A YOUNG girl suffered second-degree burns because the sun tan lotion used on her
turned out to be only one-third the strength it was supposed to be, a court was told yesterday.
Six-year-old Claire Lemar's back and shoulders were blistered during a holiday in Cornwall last July, despite her parents rubbing in a "factor 15" sun cream which was supposed to give almost total protection.
Tests later showed that the lotion, bought from a branch of Lloyds Chemists, had a protection factor of just 5.6, magistrates at Basingstoke, Hants, were told.
Lloyds, which has 900 branches, admitted failing to comply with safety requirements under the Consumer Protection Act and two charges of supplying goods with a false trade description. It was fined £3,000 with £4,237 costs.
Claire's mother, Janice, 37, had bought the own-brand lotion from Lloyds in Chineham, near Basingstoke, following advice that "the higher the factor, the better the protection", said Christopher Smith, prosecuting for Hampshire Trading Standards department.
While on holiday, she used it on her daughter but it failed to work. Mr Smith said: "The girl was taken to a casualty department in Penzance where it was discovered that she had suffered second-degree sunburn."
Claire needed further treatment during the holiday and after the family returned home to Chineham. Her father, Trevor, 39, then reported the matter to trading standards officers.
Tests on the lotion and on two other bottles bought by the department showed that the protection factor was 5.6. The lotion also contained crystals and was not as thick as it should have been.
The product was recalled and no more of that batch was sold, said Mr Smith.
Stephen Buckell, company secretary for Lloyds Retail Chemists, told the court that the lotion had been produced by a reputable manufacturer in Holland under stringent controls.
He said that apart from the incident with the Lemars the company had received just two complaints, and those had been about the gritty texture of the lotion.
Apart from a possible manufacturing defect or gross mishandling, he added, "we are unable to give a certain explanation as to why it had a lower sun protection factor than it should have".
Mr Buckell said that tests carried out on other bottles from the same batch "conformed with the specification of the product".
After the hearing, Mr Lemar said: "To a company this size a fine like that means nothing but it does indicate that the magistrates did not treat the matter lightly."
The family is now pursuing a claim for damages in the civil court.
