was free access. Here's another version of the FT article. https://archive.is/KYrPa
  • 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
      • 160 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

HELP!!!! Dental charges for under 16?????


susie58
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3880 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, I have no idea what section this would come under.

I'm really hoping someone can give me some advice with this.

My husband and myself are registered with a private dentist - that also sees our children (both under 16 and in full time education) On our last check up the dentist said my daughter needed specialist treatment and there were absesses forming along the top of her front teeth and she needed to see a endodontist (? think that's the name he said). He said this work was not carried out by NHS and the only way we could have it was private - and pay!

We were presented with a written £400 bill. This was increased to £500 on the first appointment

I have since looked up the treatment he said she needed and it is basic root canal work- which is done routinely on the NHS.

My question is should he have referred us to the NHS dentist for this work to be carried out due to her age?

Any help or advice on this would be really welcome

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there.

 

I think the NHS forum is the place to find people who may know the answers. I'll move your thread there and leave you a short term redirect to follow from the forum.

 

My best, HB

Thank you! Was not sure as it relates more to the practice of a private dentist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your dental practice is private then even children under 16 and in full time education have to pay. Is the dentist part private/part NHS? If she/he sees your children as NHS patients, that would be different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is should he have referred us to the NHS dentist for this work to be carried out due to her age?

 

No, it is up to you to seek out NHS treatment, not for a private dentist to refer you to one. Saying that it is very rare to find a specialist endodontist on the NHS, so even an NHS dentist would probably have to refer you to a private specialist if it was beyond their expertise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm…

 

Susie58 reports her dentist said root canal work:-

 

"…was not carried out by NHS and the only way we could have it was private… !"

 

That was what the dentist said in a disciplinary case heard by the General Dental Council last November where the allegations set out below were all found proved:-

 

 

"(ii) in the event that you did not accept Patient A as an NHS patient, fully explain the options for NHS treatment that were available to him when he queried whether the treatment you proposed could be provided under the NHS

 

(b) misled Patient A by incorrectly informing him that:

 

(i) the root canal treatment could not be carried out under the NHS (or words to that effect);

 

(ii) the only type of crown that was available under the NHS was a gold crown (or words to that effect);

 

© failed to inform Patient A that both root canal treatment and a crown at LL6 could be provided as a single course of NHS treatment (Band 3) at a cost to him of £198."

 

 

Mind you, it could scarcely fail to find these facts proved since the relevant appointment was being secretly recorded for a TV documentary, and, in my personal view, the dentist should have been struck off without ceremony.

 

Only by some – again, in my personal view – contorted and irrelevant 'reasoning' did the Profesional conduct Committee, quite unreasonably, let the dentist escape 'by the skin of his teeth.'

 

Full case report, here:-

 

http://www.gdc-uk.org/Membersofpublic/Hearings/Determinations%202012/ADEBIYI%20PCC%20Determination%20-%20Nov%202012.pdf

 

I think you could do everyone a service by dropping the GDC a line, Susie58.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Susie58 reports her dentist said root canal work:-

 

"…was not carried out by NHS and the only way we could have it was private… !"

 

Wrong!!

 

Suzie58 reports her dentist said "daughter needed specialist treatment and there were absesses forming along the top of her front teeth and she needed to see a endodontist. He said this work was not carried out by NHS and the only way we could have it was private - and pay!"

 

It's all in the wording. There is a big difference between a dentist saying I can't do this treatment on the NHS but I can do it privately and a dentist saying I can't do this treatment at all, but I know someone who can however it will be private.

Edited by Goldenleaf
Link to post
Share on other sites

Goldenleaf. Are you suggesting that a person who has the symptoms Susie58 reports (child or adult) cannot have the work required (root canal, or otherwise) carried out by an NHS dentist?

 

The legal case I have brought here, directly and centrally, and as excerpted, refers to improperly failing to advise a patient that required treatment can be performed on the NHS. From the report of our OP here, such advice was clearly not given.

 

Your statement:

 

"There is a big difference between a dentist saying I can't do this treatment on the NHS but I can do it privately and a dentist saying I can't do this treatment at all, but I know someone who can however it will be private."

 

would appear to be relevant to the principle concerned only in so far as it refers to two examples in which the proper advice is NOT being given.

 

It's all in the wording.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nolegion, what I am suggesting is that the dentist the OP is referring to has said that the work should be carried out by a specialist which is not available on the NHS. The OP has NOT said that the dentist told her that root canal treatment was not available on the NHS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately It might be difficult to find an NHS dentist with the expertise, equipment and skill to deal with some types of endodontic treatment. Some root treatments can be complicated especially if needed by a young person and the abscesses are down to previous trauma to the teeth. Often they get referred to dental hospitals for treatment or salaried dental services. However waiting lists may be long and access to speedy treatment can be the difference between saving and losing the teeth. £400-£500 is a lot of money but if the teeth have been saved and the the treatment has been done by a specialist endodontist and it is for treating several teeth it does not sound like an unreasonable amount.

Out of interest how many teeth were involved, how many appointments were needed and did the dentist use any special magnifying equipment such as telescope glasses and use rubber dam when doing the treatment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nolegion I don't know what case you have made.

 

As I keep saying there is a big difference between an NHS dentist saying I can't do this on the NHS but can do it privately and an NHS or private dentist saying I can't do this proceedure, it is beyond my expertise but I can refer you to a specialist who can. Just because treatments are available on the NHS does not mean all cases can be treated by non-specialists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP was seeing a completely private dentist so would not have had the option necessarily to refer to an NHS endodontist. There is a real post code lottery as to what services are available depending on what dentists are in the area and what their interests and expertise are. I am not sure many root fillings can be described as "simple" they need time, skill and experience to be done well.

 

The current NHS contract really provides a disincentive to dentists doing complex treatments and especially root treatment even more so if multiple as the dentist gets paid a set fee for providing whatever treatment is needed - so a dentist could spend 30 minutes removing say 4 front teeth and get £x or spend 1-2 hours over several visits, use a lot more materials and equipment and still get paid the same £x to root fill the same 4 teeth. At the end - there is still a risk the treatment might not work and the teeth need to be removed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...