Money Moral Dilemma: Should we have to pay the vet bills?

343 Posts
Please give this MoneySaver the benefit of your advice...
Should we have to pay the vet bills?
After our second baby we were struggling, so my parents in law offered to look after our dog. Yet every time the dog so much as coughed she'd be taken to the vets and we would be presented with a £50 bill. This was happening once a month for minor complaints and the dog wasn't living with us. My parents in law are rather affluent and at the time we weren't. Should we have to foot these vet bills?
Click reply to have your say
Previous MMDs: View All
[threadbanner]box[/threadbanner]
0
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides
Replies
Your dog, your responsibility.
Pet insurance? If not why not.
Chris n TJ
If you dont want the dog, then re-home it properly
Paying for food, etc. is not mentioned so I imagine they are already doing that. But a vet bill is different and you should pay for it.
Ask them to check it out with you each time they feel it needs the Vet. An emergency would be obvious so they can surely be allowed to make that decision themselves - but your dog, you pay.
If it was time, and you did not discuss bills, I think you should pay.
If it was money, surely the cost of food, and presumably other bills, was discussed before your dog went to stay with your parents in law?
Whatever you decide, talk to the parents in law urgently so you all know what should happen from now on.
Perhaps you can negotiate with them for instalment payments, or ask for some of the bills to be paid by them in lieu of Christmas presents for your family?
Good Luck.
I really don't see the dilemma.
The dog ?, poisoning from one of their country walks/runs seems to be the cause, but cannot be certain and now he appears to be on the mend.
When taking on someone else's pet, it should be said clearly and distinctly who would be responsible for costs incurred even though it is the owners pet.
In defence of the owners, I think you need to distinguish between looking after the dog temporarily because (eg) they are going on holiday, and taking over the pet because the owners can no longer afford to keep it.
In the first case the vet bills would be unarguably down to the original owners; in the second case it's more difficult. What's the point of handing over the pet to someone else if the cost actually escalates (due to apparently over-zealous vet visits) as a result?
A final point - who is currently paying for the animal's food? By extension, the same person should pay for the vet bills.