Apparently I may be barred from Lloyds pharmacy after losing my cool (no threats made, no expletives used.)when medications for myself and/or spouse would not be supplied due to the fact we follow the NHS instructions that we exempt from the requirement to sign prescription(s).
https://contactcentreservices.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/selfnhsukokb/AskUs_PS/en-gb/7607/declarations/17551/i-am-aged-60-or-over-do-i-need-to-sign-the-back-of-my-prescription (https://contactcentreservices.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/selfnhsukokb/AskUs_PS/en-gb/7607/declarations/17551/i-am-aged-60-or-over-do-i-need-to-sign-the-back-of-my-prescription)
Why won't you sign the form? Is there a medical condition preventing you signing or are you choosing not to sign?
I choose not to sign as we are not required to, see link in my OP.
If you are age exempt from paying and age is printed (not hand written) then a signature is not required. Nothing more annoying than persons who believe they can set the rules in contrary to the main authorities rules, bit like some Tesco MM 8-)
Is all this really worth it over filling in a form, ok so by rights you do not have to but what have you gained from not doing so.
Do you sign documents you are not required to ?
What do I gain by signing ?
A more pertinent question is why are they asking me to sign when the NHS says clearly I am not required to do so.
An alternative question would be, is there anything preventing Lloyd’s from asking for a signature. As in, the nhs policy may not require Lloyd’s to get a signature, but does that mean Lloyd’s can’t have their own policy requiring that requires a signature?
Nothing to prevent Lloyd's from asking for a signature, nor for them to perhaps have their own policy on requiring a signature. Both are irrelevant as the consumer rights of exemption not to sign override their requests, and to prevent the release of the prescription is highly questionable ??? ???
Bit like Tesco policies, when Tesco believe they are entitled to make their own rules irrelevant to the law or ACAS ruling :-X :-X
alf, NHS policy does not require me to sign, I have never objected to being asked to sign only that medication has been withheld when I have adhered to NHS policy.
lucgeo, Your last paragraph is close to my thinking. If NHS (in effect the government) say I do not need to sign to get required medication, Lloyds do not need to over rule that principle and I believe they should not and cannot.
Both my wife and myself are over 60 and use Boots for our medication.....we are never asked to sign the back. I'm with Nomad on this matter :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: seems to be another example of over officiousness.
What the hells this got to do with Tesco. We don’t pay our members fees to listen to sum tit being banned from his local chemist.
Quote from: Nomad on 14-12-18, 02:11PM
Do you sign documents you are not required to ?
What do I gain by signing ?
A more pertinent question is why are they asking me to sign when the NHS says clearly I am not required to do so.
To be honest I can see where your coming from, personally I would have signed the form in order to get the medication while making it clear to the people working in the chemist I was doing so under protest, I would then have raised the matter with management, while I do not know your situation I know that my partner cannot afford to be without her medication under any circumstances and that would have overridden any issues I had with filling in a form regardless of what the law may say.
Quote from: Expressdude2016 on 14-12-18, 10:19PMWhat the hells this got to do with Tesco. We don’t pay our members fees to listen to sum tit being banned from his local chemist.
Err.....somewhat harsh and unnecessary retort methinks, which £2 per annum hardly warrants ??? ???
Quote from: Expressdude2016 on 14-12-18, 10:19PM
What the hells this got to do with Tesco. We don't pay our members fees to listen to sum tit being banned from his local chemist.
Lets suppose that Nomad had gone to his local Tosco Pharmacy instead of a Lloyd's pharmacy and some clueless jumped up buffoon tried to impose the same rule about signature - his same principles would still apply Tosco do not make the law same as Lloyd's don't and he is pointing out a fact of law .
It could be worth a new thread being started on consumer laws and rights , IE what to do if your overcharged by Tosco ( or any other retailer ) , What rights would i have if my " Technika / Tosco / other brand " TV broke down one day after the twelve month guarantee expired . What right would Tosco or any other pharmacy have to make me sign for a prescription ?
Interesting and useful to know the law and consumer rights sometimes - i might just refuse to sign for my parents prescriptions myself next time i pick them up from the pharmacy if i am asked - then politely tell them the law and then tell them they just lost my highly profitable business as i would be going to a chemist / pharmacy that knows the regulations etc .
