PDSA change of policy

paulofessex

The PDSA are sending out letters advising that they are changing the policy so people can only register and receive treatment for one pedigree cat/dog and as from Jully 2011 any second or third animal must me a crossbreed or smaller animal i.e. Rabbit, Budgies etc.

If people with 2-3 pedigree animals are already registered they will honour the current registration period plus one more period. There are exceptions if your pet requires daily/weekly treatment etc.

They say that this change has been made in helping the PDSA educate the public that they should make sensible decisions about the types and number of pets they acquire. Also both PDSA staff and users of the service have voiced concerns about the number of pedigree animals being presented for treatment especially as a large proportion of these pets are purchased at considerable expense. They also believe that people are choosing to have pedigree animals as a lifestyle choice.

The letter is quite lengthly and l haven't typed it word for word.

Runningbackwards_2

I think that is awful - I don't use their services, but have supported them by fundraising and donating for many years. So what happens when a person's circumstances change and they need to rely on the services the PDSA offers - which is the reason they exist - but they have 2 or 3 (or more) pedigree animals, purchased when they were in a position to afford them? Or what if they take on animals from rescue centres/breed rescue societies which happen to be pedigrees?

I will be writing to object to this change of policy - it goes completely against sense - and if they persist with this policy will consider making my donations elsewhere :mad:

paulofessex

Runningbackwards wrote: »

I think that is awful - I don't use their services, but have supported them by fundraising and donating for many years. So what happens when a person's circumstances change and they need to rely on the services the PDSA offers - which is the reason they exist - but they have 2 or 3 (or more) pedigree animals, purchased when they were in a position to afford them? Or what if they take on animals from rescue centres/breed rescue societies which happen to be pedigrees?

I will be writing to object to this change of policy - it goes completely against sense - and if they persist with this policy will consider making my donations elsewhere :mad:

I also do not agree with this new policy. My understanding is that support is available to those in receipt of certain benefits and you have to provide proof as such. They should instead make all attempts to stop those people who claim a pet is theirs because they are on benefits when the true owner is not.

I too will be writing to raise my concerns PDSA PetAid Office, 18 Fawcett Street, Sunderland SR1 1RH.

Fire_Fox

Runningbackwards wrote: »

I think that is awful - I don't use their services, but have supported them by fundraising and donating for many years. So what happens when a person's circumstances change and they need to rely on the services the PDSA offers - which is the reason they exist - but they have 2 or 3 (or more) pedigree animals, purchased when they were in a position to afford them? Or what if they take on animals from rescue centres/breed rescue societies which happen to be pedigrees?

I will be writing to object to this change of policy - it goes completely against sense - and if they persist with this policy will consider making my donations elsewhere :mad:

I am fully in favour and would be MORE likely to donate as a result. The PDSA have to do this or go under, many smaller rescues have closed their doors in recent months due to the recession. It's brilliant that you fundraise, just a shame that too many see the PDSA as an entitlement rather than an eligibility, and choose to abuse the system. I understand that some are even breeding pedigrees for tax 'exempt' cash income and using the PDSA to maximise their profits.

The vast majority of households can afford pet insurance even if their circumstances change, it's just a matter of adjusting their priorities. Any responsible pet owner has some savings in case of emergency as you generally need to pay vet costs before claiming on the insurance. At the very least pay the premiums for the younger cheaper pets and register the older more expensive one with the PDSA. Those who are really struggling are singletons on benefits or a low income who the government expects to live well below the poverty line. Of these few will have the space to keep multiple pedigree animals anyway. If they do (homeowners) chances are they cannot claim any of the benefits which make one eligible to use the PDSA!

It's hugely irresponsible to adopt new animals if you cannot afford veterinary care. I am fully aware of the benefits of pet ownership to those who have mental health problems or who are lonely, but in those scenarios it is often possible to volunteer, offer long term foster care or adopt a non pedigree animal. You may think that harsh, I am a singleton on a low income (health problems) and know several in the same boat who post on Purrsinourhearts forum.

tankgirl1

Fully agree with FireFox - I've worked at a PDSA petaid practice, and seen people come in with new pups that they paid hundreds of pounds for, even over a grand, asking if this is that free vet place!

Work for a while in a PDSA practice and you may start to understand why they are having to tighten things up a bit.

Becc4

Well done PDSA, discouraging irresponsible owners from acquiring more animals than they can look after, what would happen if the PDSA went out of business, would these hard up owners then find the monies, I think not..
I agree that if your in aposition to spend £££ on an animal then you should spend £££ on insurance.
an earier post said about change in circumstances, every body should think about that before acquiring any animal and factor that into the choice process. I'm sick of seeing year + animals for sale due to ill informed owners being irresponsible etc...
the PDSA does provide a valuable service to those that need it, but should those on benifits think about the true cost of an animal....

an dog is for life not just for christmas, (or while vet fees are free!!)

hcb42

I for one am pleased about this change. In fact, since a situation with them about two years ago, I would not even donate 10p to them on principal.

They were the vet we were sent to by the recorded answering machine at our vets one sat afternoon. TBH I didnt really know what the PDSA did, we just had to go there and be seen. Cat had been savagely attacked by next door's dog, we didnt think he was going to make it. The charges were absolutely disgusting for those of us who have to pay, and it was racking up at an alarming rate. In the end we had to go down and demand they released the cat to us, as we simply could not pay the charges the wway they were racking up. (It was about twice as much per night as an upmarket five star hotel). The police were actually there, not because of us, but because there were others in the same boat. We got cat out, and took him to our vet for about 1/10th of the price. In all it cost me about £1300 for little over 24 hours care, and it was not like they had to do anything like operations or anything. Never again. I think our vet was also quite horrified. It was little more than a money making machine at quite a traumatic time.

