OPTIMAX RUINED MY LIFE
- admin
-
Offline
- Posts: 1164
- Thanks: 153
Replied by admin on topic Sasha Rodoy v Russell Ambrose
Posted 21 May 2017 18:47
And now for the good news 
After signing our Settlement Agreement (SA) in September 2012, Russell Ambrose was quite happy to pay for anything I needed as a result of my debilitating and life changing laser eye surgery - and more, eh Russell?!
(My next post will explain why that all changed in late 2013)
Repeatedly making me jump through hoops to get what I was entitled to (seriously harder than squeezing blood from a stone), and then simply refusing to pay some of my invoices, thereby breaching the terms of our SA, I had no option but to issue my first claim v Russell Ambrose t/a Optimax Unltd in 2014.
I won’t repeat the entire story, but briefly, my claim was for £3,429.60. Russell instructed a heavyweight legal team to intimidate and bully me by counterclaiming for an unspecified amount.
The Defendant’s costs budget was £55,800 (+VAT), approved by the court. This means that had I lost I would have had to pay his costs - AND the amount that Russell claimed his company had lost due to my actions, to be assessed by an employment expert.
I represented myself and invested at least 300 hrs of my time (and much of the remaining health of eyes) doing so.
We attended four pre trial court hearings, and my house and everything else I owned was at risk if I lost, but I refused to be bullied!
On 28 October 2015, two weeks before the two day trial listed on 11/12 November, and the day before the final pre trial hearing, the Defendant offered to withdraw his counterclaim if I dropped my claim. I refused.
We went into court the next day and the Defence counsel (Adam Walker) told the Judge that his client was dropping the counterclaim and was willing to settle my claim without further proceedings.
I had no choice, with the claim settled there was no trial - but more importantly, no publicity!
A few days later I received the Draft Order from the Defendant agreeing to pay my £3,249.60 claim + court fees, plus my costs (to be assessed).
My costs included minimal legal advice from a barrister and lawyers, and Litigant in Person fees of £18 per hour, total £10,423.48.
The defendant offered me £3,500. I refused.
He offered me £6,250. I refused.
I applied to the court for a detailed assessment (Judge decides)
March 2016, I made a Part 36 offer of £9,500 plus £335 court assessment fee. Not accepted.
April 2016, I instructed a costs draftsman (fee £2,000).
After a number of delays due to missing documents etc.., I finally received the court decision last week - 1 year later!!
I can’t tell you the exact figure as there're still a few points for the lawyers to thrash out, but I can tell you it is MORE than the original bill of costs I gave to the Defendant! Plus he has to pay his lawyer for the extra time spent on this.
It has cost Russell Ambrose in excess of £100,000 to fight paying me £3,429.60 - and his costs include ‘wages’ of nearly £5,000 for my time!
And so it continues, with my 7th claim served on Russell last week…
After signing our Settlement Agreement (SA) in September 2012, Russell Ambrose was quite happy to pay for anything I needed as a result of my debilitating and life changing laser eye surgery - and more, eh Russell?!
(My next post will explain why that all changed in late 2013)
Repeatedly making me jump through hoops to get what I was entitled to (seriously harder than squeezing blood from a stone), and then simply refusing to pay some of my invoices, thereby breaching the terms of our SA, I had no option but to issue my first claim v Russell Ambrose t/a Optimax Unltd in 2014.
I won’t repeat the entire story, but briefly, my claim was for £3,429.60. Russell instructed a heavyweight legal team to intimidate and bully me by counterclaiming for an unspecified amount.
The Defendant’s costs budget was £55,800 (+VAT), approved by the court. This means that had I lost I would have had to pay his costs - AND the amount that Russell claimed his company had lost due to my actions, to be assessed by an employment expert.
I represented myself and invested at least 300 hrs of my time (and much of the remaining health of eyes) doing so.
We attended four pre trial court hearings, and my house and everything else I owned was at risk if I lost, but I refused to be bullied!
On 28 October 2015, two weeks before the two day trial listed on 11/12 November, and the day before the final pre trial hearing, the Defendant offered to withdraw his counterclaim if I dropped my claim. I refused.