Quote from: Expressdude2016 on 14-12-18, 10:19PMWhat the hells this got to do with Tesco. We don’t pay our members fees to listen to sum tit being banned from his local chemist.
what a rude person you are. Oh and nomad is NOT a tit. He's one of the best guys on here.
Quote from: Expressdude2016 on 14-12-18, 10:19PMWhat the hells this got to do with Tesco. We don’t pay our members fees to listen to sum tit being banned from his local chemist.
Did you notice this is in the Other retailers section 8-) , having a bad hair day are you, I see that at the present you are not a supporter :-*. Incidentally it is not a members
fee (membership is free) it is a donation to the running costs of VLH for which as a thank you some extra benefits are given.
@penguin, if I may explain further. On each occasion I phoned Lloyds H.O. (while at the store) who then phoned the store and the medicines were issued, I have been sent letters of apology However some people may understand that on the third occasion I showed, in a raised voice, my frustration. I am sorry to say when I read your post I thought of PM Neville Chamberlain and his famous piece of paper.
@just curious, regarding prescriptions being collected for a third party who is exempt, if they insist you sign ask them if they wish you to go and transport the third party to the pharmacy to
enable them not to sign as is their right.
@Mark calloway, thank you but I'm just trying keep things ticking along.
My husband is exempt from prescription charges due to diabetes , I used to have to sign if I picked up his scripts . We live in Northern Ireland and prescription charges were abolished years ago so now no-one has to sign .
Just out of curiosity, how much does a prescription cost now?
£8.80 per item, pity those that require more than one item. My signing issue is connected with those that are age exempt from paying.
I will update as matters develop as there are several bodies I can contact regarding the with holding of medication(s).
£8.80 :o That's shocking . It sounds like Lloyds are making policies in the belief people will just sign in order to get medicine, a dangerous game to play.
I am sure everyone who would benefit already knows you can buy a yearly season ticket for all your prescriptions which starts to be better value if you have 13 or more items a year. And that if you time the renewal right you can get 13 months use out of it for the cost of 12 months.
You must have too much time on your hands to make such a drama about something so insignificant. I can only imagine the kind of member of staff you were. The kind that helped me reach my decision to take redundancy earlier in the year.
oooo!! fighting talk!! :-X
All this nitpicking and unnecessary mean comments being made, why ???
Unsure who your comment is directed at RubyRed, but if it's toward gomezz, then obviously you have never had the misfortune of living hand to mouth....if you had then you would appreciate that a small saving anywhere means a great deal to some...."every little helps" and all that :-*
@RubyRed, I believe your post to be aimed at me. I will refrain (almost) from judging what sort of employee you were based on your post, however suffice it to say that you taking redundancy may have been to the betterment of those who will not be bullied and will fight for their rights.
:thumbup: well said nomad :)
Both myself and my wife (who is entirely 'innocent' in this debacle ) were today refused medications of any type in Lloyds pharmacy.
Read what others think: https://www.complaintsdepartment.co.uk/lloyds-pharmacy/ (https://www.complaintsdepartment.co.uk/lloyds-pharmacy/)
Just to say, I work in Tosco Pharmacy and unless I know the person, then I don't ask them to sign. The reason is that there are a lot of people who come to the pharmacy claiming that they or their representative “haven't collected my medication". Many times they have forgotten the meds in their car or left it in the shopping trolley. Without a signed prescription, it is our word against theirs and possibly the re-issue of a bag of expensive medication. With a signed prescription, there is no discussion except to say go and look for it or go back to your doctor. So although I understand the Ops predicament I also see it from the other side. Peter continues makes it bad for Paul.
Pharmacists and assistants only need to adhere to NHS rules, if that causes problems then they or their 'masters' need to campaign for a rule change.
Don't see the problem in signing for your prescriptions if that is the rules required by the pharmacy. End off, stop being a drammer queen.
Don't see the problem in not signing as per the rules. Unlike some I do not blindly obey others who have no basis for their assertions.
"Drammer" Drammer is a new attack that exploits the Rowhammer hardware vulnerability on Android devices. (https://www.vusec.net/projects/drammer/) I do not think I need any lessons from somebody who can't spell :P
After thought, what would you call someone who insists you sign a government document that you are not require to sign ?