So the way they fund these places is by seriously overcharging the paying customer. They will have to go a long way before they see any donation from me again.

(Cat recovered, and I got pet insurance the next week!)

rising_from_the_ashes

Fire_Fox wrote: »

The vast majority of households can afford pet insurance even if their circumstances change, it's just a matter of adjusting their priorities. Any responsible pet owner has some savings in case of emergency as you generally need to pay vet costs before claiming on the insurance. At the very least pay the premiums for the younger cheaper pets and register the older more expensive one with the PDSA. Those who are really struggling are singletons on benefits or a low income who the government expects to live well below the poverty line. Of these few will have the space to keep multiple pedigree animals anyway. If they do (homeowners) chances are they cannot claim any of the benefits which make one eligible to use the PDSA!

tankgirl1 wrote: »

Fully agree with FireFox - I've worked at a PDSA petaid practice, and seen people come in with new pups that they paid hundreds of pounds for, even over a grand, asking if this is that free vet place!

Work for a while in a PDSA practice and you may start to understand why they are having to tighten things up a bit.

I'm going to agree with Fire Fox and Tankgirl.

I am single, work full time but am classed as being "low income" - yet I am entitled to absolutely nothing benefits wise (and therefore many other things).

Yet, I know people who are on benefits who get more than my gross salary but are eligible for PDSA, free dentist work etc.

I was recently told I needed a root filling and crown which was going to be over £400 (with an NHS dentist) - there is no way I can afford this so I ended up having the tooth removed.

Yet, my friend mentioned above has had 4 crowns in the past year, extra insulation put in their house as they get qualifying benefits - all free and gets their vet treatment through PDSA as well as low cost neutering for their 8 cats and 4 dogs etc. They run a car, have a huge flatscreen tv, go on holiday each year etc.

If I can find the £14/month to insure my cats (by sacrificing things like holidays, new tv etc) then others should do the same, or be willing to pay for treatment if it's needed - it's called being responsible and having your priorities right.

Person_one

So people and their animals who are genuinely struggling and in need should be punished for the deeds of others who are irresponsible?

What about the many people who are gainfully employed, rescue a few pedigrees (greyhounds maybe, tons of them in rescues) and then lose their jobs in the recession?

Fire_Fox

Person_one wrote: »

So people and their animals who are genuinely struggling and in need should be punished for the deeds of others who are irresponsible?

Charities don't generally 'punish' their clients, I sincerely doubt this decision was taken lightly. The PDSA is already not helping people and animals that are struggling, because the system revolves around benefits which don't prove that you are actually in trouble financially. I assume the proof of benefits system was introduced for the same reason, widespread abuse of the service.

Fire_Fox wrote: »

I am fully in favour and would be MORE likely to donate as a result. The PDSA have to do this or go under, many smaller rescues have closed their doors in recent months due to the recession. It's brilliant that you fundraise, just a shame that too many see the PDSA as an entitlement rather than an eligibility, and choose to abuse the system. I understand that some are even breeding pedigrees for tax 'exempt' cash income and using the PDSA to maximise their profits.

Person_one wrote: »

What about the many people who are gainfully employed, rescue a few pedigrees (greyhounds maybe, tons of them in rescues) and then lose their jobs in the recession?

Erm ... budgeting like the rest of us? What percentage of redundancies leave someone owning several pedigree rescue dogs, with no savings or redundancy package to pay the annual pet insurance premium? And who don't get a job within a year and don't celebrate birthdays or Christmas?

Fire_Fox wrote: »

The vast majority of households can afford pet insurance even if their circumstances change, it's just a matter of adjusting their priorities. Any responsible pet owner has some savings in case of emergency as you generally need to pay vet costs before claiming on the insurance. At the very least pay the premiums for the younger cheaper pets and register the older more expensive one with the PDSA. Those who are really struggling are singletons on benefits or a low income who the government expects to live well below the poverty line. Of these few will have the space to keep multiple pedigree animals anyway. If they do (homeowners) chances are they cannot claim any of the benefits which make one eligible to use the PDSA!

spookylukey

hcb42 wrote: »

I for one am pleased about this change. In fact, since a situation with them about two years ago, I would not even donate 10p to them on principal.

They were the vet we were sent to by the recorded answering machine at our vets one sat afternoon. TBH I didnt really know what the PDSA did, we just had to go there and be seen. Cat had been savagely attacked by next door's dog, we didnt think he was going to make it. The charges were absolutely disgusting for those of us who have to pay, and it was racking up at an alarming rate. In the end we had to go down and demand they released the cat to us, as we simply could not pay the charges the wway they were racking up. (It was about twice as much per night as an upmarket five star hotel). The police were actually there, not because of us, but because there were others in the same boat. We got cat out, and took him to our vet for about 1/10th of the price. In all it cost me about £1300 for little over 24 hours care, and it was not like they had to do anything like operations or anything. Never again. I think our vet was also quite horrified. It was little more than a money making machine at quite a traumatic time.

So the way they fund these places is by seriously overcharging the paying customer. They will have to go a long way before they see any donation from me again.

(Cat recovered, and I got pet insurance the next week!)

It sounds like you went to the likes of 'Vets Now' who operate out of hours (evening/weekend/bank holiday) emergency care from PDSA vet surgeries. They are a private company and simply use the PDSA surgeries as hosts as they only operate out of hours so you were paying Vets Now rather than the PDSA.

This link is an example, a private vets ie non PDSA that sends it's out of hours clients to a Vets Now clinic run from a PDSA centre.

http://www.abbeyvetgroup.co.uk/vetsnow.htm

It cost me £100 just to walk through the door when my cat was poorly on a Sunday! He's worth every penny though