We went into court the next day and the Defence counsel (Adam Walker) told the Judge that his client was dropping the counterclaim and was willing to settle my claim without further proceedings.
I had no choice, with the claim settled there was no trial - but more importantly, no publicity!
A few days later I received the Draft Order from the Defendant agreeing to pay my £3,249.60 claim + court fees, plus my costs (to be assessed).
My costs included minimal legal advice from a barrister and lawyers, and Litigant in Person fees of £18 per hour, total £10,423.48.
The defendant offered me £3,500. I refused.
He offered me £6,250. I refused.
I applied to the court for a detailed assessment (Judge decides)
March 2016, I made a Part 36 offer of £9,500 plus £335 court assessment fee. Not accepted.
April 2016, I instructed a costs draftsman (fee £2,000).
After a number of delays due to missing documents etc.., I finally received the court decision last week - 1 year later!!
I can’t tell you the exact figure as there're still a few points for the lawyers to thrash out, but I can tell you it is MORE than the original bill of costs I gave to the Defendant! Plus he has to pay his lawyer for the extra time spent on this.
It has cost Russell Ambrose in excess of £100,000 to fight paying me £3,429.60 - and his costs include ‘wages’ of nearly £5,000 for my time!
And so it continues, with my 7th claim served on Russell last week…
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- admin
-
Offline
- Posts: 1164
- Thanks: 153
Replied by admin on topic Sasha Rodoy v Russell Ambrose
Posted 19 May 2017 15:47
Good news and (not so) bad news… I'll start with the latter
Three hours court hearing on Tuesday 16 May, me versus expensive barrister Tim Walker representing 1st Defendant Russell Keith Ambrose t/a Optimax Unltd and 2nd Defendant Optimax Clinics Ltd.
Regardless of the disappointing outcome Deputy District Judge Lynd was very fair, because - in my (extensive) experience - all judges are not fair!
They have the same human frailties as the rest of us, and some blatantly dislike litigants in person (LiPs) as if it’s below their pay grade to deal with a person not legally qualified. Whereas others, like DDJ Lynd, are extremely helpful and patient with LiPs. (Although it must be said that given the number of cases I’ve been involved in, both my own and others, I probably deserve to pass Law 101)
Due to the number of listed cases ours was delayed until 12.30pm, but at its outset DDJ Lynd raised my hopes when he totally agreed with my interpretation of ‘unlimited treatment’, as included in my Settlement Agreement (SA) signed by Russell Ambrose in 2012.
However, he dismissed my claim against 1st Defendant Russell Keith Ambrose t/a Optimax Unltd because, no matter that Russell told me pre signing the SA that as a sole trader he was personally responsible (recorded), the weasel is actually protected by some company rule that I still don’t really understand.
Although the Judge did later tell me that if Optimax went into administration I could go after Russell personally - I live in hope!
As our legal battle continued, Tim Walker introduced two lengthy documents, previous rulings in the Supreme Court and House of Lords re contractual interpretation.
(i) Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich 1998 (ii) Arnold v Britton 2015
Tim quoted page after page until I was almost asleep with boredom… unfortunately these cases supported the Defendant's interpretation of ‘unlimited’, far too complicated for me to explain in detail, but concerning the wording being interpreted in a commercial construct. As LiP I certainly didn’t have immediate access to any contradictory rulings - but the games are not over yet!
The battle raged on… counsel for the Defendant frustrated with my repeated claim that when I signed the agreement I did so on the understanding of the English Oxford dictionary definition of ‘unlimited’!
I also explained in detail to the Judge that I have numerous recordings of my meetings with Russell that contradicted counsel’s claims.
At one point (can’t remember what I said) the Judge asked me if I was arguing with him, to which of course I replied appropriately, ‘No sir, just saying…'
Tim Walker claimed that Russell signed the agreement on the basis that ‘unlimited treatment’ did not include the provision of glasses.