You state yourself you've been told your at risk of being banned from the chemist and have been refused medication from the said chemist over this, its not like your being asked to sign the official secrets act or some legal paperwork that will affect your entire life, sometimes its just easier to go along with something that in the grand scheme of things is trivial, still you seem to want to take this to whatever the bitter end will be, one can only wonder why this is so important to you when all your being asked to do is sign a prescription that a company policy on a local level seems to require you to do.
"sometimes its just easier to go along with something that in the grand scheme of things is trivial" WHY are they asking if it's trivial ??????
"refused medication" there are official regulatory bodies that take a very serious view of that happening. No company policy local or otherwise can override government policy. Read the back of a prescription next time you have one, particularly regarding those who are exempt from paying by reason of age.
I really don't understand 'attacks' on me for sticking to my rights, yet nothing said regarding those who disregard my rights.
You may capitulate over your rights, I do not.
Nomad, is the pharmacy based within another retailer or a high street branch?
Within a major supermarket, not Tesco though.
Having read all the arguments for and against signing, the point that a signature is not required, as stated on the back of the script, overrides any "rules" the pharmacy wish to impose. By refusing to issue the meds is a very big concern, as they are acting recklessly and possibly in breach of their " licence" or whatever it is they need to trade. So the stand off is the pharmacy are as stubborn to prove their point, as Nomad is in excercising his right to refuse to sign.
If a pharmacy refused to issue my medication based on these grounds, I would ask to speak to the manager and insist they issued them or put in writing that they are refusing the release of my medication stating their reason why??
It's all well and good saying, just do it or is it worth all the hassle?? Complacency results in erosion of rights, as seen daily in the workplace etc....
"GO NOMAD...GO NOMAD"
lucgeo, Oh I am going, have no doubt on that.
The problem I had, which was also very annoying, any "discussion" the pharmacist felt was not going his way as regards signing he would go to the far end of the pharmacy, the small supermarket booth type, which meant the only way to see him was by leaning forward, and at such time he would just repeat in a very dismissive and arrogant manner "I'm not talking to you".
Excellent customer relations NOT.
Quote from: Nomad on 30-12-18, 08:36PM
"sometimes its just easier to go along with something that in the grand scheme of things is trivial" WHY are they asking if it's trivial ??????
"refused medication" there are official regulatory bodies that take a very serious view of that happening. No company policy local or otherwise can override government policy. Read the back of a prescription next time you have one, particularly regarding those who are exempt from paying by reason of age.
I really don't understand 'attacks' on me for sticking to my rights, yet nothing said regarding those who disregard my rights.
You may capitulate over your rights, I do not.
Well speaking for myself I can't say my comments were meant as attacks and can only say sorry if thats how it has been taken, however the fact remains you and I are never going to agree on this one, I still think taking the issue as far as you have is a waste of your time, all it is doing is causing you problems. I get that you have the right not to sign the form, but why is it so important to you. It is not as if it will affect your life in any way shape or form once you leave the shop is it.
penguin, I don't think we will as you 'seem' to come at it from a company point of view and I from the individual's view.
"I get that you have the right not to sign the form, but why is it so important to you."
Turn that question round, why do you think it is important to them that I do ? . Bearing in mind that I do on a few occasions use two other companies pharmacies, one being Boots and the other lesser known. Neither are concerned with my refusal not to sign as is my right. They do ask but accept instantly my right not to.
Sorry I cannot fathom out your reason for your stance.
Customer abuse of staff from another topic leads me to ask for opinions.
What, if anything, should happen to staff who through ignorance of their job role, or malice leads them to 'abuse' customers :question:
Update: still ongoing.
Reminds me of my 3 year battle with Tesco, which I won in the end :)
Try here
https://www.pharmacyregulation.org/raising-concerns (https://www.pharmacyregulation.org/raising-concerns)
How's the battle going Nomad?
Ongoing tumshie, just as I expected. They refuse to communicate in the hope that one will give up and go away, well that's not going to happen.
optout, I do know of that regulatory body and have read a lot on their website. myself and a number of like minded others are collecting what could be damaging/damning evidence.
Will update when able, but after 3 year battle with Tesco I'm expecting to have to play the long 'game'.
A government regulatory body now involved.
Petty petty petty. Wouldn’t it the easier to sign rather than spend three years arguing about something so trivial.
