Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me


Beata McManus, Optimax CEO 02 Mar 2018 18:41 #11

  • Betty Bunny
  • Betty Bunny's Avatar

Anon wrote: Whistle-blowing reviews about Beata McManus, Optimax CEO. The WHOLE of Head Office staff boycotting the 2017 Optimax Xmas party.
"The most intriguing aspect of it all is how this person even became a CEO as her knowledge for most areas of a business is quiet frankly rubbish."

Imagine a very rich & married man in his 4Os pops in a local supermarket near his office where he spies a pretty blond Polish girl in her early 20s on the checkout till. Mr Rich married man has wandering eyes & starts an affair with Polish Checkout Girl. He gives her a job over the road in his business & clever Polish Checkout Girl gets herself pregnant !! Mr Rich won’t put a ring on her finger but agrees to support her & the baby.

Polish Checkout Girl delivers a son & goes back to work for Mr Rich. Pillow talk dries up over the years but Polish Checkout Girl knows more about Mr Rich's businesses & private life than any of his his wives ever do & she climbs over bodies the ladder to become CEO of Mr Rich's company.

Polish Checkout Girl is a [deleted] to lots of the female staff who keep leaving. Mr Rich knows this but he can’t ever get rid of Polish Checkout Girl because she knows too much about him & his company & Polish Checkout Girl has his balls in a vice.

Not sayimg Beata McManus did that but it’s one way a woman with No business knowledge can go from being a checkout girl to a CEO !! :whistle:

Beata McManus, Optimax CEO 25 Feb 2018 19:25 #12

  • Anon
  • Anon's Avatar
Whistle-blowing reviews about Beata McManus, Optimax CEO. The WHOLE of Head Office staff boycotting the 2017 Optimax Xmas party.


Trustpilot / Optimax 06 Feb 2018 22:58 #13

  • Gav
  • Gav's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 8
  • Thank you received: 0
I have lost count of the number of times I have attempted to post a review of Optimax with Trustpilot. Any time I do, my review is removed the next morning. I have repeatedly reworded them to make them less hard-hitting but that doesn't stop them being taken off the site.

People look to review sites like Trustpilot to draw conclusions and make decisions about these procedures. I find it disgusting that it appears to be virtually impossible to post a review of Optimax that is less than favourable.

Below is the latest response from Trustpilot in e-mail form, followed by my reply. I take it others have had the same issue.

Dear G ******,
As part of Trustpilot’s efforts to ensure that reviews always reflect genuine buying or service experiences, we use advanced, customized software to detect unusual review patterns.

Your review of www.optimax.co.uk has been flagged by our software or our Compliance Team because we’ve been unable to verify the authenticity of it. That means we’ve removed your review from our platform. Note that it’s not deleted, but it’s no longer visible online and won’t count towards the rating of www.optimax.co.uk .

If you believe that there has been a misunderstanding, you’re welcome to contact our Compliance Team by replying to this email. We’re always happy to help.

If you have any questions, please see the information available in our Support Center.

Best regards,

Trustpilot Compliance
Dear Trustpilot Compliance

I can assure you that my review reflected genuine experience. I find it disgraceful the way I have been continually blocked from posting an honest review of Optimax. It appears unless one posts a favourable review of the company, the review is removed. Laser eye surgery, I have found is a dangerous procedure and therefore to not allow bad reviews of a company carrying out such a procedure is in my opinion, reprehensible behaviour.

To say that you have "used advanced customized software" to detect unusual review patterns is obviously to allow you to remove such reviews, and clear recognition on your behalf that your review process is biased. At least you acknowledge it.

You say that my review "has been flagged by our software or our Compliance Team because we've been unable to verify the authenticity of it." I am therefore authentifying it with this e-mail. It is ridiculous that I am expected to jump through hoops, continually rewording my reviews, yet still having them repeatedly removed and then have to e-mail you simply in order to post a bad review about this company. If I had posted a favourable review, would I be required to go to such lengths? I doubt it very much.

You point out that the review is not deleted but is not visible online and won't count towards Optimax's rating. In that case, it might as well have been deleted. The whole point is that it can be visible online and count towards their rating.

