The Regulations place the onus on employers to pay for "spectacles" not lenses. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "spectacles" as "a pair of glasses". It defines a pair of glasses as "a pair of lenses set in a frame resting on the nose and ears, used to correct or assist defective eyesight."

Most employers I know pay the cost of a basic pair of VDU glasses, with cosmetic extras paid for by the user. If they want stylish frames then they pay the difference themselves. The large optician chains have specific arrangements for employer-funded VDU eye tests and spectacles (for example see http://www.specsavers.co...re-vouchers/vdu-eyecare/ however other suppliers do exist so it pays to shop around)

With prices in the order of £25 -£30 for complete specs, this shouldn't really be a concern.

Changing over lenses would probably cost you more. If you change service providers, you'll find that they don't provide lenses to fit previous frames, etc.

I have double checked to see what would happen if this were taken to an industrial tribunal. The employer would be expected to have been guided by the clinical judgment of the optometrist or doctor. In practice this means that if the optometrist or doctor agree to the employer's wish to simply change the lenses then the tribunal would be likely to find in favour of the employer. If, on the other hand, the optometrist or doctor reports that they were forced into this position then the IT would likely find in favour of the employee. The argument about boots and boot laces is a different one in that it is a "consumable" item that has worn out (as with a respirator canister). If the protective element (eg the steel toecap) was damaged then you would surely replace the whole boot, not the toecap?

I very much doubt that it would be in the employees interest nor a practical method by way of swapping the lenses to a new frame for the sole reason of vanity (keeping up with trends).
The basic frames that are all an employer is required to pay for are far from the designer display areas in an optician.

Also new lenses mean scratch free lenses too!

Thundercliffe, you're paying way too much for DSE specs.

A well known high street optician does a voucher scheme that costs £17 for each attendance - test and basic spectacles - and it works well for us. We certainly wouldn't offer £94!

Alan

I think Brian is right and it's the same argument if you look at it that the lace has snapped then you would only replace the lace. It would be the lens that has worn out as the persons might require a stronger lens so why replace the whole glasses if the frame is in good order and still fits.

We use a voucher scheme and will pay for eye test and cheapest pair of glasses if people want a more expensive per then they can have the price of the cheapest per towards them.

the problem they have is there are people who wear spectacles for work mostly on computers when they re assess the work station ........if the person has not had an eye test for two years its identified as requirement.
So people are going off and having their eyes tested and claiming the cost............. of the full eye test and specatcles on expenses.
This has caused many an arguement and they were looking for an easy way for it to be settled.

I can’t help but feel that the shoe lace comparison is entirely ‘spurious’ and comparing apples with pears. I suggest that the spirit of the regs is the provision of the spectacles as a complete item. However, I will agree to disagree and bow out of that one.

Claiming on expenses, seems to me to be open to significant ‘abuse’ and people claiming for specs to which they are not entitled under the regs. I suspect that in this case the STAFF are determining whether they need VDU specs rather then the OPTICIAN. Off the top of my head, the guidance suggests that only around 10% of users require VDU specs, and that is broadly in line with my experience here. And again, it is the OPTICIAN that generally determines the retest period, unless someone is suffering from eye problems that might reasonably be attributed to the VDU use. At £17 a go, I feel I can afford to take a pretty liberal approach to this.

Personally I would revisit your advice to pay £94 for the 2 glasses service. You also need to be clear about WHO is determining the need for VDU specs. There are various corporate deals out there that provide, in my experience, a good service for significantly less and with very low overall administration costs. I have been doing this for a number of years and the vast majority of our staff are very pleased with the service and I am pleased with the cost and time savings achieved. I have never considered there any need to argue about the cost of frames etc as there is in effect no cost for me to argue about using this scheme.

Time for a rethink?

It seems like this is a policy issue, is there one in place? do the workforce no about and understand it? Is there a training issue for managers and other employees.
We had a similar issue when we changed the policy and employees were still following the old one i.e. going out getting an eue test and purchasing glasses and trying to claim the money back, in the end we posted out a notice to say that after a certain date this was no longer acceptable and we then trained all managers in the policy. Employees now comply with the policy.
Every year we send out the DSE self assessment form to ensure that there has been no changes in working patterns and to ensure that employees get what they are entitled too.

Fair point. I imagine some firms in the Highlands might incur costs of an overnight stay too.

This health & safety nonsense has gone too far.

To be clear about some of the issues arising above:

>The test is to be provided "on request" - not as some absolute and blanket requirement via Risk Assessment/review.
>Professional types of eye exam aren't free (although it looks like the commercial clout of some larger chains have negotiated a good deal on that). Optometrists are entitled to charge for a Reg5 DSE Exam
>Employees going to their own optician off their own back will not necessarily have had the appropriate test.
>There are providers out there who will bring the whole service to the employer's premises.
> There is of course the greater argument that the entirety of the DSE Regs (and parent Directive), although well-intentioned, take this whole risk topic too far.

I have a convert! If the DSE Regs (and of course the enabling Directive) were revoked, what would be the adverse impact on worker health I wonder?

I tend to agree Ron. The eye test and specs aspect of the regs has always puzzled me, and I would have thought that there are other types of work where the relative risks are higher and where an eye test and the provision of specs is far more ‘worthy’.

Clive, arguably the hidden costs may well apply to an employee’s use of other opticians, depending on where the employer is located in relation to ‘local’ opticians. We do not pay travel costs or give time for people to go for a DSE eye test. Do I sense a section 9 debate?

I have also tried the ‘domiciliary’ option, where the optician came into the office and did the eye tests etc but my experience was that the overall costs and administration was high, we were getting ‘no shows’ etc. I have used various voucher schemes for many years now and have used a high street voucher scheme for the last 3 years and the experience here is very positive. Low cost, low admin cost, I have very few complaints from staff, indeed staff feel that they are getting a bit of a ‘bonus’ as they get £20 discount off specs not needed for VDU. At the moment I feel it’s a ‘win, win’.

Yes Phil,
but that "win win" can backfire when other sections of the workforce (particularly those having to wear PPE) get wind of things and see this as an unfair "perk"?

Ron

I am left wondering what alternative suggestion you have to get over this 'problem'. Use a more expensive scheme that doesn't have this 'perk'? Others on this thread are clearly paying more than £17 for the test alone, on top of that some are paying £54 or for 'bins', together with significant admin costs to process numerous invoices,(I tend to be able to get away with one) per year) The 'perk' only exists IF the person needs 'bins' and then only if they chose to get them from the same firm. I am more than happy to continue with the scheme that I use with that, rather insignificant (almost non existent) 'problem' hanging over my head!