... what is going on?
Many of you have asked why our web site asks for information which other websites do not ask for! Some people take exception to this and go elsewhere despite liking our product, price and service. We really do not like it when this happens so feel we must now let you know … what is going on?
The reason is that General Optical Council (GOC) rules do not apply to 'foreign' sites so these sites do not need to ‘verify’ your order details with your Optician. By contrast, UK businesses such as daysoft®, do have to obey the ‘rules’ which are legally enforceable by the GOC. We have to respect the law even although we do not like having to fight foreign competitors selling into the UK with one hand tied behind our backs.
But there is more. Just before Christmas we received a letter from Blake Lapthorn Tarlo Lyons (BLTL), lawyers acting for the GOC, saying that; “The council has evidence of sales of powered/sight correcting contact lenses made by your company during the course of which there was no apparent verification of the specification, as required by Section 27(3) of the Opticians Act 1989 (as amended). The letter, in effect, then asked us to explain ourselves “… before deciding whether to prosecute.” In a later email they then wrote that; “the matter is being investigated under GOC protocol and is therefore being conducted with a view to criminal prosecution being instigated if the circumstances are such that a recommendation should be made to the Fiscal”.
Naturally we were very concerned at this communication so requested details of our alleged offences and were informed of one order placed six months earlier. When we checked our files we discovered that the person ordering had lied … only someone intent on self-harm (or up to something fishy) would have done what they did, so what is going on? Further checking by us showed that this order was placed, not by a member of the public, but by the GOC’s lawyers (BLTL) themselves. No member of the public had complained. The person ordering was not at any risk or discomfort. It was an entrapment attempt by the GOC using their lawyers.
The GOC knows that every month thousands of wearers get their contact lenses from foreign companies who, unlike us, do not even attempt to collect the necessary details let alone try to ‘verify’ them. There is no evidence of these companies or ours are putting wearers at risk (some are large publicly quoted companies which would not risk such action if there was a risk to public safety) but we are being singled out for one alleged transaction. What is going on?
But there is even more. The law relating to the above was updated in 2005 and there was widespread concern at its ambiguity. Because of this, in June 2006, we asked the GOC how the Act was to be interpreted. They confirmed that there was indeed ambiguity and said that they had appointed Queen’s Counsel to review and report. It was not until October 2006 that the GOC published the QC clarification. We were pleased that this actually relaxed certain aspects compared to our implementation of the ‘verification’ processes. What is very, very, disturbing is that our alleged failure related to a ‘spoof’ order placed on instruction by the GOC during the period when even the GOC accepted that there was ambiguity. What is going on?
Perhaps all this is just a bit of a storm in a teacup? It’s not that simple. Even the allegations made if allowed to fester any longer will have adverse consequences for our company, our reputation and employee morale and, ultimately, job security, so the situation is very serious. There is also an all-to-obvious conflict of interest since members of the GOC Council include our competitors.
An obvious question is .... "Does 'verification' provide you, the wearer, with a better contact lens wearing experience, eg comfort or vision"? The answer is; "No, it does not". We have researched a huge amount of data relating to 'verification' and it has no beneficial outcome on the probability of you having a better experience. Also, we have, for example, supplied many millions of lenses for sale by third parties on the Internet in Germany. German law has no 'verification' requirement and, again, we have had no better or worse wearer feedback response rates! Are we supposed to believe that the Optical Regulations in Germany are not adequate so we British need special ‘nannies’? Today you could buy our lenses from Germany using the Internet and the transaction needs no ‘verification’. What is going on?
Naturally, upon receipt of the GOC’s letter in December we responded immediately via our lawyers. More than one month later our letter has not even been acknowledged. We now feel that, because the above and other un-professional attacks by GOC members on my family, on my business and on me over the past 10 months, we must now put the details into the public arena by advising our present and future customers so you know … what is going on!
We are a responsible, law abiding, British company committed to giving first class service with a product delivering huge benefits. For example, we are the only contact lens company in the world which only makes and sells daily-disposable contact lenses and daily-disposables have the best health-care performance (by a factor of 10) compared to any other contact lens system available (see my December Blog on this matter). We are also the only company in the world with a patented system of ordering/supply that gives enhanced consumer safety even in the even of prescription error. This invention was made after the law was passed so ‘doesn’t count’.
We feel that we are simply being threatened by huge vested interests. These include largely foreign contact lens manufacturing companies whose lenses are sold into the UK including using offshore Internet websites. These are acting via the ‘Association of Contact Lens Manufacturers’ (the ACLM) that is clearly leaning on the GOC to try to curb our success (see the Blog of my letter to the Optician magazine of 19 January 2007 accusing them of hypocrisy and to which, incidentally, in the 26 January publication they offered no response).
Either the GOC applies the law using rules at its discretion to level the playing field OR we have little option but to escape the 'GOC Rule Makers' by transferring parts of our Ordering/Supply activities out of the UK. What a ridiculous prospect!
Please do me email me or post a response on this ‘Blog’. We feel you need to know what is going on and we ask for your understanding and support whilst we deal with the above threat to our reputation?
Ron Hamilton, Founder, daysoft