Each pharmacy has their own guidelines that help them adhere to NHS rules, if its in their guidelines to get prescriptions sign that they need to. I guess it could be to make sure they have checked the exemption or to avoid people coming back claiming they haven’t had their medicine.
I'm sorry WorkingMummy you obviously do not understand the difference between company guidelines and NHS rules which form part of a contract.
By what kind of logic does one adhere to NHS rules by breaking one of their (NHS) rules. If a conflict exists then it should be resolved between the pharmacy and the NHS, not the pharmacy and its customers.
Are you related to penguin ? :)
PS. I suggest you read the part of the prescription which lays out the requirements over signing, which by the way is a NHS document supplied by a NHS GP.
Ongoing, may or may not be nearing end game.
Well I signed for my prescription the other day only to be told that I didn't need to due to my age. I felt like Methusula 😂
Why is signing made into a big thing by some pharmacists, yet there are those who know and accept NHS rules.
Quote from: Nomad on 12-05-19, 11:44AM
Ongoing, may or may not be nearing end game.
Six months on from when you first posted and its still ongoing, I know you and I have totally different views on this but that really is unbelievable that this has not been sorted out one way or another.
I'm not surprised at the time scale, it could easily go to 24 months, perhaps more. Took me 3 years to win a grievance against Tesco so I am no stranger to companies tac-tics in hoping that you give up and go away.
One of the authorities involved gives the other party 6 months to give a final reply, why I don't know or understand. If that final reply is not correct then on we go.
I have documentary proof from Lloyds head office and one of the regulatory bodies that I, or anybody else, are not required to sign or tick prescriptions for themselves, nor when presenting/collecting for anybody else who fits in the same criteria.
Namely age exempt under 16 or over 60 and presenting a printed prescription which includes age or D.O.B.
So I have not got a bloody clue what the last 18 months have been about, or possibly the next 18/24 months.
Stupidity.
I find that's often the explanation.
Still ongoing. Strange that out of three large national dispensing pharmacies two have no problem in dispensing with no signature, as long as the customer(s) fulfil the required criteria, and the other one does.
It appears by current communications that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman(PHSO) may have the power to arbitrary modify an existing contract between two independent bodies (NHS and a pharmaceutical company).
Fast approaching 12 month anniversary, or 30 months since first refusal to dispense medicines.
hmmmm I wonder if they've thought of using the old 'grind em down tactics'. ;D
They are so predictable.
There must be an massive back-log of complaints to these people, after-all, how else could they possibly justify the procrastinatory (do hope that is a word) nature of their complaints procedure.
Maybe send them a birthday card when the complaint reaches 2 years old.
'grind em down tactics' you think :-*
A card, what a wonderful suggestion :) :thumbup:
Perhaps they're hoping you've passed over in the meantime, due to non medication ???
;D
Luckily there are at least two other major pharmaceutical chains that have no problem sticking to their contract with the NHS and dispense medicines to the over 60's without a signature.
Hard to believe, whatever ones view on the matter, it is still not resolved after all this time.
It has now passed into the hands of another official supervisory body. Some months to go yet.
The only time you should be signing the back of an age exempt pre-printed script or EPS token is for controlled medication, in that box. You are quite correct! Keep it up - some pharmacists say the NHS scanner gets a bit pissy when there’s no signature in the bottom box, so maybe that’s filtered down in Lloyd’s and got muddled. No excuse tho.
"some pharmacists say the NHS scanner gets a bit pissy when there’s no signature in the bottom box"
@coffee_tea, yes I've had that response/excuse but as you may guess my thought on that is - 'not my problem' :-*
One of my family regularly has a controlled drug, which I have absolutely no problem signing for in the little grey box as that is what is required by the NHS.
A little foot note:-
Don't bother with the PHSO (Parliament and Health Service Ombudsman) they confirm in a letter that it is correct that an age exempt prescription need not be signed, yet that it is reasonable for a pharmacist to ask you to sign. I have never said it was unreasonable to ask, only that it was wrong to refuse to dispense. They (PHSO) cannot will not help as I have no evidence that they (pharmacist) refused to dispense medication, and pharmacy company have no record of refusals, what a surprise >:(
Short of physical persuasion any suggestions how one would get a pharmacist to sign a piece of paper confirming their refusal to dispense :question: 8-)
It continues.