Hmmm… strange then that he previously didn’t dispute this until he realised that I'd got the better of him, when I told him that I'd recorded all our meetings, during which Russell said a lot of things I guarantee he now wishes he hadn’t!
I told DDJ Lynd this and more, and provided him with emails supporting what I said, and providing evidence that Russell had lied to me from the minute I first met him on Friday 13 May 2011.
The Judge said he appreciated why Russell and I are at odds, but it wasn’t relevant to the case in hand.
Tim Walker went on to argue that bifocal diving goggles are a leisure item and not needed as a result of my damaging laser eye surgery.
The bifocal ‘diving' goggles (for swimming) are entirely necessary because the sensitivity of my damaged eyes is so bad that if I get sea water or chlorine splashed in them then I’m unable to open them until the pain subsides - and risk infection!
As I pointed out to the Judge, then why did Russell pay for my ski goggles last year without argument - which could also be considered a ‘leisure item’ according to the Defendant - needed to protect my mega sensitive eyes from the dust and sand etc, causing pain and severe MGD when travelling in India? (see Facebook photos December 2015)
And bifocals because I can no longer see at ANY distance without prescription lenses, and cannot risk further breakages to my body as a result - more on that another day!
I accept that Russell finally scored a goal, but the good news is that while it cost me just £310 to issue and present my claim (and a lot of hard work), a legal expert advised me that Russell’s costs would have been in the region of £10-12,000 to defend it!
I didn’t realise that barristers get paid for the whole day, not just by the hour, and as Tim Walker is a Grade A senior counsel his fee for the hearing alone was approx £5,000.
On top of this are Barker Gillette LLP lawyer Qaiser Khanzada’s fees, plus cost of the lovely paralegal Carly Aitchison to attend court in his place - Qaiser disappointingly had another hearing so was unavailable.
For me this was a test case re the word ‘unlimited', and the Defendant has played his ace card without me needing to spend many thousands of pounds challenging the agreement for him to show it, which was always my intention, as Qaiser knew!
I have now spoken with a senior barrister experienced in contract law aand asked him to look at the Defendant’s argument re ‘unlimited', and - more importantly - to look at the evidence I now have thanks to my second SAR proving that I was not told the truth before signing the SA, but was in fact lied to from day one!
Not only do I have letters and emails from Russell and Optimax staff to prove this, but numerous recordings too!
Tired now, so will publish the 'good news’ during the weekend.
Three hours court hearing on Tuesday 16 May, me versus expensive barrister Tim Walker representing 1st Defendant Russell Keith Ambrose t/a Optimax Unltd and 2nd Defendant Optimax Clinics Ltd.
Regardless of the disappointing outcome Deputy District Judge Lynd was very fair, because - in my (extensive) experience - all judges are not fair!
They have the same human frailties as the rest of us, and some blatantly dislike litigants in person (LiPs) as if it’s below their pay grade to deal with a person not legally qualified. Whereas others, like DDJ Lynd, are extremely helpful and patient with LiPs. (Although it must be said that given the number of cases I’ve been involved in, both my own and others, I probably deserve to pass Law 101)
Due to the number of listed cases ours was delayed until 12.30pm, but at its outset DDJ Lynd raised my hopes when he totally agreed with my interpretation of ‘unlimited treatment’, as included in my Settlement Agreement (SA) signed by Russell Ambrose in 2012.
However, he dismissed my claim against 1st Defendant Russell Keith Ambrose t/a Optimax Unltd because, no matter that Russell told me pre signing the SA that as a sole trader he was personally responsible (recorded), the weasel is actually protected by some company rule that I still don’t really understand.
Although the Judge did later tell me that if Optimax went into administration I could go after Russell personally - I live in hope!
As our legal battle continued, Tim Walker introduced two lengthy documents, previous rulings in the Supreme Court and House of Lords re contractual interpretation.
(i) Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich 1998 (ii) Arnold v Britton 2015
Tim quoted page after page until I was almost asleep with boredom… unfortunately these cases supported the Defendant's interpretation of ‘unlimited’, far too complicated for me to explain in detail, but concerning the wording being interpreted in a commercial construct. As LiP I certainly didn’t have immediate access to any contradictory rulings - but the games are not over yet!
