Press release

Pet owners face David and Goliath battle resolving vet complaints as current system ‘designed to protect vets’, Which? finds

Pet owners are often put off making complaints about vets when things go wrong - and those that do find that the odds are stacked against them by a system that is not fit for purpose, Which? has found
8 min read
Press Team

The consumer champion found that in a survey of over 1,000 pet owners who have ced some kind of problem with their vet or vet practice in the past two years, pricing was the most commoexperienn issue experienced. Over half (53%) said the price of care or treatment was excessive, while a quarter (27%) said the price was higher than they thought it would be.

Which? found the third most common issue was the quality of care (23%), followed by customer service (22%), not being given the relevant information (16%), being charged the wrong price (11%) and the vet or vet practice making a mistake (11%).

The first port of call when making a complaint about a vet or vet practice is usually the practice itself, which can make the process awkward at best. Many of the pet owners in the Which? survey who had been put off from making a claim said they did not think they would be successful (38%), did not want to fall out with their vet (33%) or did not know how to complain in the first place (16%).

Very few pet owners then go on to escalate the complaint. Those that do, however, find that the options available are often inadequate. The Vet Client Mediation Service (VCMS) only requires vets to participate voluntarily, while the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) has 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. Court is rarely a viable option, due to the associated costs coupled with the perceived unlikelihood of success.

Steph Drew from Lincoln told Which? that the complaint system is “designed to protect vets”. Her dog Daisy was left injured when her vet operated on the wrong leg. Steph complained to the RCVS but her case was initially dismissed after a year. 

After appealing the RCVS decision, Daisy’s 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, resulting in the ‘unnecessary injury’ of several of these animals.

Sharon Khan from Warwick told Which? “It’s stacked against you from the start” when talking about her experience of the complaints process after her vet changed the cost of treatment for her German Shepherd, Fury. She was given estimated treatment costs of £700 to treat gastrointestinal issues, however the next day the vet said they needed to operate and gave a new cost of £3,600. Sharon’s insurer rejected the new cost as they did not understand the sudden change. This meant that the vet refused to do the surgery until the owner paid, leaving Fury for two hours without treatment, or even pain relief. Sharon did manage to come up with the money, but it was too late for her dog, who died. She felt that the vet had allowed Fury to die. Sharon was dissatisfied with the vet practice’s response to her complaint so she took her complaint to the RCVS but her case was later dismissed. 

Trace Brown from East Lothian said “I have got precisely nowhere” after she complained when her dog Honey was left with permanent injuries from surgical complications, which she was later told were caused by a surgical instrument being left inside her body after the original operation. Trace said she complained to both VCMS and RCVS but was only offered £120. Trace had already paid £12,000 for Honey’s corrective treatment and after fighting the case for several years she told Which? she suffers from ongoing stress and anxiety. Her complaint remains unresolved.

Which?’s research comes at a time when the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is investigating the veterinary services sector for pets amid concerns that pet owners are not getting a fair deal. It previously found independent vet practices have dwindled in number while pet ownership has increased significantly since the pandemic. It also found that most of the industry’s regulations dated back to 1966 and related primarily to individual veterinary surgeons rather than to the big businesses that own the majority of practices today.

This latest Which? research suggests that when something does go wrong, the complaints process in this big-money era is often stacked against pet owners. This builds on Which?’s previous research in 2023 which found several issues experienced by pet owners when using veterinary services, for example issues with transparency and pricing. 

Given the results of Which?’s research, the consumer champion supports several of the remedies for redress set out by the CMA’s recent working paper, specifically that vet practices should all have clearly signposted internal complaints procedures and that there should be a veterinary ombudsman to provide comprehensive and mandatory alternative dispute resolution (ADR) scheme for when issues cannot be resolved at the practice level.

Rocio Concha, Which? Director of Policy and Advocacy, said:

“Millions of people in the UK consider their pets to be part of the family, so 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 

 that will be properly investigated.

"It's clear that the regulation of vet services is outdated and needs an overhaul in order to work for pets and their owners. Vet practices need to be completely upfront about pricing and the treatment needed as well as provide pet owners with the information they need to make a complaint and escalate it if necessary. 

“There also needs to be a veterinary ombudsman to provide a comprehensive and mandatory alternative dispute resolution (ADR) scheme for when issues cannot be resolved at the practice level.”

ENDS

Notes to editors: 

Link to press release regarding struck off vet in Steph Drew’s case.