And bearing in mind that my life has been ruined by the actions of Optimax, to include an advert for them in your e-mail was a real kick in the teeth and another indication of clear bias.

G ******

Optimax Patients 06 Feb 2018 22:37 #14

  • Gav
  • Gav's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 8
  • Thank you received: 0

I realise it was a few months ago, but what sort of response did you get from people in the street? Did you manage to speak to anyone considering the procedure?


Optimax Patients 24 Nov 2017 13:43 #15

  • Jane A
  • Jane A's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: 1
  • Thank you received: 0
I was in Manchester on Tuesday and handed out my flyers near the Optimax clinic in Albert Square.

If this stopped even just one other person having their eyes ruined at Optimax then it was worth while. :)

It was low key this time but I've still got plenty of flyers left and am planning another visit in the near future.

5 years anniversary 20 Nov 2017 21:24 #16

  • Jane A
  • Jane A's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: 1
  • Thank you received: 0
The 24th November marks 5 years since my eyes were ruined by Optimax. Laser eye surgery is the single biggest regret of my whole life. A life changing event that leaves me struggling daily. I do try and get on with life, and generally keep it all to myself now, but my poor quality of vision haunts me every single day. Optimax are still trading, but I hope for not much longer.
Oh, and Russell I still have my Optimax Ruined My Life T-Shirt, and I am going to Manchester this week… if anyone would like to join me please contact Sasha and she will give me your details.
Watch this space B)

Ultralase now Optimax 26 Jul 2017 14:44 #17

  • Rebecca dugmore
  • Rebecca dugmore's Avatar
I just wanted some advise, I've read through your page and noticed how many people are in the same situation as me or worse!
Basically I had the treatment done in 2005 with Ultralase. 5 years later I started to realise it was no longer working so was back to glasses and contact lenses. I left it for another 18 months (why I don't know, scared maybe) then I contacted Ultralase as I was fed up of buying glasses again and also didn't realise at the time I would be entitled to a 2nd treatment.
Ultralase did perform a second treatment in 2012 and I was told it was for life as they siad the 2nd treatment works better than the 1st!
But now for the last 12 months again I'm back to wearing glasses my sight is deteriorating more and more each week I get bad vision when driving at night seeing stars round the headlights and also get dry and tired eyes more often, I also get a halo effect every now and again and find some days it's so bad I can't work at my computer screen.
I contacted Ultralase 6 weeks ago to again discuss my eye sight deterioration to be told they have now gone into liquidation and I would have to go to Optimax for any further advice and aftercare, I went to my appointment to have my eyes checked to be told I'm now short sighted and will need glasses for the foreseeable future!
The optometrist did try to talk me into having it done for a 3rd time but said he would have to consult head office. I jumped in to say I didn't want it for 3rd time as I was worried about the situation of my eyes and would be quite scared as I was told my eyes were scarred when having it done a 2nd time, I then went in to discuss getting my money back for the inconvenience of everything and I was totally dismissed and treated very differently basically they wanted rid of me and told to ring back on Wednesday as there was no admin in on that day!
I just feel now I don't know what to do Ultralase are no longer there to discuss options and feel totally let down by a company that promised 'lifetime aftercare' and 'lifetime vision'.
Can you help me?

Optimax Malaysia 24 Jul 2017 02:44 #18

  • Stop Ruining More People Eyes!
  • Stop Ruining More People Eyes!'s Avatar

The company’s agreement with the UK eye clinic helped build Optimax’s human resource. Local ophthalmologists were trained by the UK franchisor.
Read more at www.thestar.com.my/metro/smebiz/people/2...truction-to-eyecare/

Sasha Rodoy v Russell Ambrose 21 May 2017 18:47 #19

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 955
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 153
And now for the good news :kiss:

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…

Sasha Rodoy v Russell Ambrose 19 May 2017 15:47 #20

  • admin
  • admin's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Posts: 955
  • Karma: 6
  • Thank you received: 153
Good news and (not so) bad news… I'll start with the latter :kiss:

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.