The battle raged on… counsel for the Defendant frustrated with my repeated claim that when I signed the agreement I did so on the understanding of the English Oxford dictionary definition of ‘unlimited’!
I also explained in detail to the Judge that I have numerous recordings of my meetings with Russell that contradicted counsel’s claims.
At one point (can’t remember what I said) the Judge asked me if I was arguing with him, to which of course I replied appropriately, ‘No sir, just saying…'
Tim Walker claimed that Russell signed the agreement on the basis that ‘unlimited treatment’ did not include the provision of glasses.
Hmmm… strange then that he previously didn’t dispute this until he realised that I'd got the better of him, when I told him that I'd recorded all our meetings, during which Russell said a lot of things I guarantee he now wishes he hadn’t!
I told DDJ Lynd this and more, and provided him with emails supporting what I said, and providing evidence that Russell had lied to me from the minute I first met him on Friday 13 May 2011.
The Judge said he appreciated why Russell and I are at odds, but it wasn’t relevant to the case in hand.
Tim Walker went on to argue that bifocal diving goggles are a leisure item and not needed as a result of my damaging laser eye surgery.
The bifocal ‘diving' goggles (for swimming) are entirely necessary because the sensitivity of my damaged eyes is so bad that if I get sea water or chlorine splashed in them then I’m unable to open them until the pain subsides - and risk infection!
As I pointed out to the Judge, then why did Russell pay for my ski goggles last year without argument - which could also be considered a ‘leisure item’ according to the Defendant - needed to protect my mega sensitive eyes from the dust and sand etc, causing pain and severe MGD when travelling in India? (see Facebook photos December 2015)
And bifocals because I can no longer see at ANY distance without prescription lenses, and cannot risk further breakages to my body as a result - more on that another day!
I accept that Russell finally scored a goal, but the good news is that while it cost me just £310 to issue and present my claim (and a lot of hard work), a legal expert advised me that Russell’s costs would have been in the region of £10-12,000 to defend it!
I didn’t realise that barristers get paid for the whole day, not just by the hour, and as Tim Walker is a Grade A senior counsel his fee for the hearing alone was approx £5,000.
On top of this are Barker Gillette LLP lawyer Qaiser Khanzada’s fees, plus cost of the lovely paralegal Carly Aitchison to attend court in his place - Qaiser disappointingly had another hearing so was unavailable.
For me this was a test case re the word ‘unlimited', and the Defendant has played his ace card without me needing to spend many thousands of pounds challenging the agreement for him to show it, which was always my intention, as Qaiser knew!
I have now spoken with a senior barrister experienced in contract law aand asked him to look at the Defendant’s argument re ‘unlimited', and - more importantly - to look at the evidence I now have thanks to my second SAR proving that I was not told the truth before signing the SA, but was in fact lied to from day one!
Not only do I have letters and emails from Russell and Optimax staff to prove this, but numerous recordings too!
Tired now, so will publish the 'good news’ during the weekend.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- admin
-
Offline
- Posts: 1164
- Thanks: 153
Replied by admin on topic Invitation to attend...
Posted 15 May 2017 16:39
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Caroline
Replied by Caroline on topic My Optimax nightmare
Posted 05 Apr 2017 11:10
The 10th anniversary of the worst experience of my life, has left me feeling down. Ten years ago Epilasek at Optimax left both my eyes and my life ruined for ever. In fact it haunts me day and night.
I won't bore you with too many details about my sight and the pain that I suffer constantly, but I was left with decompensating exophoria, and have lost so much contrast sensitivity that it has drained vast amounts of colour from my world; I have become horribly long sighted and have other sight problems as well as dry eye, blepharitis and a great deal of pain. Stupid thing is, I had healthy eyes and was only moderately short sighted before treatment.
