Kitty held at Vets till bills paid, 'interest' added daily. Help?

[Hatter The Mad]

That really is absurd. I'd threaten to report the vet to trading standards. If he doesn't budge, then pay him and THEN report him to trading standards.

He wouldn't get anywhere, because the veterinary practice is well within their rights to withhold the animal and charge reasonable board until the customer pays.

 

[Vonhelmet]

erm, no.

I'm simply saying a 10 minute operation should not cost £200.

Go get yourself qualified as a vet and bear all the running costs of running a surgery, then come back and tell us how much an operation should cost.

Besides, if it's so extortionate then there should be any number of other vets offering much more competitive prices.

 

[manveruppd]

He wouldn't get anywhere, because the veterinary practice is well within their rights to withhold the animal and charge reasonable board until the customer pays.

Hey, no disrespect, you're obviously either a vet or friends with one and you've seen them taken advantage of by non-paying customers too often. I'm not implying that it's not a reasonable fee or that she shouldn't pay it, and I respect vets and the work they do, but I just question the legality of withholding the animal until the customer pays! If you're right and the vet is within his rights, then I dispute the morality of the law that allows them to do that.

I know it's an animal and doesn't have any rights per se, but surely it can't be put on the same ground morally as the mechanic refusing to return your car until you pay for the repair - it may be a possession, but it's a living thing, not an object.

There are many other ways for the vet to recover their money - small claims court, collection agencies, whatever. They don't need to effectively hold a small animal for ransom.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

and you've seen them taken advantage of by non-paying customers too often.

It has never had to be done, in my experience

I'm not implying that it's not a reasonable fee or that she shouldn't pay it, and I respect vets and the work they do, but I just question the legality of withholding the animal until the customer pays!

I understand, but there is not a question of legality here - the vet is within their legal rights to do so, as well as their professional code of conduct.

If you're right and the vet is within his rights, then I dispute the morality of the law that allows them to do that.

That's a separate issue

There are many other ways for the vet to recover their money - small claims court, collection agencies, whatever. They don't need to effectively hold a small animal for ransom.

The small claims court is more time consuming and obviously less effective than withholding the animal (they're a business, don't forget, so will take the route that gives them the best chance of recovering money vs. time and money spent recovering).

The OP told us that the vet agreed to waive all of the boarding fees and I believe pay £10 less than the cost of treatment - chiefly because they didn't want to keep the cat forever (they can only keep so many cats in their practice, and a cat simply boarding will be low business value), and they realised it is more time/cost effective for them to settle like than than release the cat and go to the small claims court for the full amount.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

There are many other ways for the vet to recover their money - small claims court, collection agencies, whatever. They don't need to effectively hold a small animal for ransom.

The owner should pay, then the animal won't be held. If the owner has an objection to the services rendered, then just like with a mechanic you pay the bill then take it up with the vet (and, if needs be, to the small claims court).

And, I'm afraid that if the owner cannot pay, then they shouldn't have a pet to begin with (without insurance). Pet ownership is not a right, and unfortunately too many people think otherwise.

 

[manveruppd]

I'm not disagreeing with you, I totally agree that the vet should get their money and should have an effective method of claiming it off customers who refuse to pay. I just don't think pets should be treated like inanimate objects. If the vet is indeed entitled by law to do that, then I confess I'm a bit shocked and I think the law should change.

 

[axer]

I'll say it.

If you can't afford to look after a cat maybe you shouldn't have one.

Agreed (although that doesn't help the OP as he isn't the cat owner).