Vet complaint process in UK often ‘stacked against pet owners'

The Guardian

3 days ago

Britain's pet owners often face an uphill struggle when they are unhappy with their vet because the industry's complaints system is not fit for purpose, according to a leading consumer body.
The findings from Which? that the complaints process 'is often stacked against pet owners' come as the UK competition watchdog is investigating the veterinary sector amid concerns that above-inflation price hikes and other issues mean consumers are not getting a fair deal.
Well more than half of UK households have one or more pets, with numbers increasing dramatically during the pandemic. However, Which? said pet owners were often put off making a complaint when there was a problem, and that those who did often had limited options for taking the matter forward or were left feeling their issue had been unfairly dismissed.
Rocio Concha, director of policy and advocacy at the consumer body, said: 'It is completely unjust that many pet owners feel not only unhappy with the service and treatment received by their vet when their pet is taken ill, but also lack the means to make a complaint that will be properly investigated.'
In its survey of more than 1,000 pet owners who had experienced some kind of problem with their vet during the past two years, pricing was the most common issue raised. More than half said the price of care or treatment was excessive, while more than a quarter said the cost was higher than they thought it would be.
The third most common issue was quality of care, followed by customer service, not being given the relevant information, being charged the wrong price, and the vet or practice making a mistake.
The first port of call when making a complaint is usually the practice itself. Many of the pet owners in the survey who had been put off making a claim said they did not think they would be successful, did not want to fall out with their vet, or did not know how to complain in the first place.
'Very few' owners then went on to escalate the complaint, and those who did found that the options available were often inadequate, said Which?.
There is the Veterinary Client Mediation Service (VCMS), but this is a voluntary complaints scheme. Meanwhile, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) has the responsibility for investigating all 'concerns' raised with it about vets – but Which? claimed it had 'very high thresholds' for investigating and progressing a complaint, 'leaving pet owners feeling dismissed, or that the process is biased in favour of veterinary professionals'.
Steph Drew, from Lincoln, told Which? that the complaints system was 'designed to protect vets'. Her dog Daisy was left injured when her vet operated on the wrong leg. Drew complained to the RCVS, but her case was initially dismissed after a year, said the consumer organisation. After appealing against the decision, the case went on for three years, finally ending in a disciplinary hearing. The vet has now been struck off and found by the RCVS to have failed to provide adequate care to 18 animals in total, said Which?.
Earlier this month the UK Competition and Markets Authority – which has been investigating rising costs and other issues in the multibillion-pound sector – said it had 'concerns that … firms' internal complaint handling processes may be inconsistent and operate poorly, and that the external redress mechanism provided by the VCMS is not as effective as it could be'. It also found there were 'shortcomings' with the RCVS code of conduct.
Sign up to Headlines UK
Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning
after newsletter promotion
A VCMS spokesperson told Which? it could not comment on individual cases but added: 'Last year we received more than 3,500 inquiries from pet owners, and the VCMS helped resolve over 80% of complaints … It continues to develop the mediation process to improve outcomes and satisfaction for consumers and practice teams, as well as the delivery of veterinary care.'
The RCVS said it had been asking the government to reform the current legislation 'for some years', adding: 'Our current remit is relatively narrow and focuses on regulating the individual professionals and not practices, which have never been regulated. We support proposals to enhance consumer protection, and mandatory practice regulation.'
It said that under current legislation it could only investigate allegations of serious professional misconduct. A spokesperson added that 'the facts presented in the [Which?] case studies do not completely align with those reported to us'.