The treatment that I received at Optimax left me feeling violated, for me, it felt worse than rape as the experience I had in the treatment room did not appear to match what I thought l had consented to. I was told at my post op. checkup that the linear marks on my conjunctiva were caused by the suction ring, yet I was led to believe that the procedure I consented to was carried out without one. I was then repeatedly told that the linear marks were in fact corneal scars.........which, as the name implies are on the cornea not the conjunctiva. I became very worried and started to ask a lot of questions, as I thought that I had signed up for an ordinary Lasek, and it turned out that Epilasek can be carried out with a suction ring and epikerotome. I did not want a suction ring anywhere near my eyes!
Optimax were unable to give me a rational explanation and they told me that they could not have used an epikerotome and suction ring on me, because they didn't own an epikerotome machine, which is strange, because I have a photograph that appears to show a dead ringer for one in their treatment room.
The Moria Evolution 3e console is designed to take both microkerotomes and epikerotomes and the second socket from the left says Epi-K on it, presumably because it is designed to take an epikerotome in there. The Moria epikerotome has a beeline action, which matches my experience in the treatment room. If I am mistaken, Optimax have refused to give me an rational explanation.
I have had to spend a fortune on eye related (ongoing) expenses, and Optimax won't help to cover these. They are so mean, that they even sent a letter to my GP in which they lie about the treatment I had with an osteopath, which was for pain relief and double vision following my Epilasek, telling him that the treatment was for something else. My GP was shocked, as he had the osteopath' s report. The only "help" that Russell Ambrose, proprietor of Optimax has given me, is to send me a tatty second hand self help book, which he gave with this message:
"Given with love in my heart"
Did I mention that he also asked me to send it back after I read it? I guess he needs it.
I have tried so hard to forgive him, but Russell has made it very hard for me to do so.
I still want to know what Malcolm Samuel did to me in the treatment room to cause the circular marks on my conjunctiva just exactly where a suction ring would sit, as Optimax refuse to give me answers and wrote something truly shocking on my medical records, I believe, to try and silence me.
This what an expert witness had to say.
A Moria console at Optimax.
I won't bore you with too many details about my sight and the pain that I suffer constantly, but I was left with decompensating exophoria, and have lost so much contrast sensitivity that it has drained vast amounts of colour from my world; I have become horribly long sighted and have other sight problems as well as dry eye, blepharitis and a great deal of pain. Stupid thing is, I had healthy eyes and was only moderately short sighted before treatment.
The treatment that I received at Optimax left me feeling violated, for me, it felt worse than rape as the experience I had in the treatment room did not appear to match what I thought l had consented to. I was told at my post op. checkup that the linear marks on my conjunctiva were caused by the suction ring, yet I was led to believe that the procedure I consented to was carried out without one. I was then repeatedly told that the linear marks were in fact corneal scars.........which, as the name implies are on the cornea not the conjunctiva. I became very worried and started to ask a lot of questions, as I thought that I had signed up for an ordinary Lasek, and it turned out that Epilasek can be carried out with a suction ring and epikerotome. I did not want a suction ring anywhere near my eyes!
Optimax were unable to give me a rational explanation and they told me that they could not have used an epikerotome and suction ring on me, because they didn't own an epikerotome machine, which is strange, because I have a photograph that appears to show a dead ringer for one in their treatment room.
The Moria Evolution 3e console is designed to take both microkerotomes and epikerotomes and the second socket from the left says Epi-K on it, presumably because it is designed to take an epikerotome in there. The Moria epikerotome has a beeline action, which matches my experience in the treatment room. If I am mistaken, Optimax have refused to give me an rational explanation.
I have had to spend a fortune on eye related (ongoing) expenses, and Optimax won't help to cover these. They are so mean, that they even sent a letter to my GP in which they lie about the treatment I had with an osteopath, which was for pain relief and double vision following my Epilasek, telling him that the treatment was for something else. My GP was shocked, as he had the osteopath' s report. The only "help" that Russell Ambrose, proprietor of Optimax has given me, is to send me a tatty second hand self help book, which he gave with this message:
"Given with love in my heart"
Did I mention that he also asked me to send it back after I read it? I guess he needs it.
