Employers accused of keeping CET cash

With days to go before the cut-off date for optometrists to claim their CET ‘pocket money’, AOP boss Bob Hughes has hit out at uncooperative employers potentially denying practitioners their money.

During the summer we announced that £270 would be available for optometrists for loss of earnings in respect of CET for 2004/05, and that practitioners would have three months to make their claim (News, July 15).

Now, with the chance to claim for that money ending on October 31, the Association has cried foul on some obstructive employers.

Writing in the AOP’s newsletter, Hughes has said some bosses are getting in the way of what is rightfully the practitioner’s, and that a number of AOP members have experienced difficulty in making their claim.

‘Frankly, some contractors are being much less helpful than they should be, and others are seeking to retain the money when they have not supplied the CET,’ he said in October’s Blink.

Hughes called the fact that optometrists have gained financial recognition for CET a ‘significant advantage’, but decried optical pay-masters for not helping their staff receive the money.  

‘Unfortunately, in some cases, employers have not acted reasonably or are just being unhelpful to optometrists trying to make their claim,’ he said.

The AOP has advised that practitioners should claim in writing to their appropriate PCT, and the claim made by a contractor, whether the contractor is claiming for him/herself, or for an ‘assistant’ (an optometrist who is on a PCT supplementary list).

‘Payments will be made to contractors and it will be for contractors and “assistants” to determine whether the payment should be passed to the assistant,’ said the Association’s advice.

‘If the contractor has provided or made available – and paid for sufficient CET to enable the optometrist to gain 12 points necessary for the year to meet the CET requirements...then the payment may be retained by the contractor.

‘However, if the contractor did not provide CET, the payment is due to the assistant.’