Research

Which? surveyed 1,009 pet owners who experienced an issue with their vet in the past two years. An issue might include problems with the quality of treatment, prices, bills, customer service, the way treatment options were presented and so on. Which? screened 4,320 pet owners to achieve this sample.

Worryingly Which? found that more than half (57%) of the pet owners who had experienced an issue did not actually make a complaint. Of those, two in five (38%) were put off complaining because they did not think it would be successful, while a third (33%) were worried about ‘falling out’ with their vet practice and one in six (16%) simply did not know how to complain in the first place.

Which? found that of those that did complain to their vet practice three in 10 (31%) were dissatisfied with handling of the complaint and a third (35%) were unhappy with the outcome.

Even if they are dissatisfied, Which? found very few pet owners escalate the complaint with many lacking confidence that it will be successful or simply not knowing how. Among pet owners who experienced an issue in Which?’s survey, just ten reported having contacted the VCMS, and four reported having contacted the RCVS. None had taken legal action. 

Which? conducted 14 qualitative interviews in August-September 2024 with pet owners who have complained to or about their veterinary practice. 

Excluding legal action, the channels available to pet owners to make a complaint and seek redress are: the practice itself, the RCVS and the VCMS. We recruited a mix of respondents who had used these channels. In the final sample:

Seven had complained directly to their vet practice only;

The other seven had complained to the RCVS, or at least attempted to, and of these three contacted the VCMS (even if they did not ultimately use mediation).

Full Which? Policy Report here: https://www.which.co.uk/policy-and-insight/article/complaints-and-redress-in-veterinary-services-a5z611X9tZzf

(Link to go live when embargo breaks)

Background

The CMA is conducting a market investigation into the provision of veterinary care for household pets. 

Which? research in 2023 highlighted some of the areas where consumers may be suffering harm in this market, identifying a number of issues related to transparency of pricing and practice ownership, asymmetries of information between the pet owner and veterinary professionals and potential overpaying for treatments and medications. 

Current complaints system

Raising a concern with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeon

Pet owners can ‘raise a concern’ about a veterinary surgeon to the RCVS. The RCVS has a multi-stage investigation procedure, which considers whether there is a ‘realistic prospect’ that the incident could amount to serious professional misconduct. If there is, the case may be progressed to a disciplinary committee, which can result in the veterinary surgeon being suspended or struck off. However, the RCVS will only deal with the most serious concerns, including:

  1. Very poor professional performance where there are serious departures from the standards set out in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct
  2. Fraud or dishonesty
  3. Criminal convictions or cautions
  4. Physical or mental health problems affecting ability to work

They do not deal with complaints about fees, service or negligence, which many pet owner complaints will likely fall under. In any case, many of these issues will be determined at the practice level and the RCVS regulates individual professionals.

Vet Client Mediation Service (VCMS)

The VCMS administers the only Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) available to pet owners. It is funded by the RCVS and has been running since 2017. The scheme is delivered by Nockolds Solicitors, who also deliver the Optical Consumer Complaints Service (OCCS).

The VCMS is a mediation service for pet owners who have not been able to resolve a complaint with their veterinary practice. It is free to use for the consumer. The VCMS can deal with any complaint that does not reach the high RCVS threshold of serious professional misconduct. 

In contrast to compulsory ADR schemes in other markets, the VCMS is voluntary, and so a practice must agree to its involvement in a complaint. The VCMS’s 2022-23 Annual Insight Report stated that 72% practices accepted the invitation to participate in mediation. For the optician’s mediation service run by the same solicitors, service providers are required to let customers know that this service is available if they wish to complain. However, this is not the case in the veterinary market. 

Right of reply:

A VCMS spokesperson said: “While we can’t comment on individual cases, many pet owners and veterinary practices value the resolution support provided by the VCMS. Last year, we received more than 3,500 enquiries from pet owners, and the VCMS helped resolve over 80% of complaints.  The service has evolved since its trial in 2017. 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.”

About Which?

Which? is the UK’s consumer champion, here to make life simpler, fairer and safer for everyone. Our research gets to the heart of consumer issues, our advice is impartial, and our rigorous product tests lead to expert recommendations. We’re the independent consumer voice that influences politicians and lawmakers, investigates, holds businesses to account and makes change happen. As an organisation we’re not for profit and all for making consumers more powerful.

The information in this press release is for editorial use by journalists and media outlets only. Any business seeking to reproduce information in this release should contact the Which? Endorsement Scheme team at endorsementscheme@which.co.uk.