Should I take vets to court??

bungle4x4

like i said, i only scanned the posts.

nikki2804

eveie189 wrote: »

. They should not have tried to charge me. And that in the end is my point.

Erm hello? They provided a service so they deserve to be paid. I hope that when you do go back to them and try to get the before agreed amount that they tell you to bolt.

Do everyone a favour, do not 'take in' any more animals.

I may sound harsh but far to many people think having a pet is easy - they need to wake up and smell reality!

ged1980

gettingready wrote: »

The OP gave a cat a home.
The OP done the responsible thing by having the cat neutered.

Never mind that though as something out of OP control happened - so let's all hang the OP.

What is wrong with you people?

yes OP did give cat a home

and yes was out of control what went on

But OP is now asking for more compensation even though her child is traumatised now if that was me i would be looking after my child instead of looking for support to get more cash because her child is traumatised will the extra £250 make the child better? dont think so

DrScotsman

peachyprice wrote: »

If the OP couldn't afford to pay the vet in reasonable instalments she should never have got the kitten in the first place and certianly shouldn't be contemplating getting a dog :eek:

Why does no one seem to understand how completely irrelevant is this?

Let's say I go skiing in the US. I would be a complete idiot to do this without health insurance. Say I do this and whilst on the course someone cuts my arm off (I know I score a 0 for originality ). If I had insurance I could afford to get it sewn back on, but as I don't I have to be an amputee. Now who seriously thinks I am jointly negligent for losing the use of my arm?

Forgetting that rubbish analogy, eveie's recent post also raises a good point. She had a £500 emergency fund, already preparing herself for something like this. Although I hold the view that she would be no differently negligent if this fund didn't exist, do you really think it's foreseeable that two emergencies would happen in such a short space of time to her? Of course it's not (if it did, where would it end? 10 emergencies in a day?), no way is she jointly negligent.

And of course to re-emphasise, the E.V. has already made an admission of fault to the OP, i.e. that they are at least partially negligent. The OP is not negligent. QED.

gettingready

ged1980 wrote: »

But OP is now asking for more compensation even though her child is traumatised now if that was me i would be looking after my child instead of looking for support to get more cash because her child is traumatised will the extra £250 make the child better? dont think so

I fail to see many posts from people concerned about the child - I see a lot having a go at the OP for everything and anything.

Buttonmoons

I think most of the people on this thread would have it that no-one owned any animals, if they didn't have insurance or at least £1k lying around, that you devoted every breathing second to said pet, and treated said pet as if it was human.

I feel sorry for the OP getting all this grief, it's totally out of order.

OP I think you should take what's been offered, a terrible mistake happened yes, but at least the Vets are admitting that (I'm sure a lot wouldn't....)

gettingready

Buttonmoons wrote: »

I think most of the people on this thread would have it that no-one owned any animals,

And for that reason we have so many animals in shelters, spending their life behind the bars as SOME people running those are not happy to rehomea pet unless one meets conditions 1 to 35466464 on their oh-so-not-realistic list.

ged1980

gettingready wrote: »

I fail to see many posts from people concerned about the child - I see a lot having a go at the OP for everything and anything.

because if you read ops post they say they want more money because they and the child were traumatised now i may be wrong but should this not be about the poor cat

Claire_Bear

But the reason that so many cats are in the shelters in the first place is because people take on animals that they can't afford/get bored with/are abused, and a million other reasons. Why would they want to remove a cat from horrible conditions and put them back into another home that they think might be the same?

Claire_Bear

ged1980 wrote: »

because if you read ops post they say they want more money because they and the child were traumatised now i may be wrong but should this not be about the poor cat

I was going to say this, the OP didn't seem to be very upset about the whole thing, and the whole post was about milking as much money from their vet as possible. If we'd known all about how the car had broken the week before and she was going to spend her food budget for the week on the cat at the very beginning, maybe people wouldn't have been so harsh about it She wanted advice about the courts - people have given her that. But with an emotive subject such as animals being put to sleep (especially when this could have potentially been avoided) then people are going to get their backs up, and the attitude of the OP didn't seem to help