Multiple saved from dock by rule change

Optical Express has escaped being accused of breaching the profession's publicity rules at a professional disciplinary hearing after the rules on which the case was based were revoked.

The Scottish based business, listed as Optical Express Central Limited was due to appear before a disciplinary panel of the General Optical Council on Wednesday next week (September 28).

Details of the case were made public earlier this month, and it was expected that the hearing would be held at the General Dental Council's tribunal facilities. However, the GOC stepped in a fortnight beforehand to stop the case.

A GOC spokeswoman told optician: 'Having considered the impact of the transitional provisions contained in Schedule 2 to The Opticians Act 1989 (Amendment) Order 2005 upon section 17(4)(a) of the Opticians Act, the GOC has determined that the disciplinary committee has no jurisdiction to hear the proposed charge.

'In accordance with rule 3(4) of the Disciplinary Committee Rules 1985, the company has been informed of the decision not to hold an inquiry.'

The Rules on Publicity 1985 on which the charge would have been based were themselves revoked from June 30 this year.

Optical Express, which has approaching 200 outlets in the UK, was alleged to have breached the old rules on publicity 1985 'by using a means of giving publicity to its business which made a claim not capable of substantiation'.

The advertising was launched last year and ran for over 10 months. The case related to a leaflet headed 'Optical Extra Low Autumn Prices' between January 1 2004 and October 15 2004 which stated 'no more spectacles, no more contact lenses' and 'Call your local branch to book your free eye examination... Free with purchase. When you have an eye examination and purchase spectacles, we will give you a £10 discount off the cost of your spectacles. The £10 discount is equivalent to the current cost of an eye examination'.

Rarely has a multiple been brought before the GOC, and the last notable case involving publicity rules occurred in the 1990s.