Brentwood: Allergic reaction payout refused
- Credit: Archant
»A woman who thought she was going blind after suffering a severe allergic reaction to eyelash extensions, may never receive compensation after salon insurers refused to pay out.
Jane Rolfe, 42, of Shenfield, says she reacted to the glue during treatment at a beauty salon.
But her solicitors said that a disagreement between the salon and its insurers could deny her any compensation as the salon did not carry out a patch test ahead of the treatment – thereby breaking its policy’s terms.
The morning after the treatment, Jane woke up with severely irritated, stinging and bloodshot eyes.
She said that when she returned to the salon, she was told this was normal.
You may also want to watch:
But her symptoms grew worse. Blisters formed around her eye line and a rash spread across her face.
Jane said: “The whole experience was harrowing. My GP advised me to go back to the salon and ask them to remove the extensions.
- 1 Men sent to prison over death of schoolboy Harvey Tyrrell
- 2 Council cannot 'justify' stronger bollards after fifth crash in 18 months
- 3 Mayoral election 2021: 'Free London' candidate Laurence Fox visits Romford
- 4 Best friends open beauty academy in Romford Shopping Hall
- 5 Bekash restaurant ranked best curry house in Havering on Tripadviser
- 6 Stall holders 'chuffed' as Romford Market reopens
- 7 Shopkeepers and customers celebrate as Romford high streets reopen
- 8 Fines for Havering landlords who put Dagenham tenants 'in danger'
- 9 Mayoral election 2021: how will candidates improve east London?
- 10 Neighbour’s fury as mountain of rubbish piles up outside cottage
“But they tried for half an hour and couldn’t do it. So they recommended I go home and try to remove them myself.
“It took me five hours to work them free using nothing but Vaseline and it was an excruciatingly painful experience.
“But, even after that, the rash and irritation carried on getting worse. I thought I was going blind.
“It was only after my doctor put me on a course of steroids and antihistamines it gradually subsided.”
Jane says she told the beautician that she had never had extensions before, but she was not given an allergy test.
But a salon spokesman said: “She refused a patch test so it wasn’t carried out.
“She said that she had had extensions before.
“She came into the salon the next day and we tried to remove the extensions. But she said it was too painful. We gave her aftercare instructions.”
The salon admitted that no disclaimer form to confirm a patch test was offered was signed by Jane.
The primary school assistant now fears that the incident may have triggered a life-long intolerance to adhesives. She subsequently suffered another severe reaction to household superglue, which has similar active ingredients to the eyelash glue.
Her lawyer Rachel Crook, of JMW Solicitors, said: “Our priority has to be our client and our concern will always be to secure the rightful settlement for her.
“It’s very worrying that the insurance company won’t indemnify their client, when the whole reason salons take out insurance is to protect themselves from exactly this kind of incident.”