Omen writes

The Optical Consumer Complaints Service was initially regarded with suspicion by many in the profession as a potential threat and a further charge on practice overheads. Others saw it as good public relations and a worthwhile investment at a time when professions were being accused of using their monopoly for self interest.

Over the years OCCS has proved its value, not only in resolving complaints but also in drawing attention to issues that give rise to complaints. One such area of difficulty is where the sight test and dispensing take place in different places. Apparently these complaints are increasing with the growth of internet sales and competitive offers. Unfortunately, the remit of OCCS does not extend to these transactions.

Since dispensing was deregulated in 1985 the public has been protected from poor performance by opticians and optometrists by the General Optical Council. It has to rely on caveat emptor and trading standards when internet purchases are made. There is little evidence, apart from common sense, to support the contention that people who buy their spectacles on the internet are at greater risk of them being incorrect or badly fitting than if they were dispensed by an optician or optometrist. I note that OCCS aims to build up statistical data about this problem and it would be informative if internet supply could be included. Finance for OCCS is provided by the GOC through the retention fee. One hopes that when the contract comes up for review it will not waste money on expensive consultants but will take a pragmatic view of the success of OCCS in the past and the value that has been given for a relatively modest expenditure.