Update. The General Pharmaceutical Council Has confirmed that medicines should not be withheld if a patient exercises their right not to sign an age exempt prescription. They have also contacted Lloyds to remind them of this fact.
The drive for justice, apologies and some redress continues.
"Short of physical persuasion any suggestions how one would get a pharmacist to sign a piece of paper confirming their refusal to dispense"
Get out your phone and ask them to star in a short video 'No Drugs Today' maybe??
tumshie :), for some reason I have serious doubts that they will acquiesce, but in reality they should be required to give written reason for refusal, if there is no such requirement why did the Parliamentary & Health Service ombudsman expect there to be records of the refusals :question:
:question: why would an ombudsman use as part of their decision making the non existence of a record not required to be kept 8-)
However 99% sure it will be starting journey through Money Claim on line system in July. Just sorting out the mass of emails letters etc supporting our case.
Just a little bump, I'm still exchanging emails with regulatory bodies, but keeping an eye on the three year deadline for personal injury claims.
It really does make the mind boggle to think this is still ongoing, you and I have very different views on this Nomad but once the regulators have said no you do not need to sign and confirmed it to the pharmacy one really would expect that to be the final word on it all.
One would think so 8-)
NHS Business Services Authority, Parliamentary and Health service Ombudsman, General Pharmaceutical Council, NHS England and Lloyds have each in turn referred me to one of the other four as being the body responsible for overseeing the standards of pharmacists and/or their employer, and therefore it is them that I should address my concerns.
Every one of them has confirmed that we (my wife and I) are not required to tick or sign the rear of a prescription as we are over 60 and our DOB is 'digitally' printed on the prescription.
Can you believe that one of the above (not Lloyds) brought up the question of 'fitness to practise', however they did not see that a pharmacist refusing to release medicines to a 'customer' with serious multiple medical problems as being a 'fitness to practise' issue. :o
An alternative pharmacy was visited recently the assistant asked three times for permission to sign on behalf of the customer, thrice that permission was denied as they(customer) are not required to sign, ergo nobody else is therefore required to sign in their stead. However the pharmacist instructed the assistant to sign. >:(
There are person(s) who see the signing of prescription as a record of medicines having been collected, for those who are require to sign it is an attempt to prevent fraud on the NHS. There are many many alternative ways to record collections.
I remain unsure as to who appointed pharmacists as divine beings :question:
In fairness to those who have followed and/or replied in this thread I feel I should make perhaps a last post on this matter.
As stated in my above post four bodies concerned with overseeing pharmacy standards confirmed that persons over 60 or under 16 are not required to tick or sign a prescription provided their age is digitally printed on the prescription, however all these bodies continued in their correspondence to say that we should, even though we are not required to do so. Needless to say I would never approach these bodies again nor would I advise any other person to do so if they have a genuine complaint re: pharmacies or pharmacists.
The wrongful refusal to dispense medicines due to no signature caused stress and triggered unexpectedly a relapse in a serious life long neurological condition in a family member, a relapse which caused considerable pain and discomfort over a Christmas and new year holiday period.
I had hopes of seeking redress for the pain and suffering via the MCOL (https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome) system. The problem would be that as it is not for a set amount of monies owed It would have to be a claim made through the county court system. This I could/would not do for several reason, the time and work involved, the potential cost both actual and potential to myself, the last(actually first) reason being placing more stress on my family member.
Would I use any Lloyds pharmacy again, I might but my life would have to depend on it. Would I like nobody to use Lloyds, you bet I would.
I reaffirm the point I made in early posts that two other major national pharmacy chains except that no signature is required in the circumstance within the above criteria, and neither seek a signature nor have ever refused to dispense medicines. I have documentary proof from the NHSBSA (https://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/) that medicine refusal is considered a "failure of duty" of care by a pharmacist.
My biggest regret is that on the third refusal to dispense I verbally challenged the pharmacist for an explanation of their behaviour, when he refused to talk to me I called him a "very rude person", no expletives were used and no threats were made and yet I was barred from this Lloyds pharmacy.
I'm 75 this year and like a lot of persons of such age I am beginning to tire of fighting, I will always and all ways encourage the younger generation to stick up for their rights if they genuinely 100% know they are right.
However I have retained the majority, if not all, correspondence and if any media wish to contact me please do.