I have tried so hard to forgive him, but Russell has made it very hard for me to do so.
I still want to know what Malcolm Samuel did to me in the treatment room to cause the circular marks on my conjunctiva just exactly where a suction ring would sit, as Optimax refuse to give me answers and wrote something truly shocking on my medical records, I believe, to try and silence me.
This what an expert witness had to say.
A Moria console at Optimax.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Sasha
-
Offline
- Posts: 36
- Thanks: 1
Replied by Sasha on topic 6 years post lasek...
Posted 19 Feb 2017 16:19
And my eyes continue to deteriorate
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Anonymous
Replied by Anonymous on topic Optimax Malaysia
Posted 15 Feb 2017 14:38
Hi , i am a victim of refractive surgery . A year from initial surgery but still suffer from negative side effect.
All these due to misrepresentation before surgery and surgery didnt go smooth.Encounter too many issue thru out the whole surgery.
I have reported my problem to management of lasik centre.But their doctors throw all nonsense reason ,blame my eye problem and indirectly force me to accept all the negative side effect. No explanation from management or opology ?
Post op vision is poorer than pre op ,suffering negative effect and doctor from lasik centre commented this "enhancement cant rectify my vision" .
Feel depress and regret .
Anyone here can teach how to proceed or lasik centre to responsible ?
thank you
_______________________-
admin: Hi Sasa, I have googled Optimax in Malaysia and can find no link to connect it to the Optimax company registered in the UK, owned by Russell Ambrose.
If you have evidence that it is the same company, please let me know
All these due to misrepresentation before surgery and surgery didnt go smooth.Encounter too many issue thru out the whole surgery.
I have reported my problem to management of lasik centre.But their doctors throw all nonsense reason ,blame my eye problem and indirectly force me to accept all the negative side effect. No explanation from management or opology ?
Post op vision is poorer than pre op ,suffering negative effect and doctor from lasik centre commented this "enhancement cant rectify my vision" .
Feel depress and regret .
Anyone here can teach how to proceed or lasik centre to responsible ?
thank you
_______________________-
admin: Hi Sasa, I have googled Optimax in Malaysia and can find no link to connect it to the Optimax company registered in the UK, owned by Russell Ambrose.
If you have evidence that it is the same company, please let me know
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Optimax Ruined My Eyes
-
Offline
- Posts: 2
- Thanks: 0
Replied by Optimax Ruined My Eyes on topic Optimax Ruined My Eyes
Posted 06 Feb 2017 16:58
Hi everyone,
I have been caught out by the Lasik eye scandal and had my eyes damaged by OPTIMAX on 11 September 2015.
Since then I have had an appointment every 2 weeks for over a year regarding my eyes!
I have dry eyes, floaters, bad night vision, lasik induced astigmatism, halos, redness and veins due to a reaction to drops I was told to use for over 12 months!
After I threatened legal action Optimax offered me £2881.50 refund of my payment on 21 December 2016.
I ignored this and on 3 February 2017 the offer increased to £5000 - this time from Ultralase!
I'm ignoring this one as well, and if Russell Ambrose wants to make any more insulting offers he needs to discuss them with my lawyer!
Take a look at my website for more information.
www.optimaxruinedmyeyes.co.uk
Twitter and Facebook coming soon!
Nick
I have been caught out by the Lasik eye scandal and had my eyes damaged by OPTIMAX on 11 September 2015.
Since then I have had an appointment every 2 weeks for over a year regarding my eyes!
I have dry eyes, floaters, bad night vision, lasik induced astigmatism, halos, redness and veins due to a reaction to drops I was told to use for over 12 months!
After I threatened legal action Optimax offered me £2881.50 refund of my payment on 21 December 2016.
I ignored this and on 3 February 2017 the offer increased to £5000 - this time from Ultralase!
I'm ignoring this one as well, and if Russell Ambrose wants to make any more insulting offers he needs to discuss them with my lawyer!
Take a look at my website for more information.
www.optimaxruinedmyeyes.co.uk
Twitter and Facebook coming soon!
Nick
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: admin, Sasha