PDSA change of policy

gettingready

I used to be on over 40k per year in my previous job, till Dec last year, then 6 months on JSA and now work full time as a temp fopr lesss than a 1/3 of my previous income with "normal" expenses (travel into central London) much higher than before.

I have just re-insured my cats (my daughter will pay for that on a "loan" basis as I REALLY can not afford it), dog has always ben insured - got 6 cats and a dog.

I am absolutely struggling, have practically nothing left every week and debts too.

Yet I know a lot of people "on benefits" who live the life that I did not even have on 40+ salary as they know how to play the system.

The guidance about "qualifying benefits" is idiotic - sorry. I do not mean PDSA - I mean in general.

Still, I did not use PDSA when I was on benefits and now I do not qualify. I really believe this should be facility for people in REAL need and I would feel awful tu use their limited resources when I can (almost) find other ways to look after the pets that I have got (or which landed on me in a way)without taking away from PDSA.

I feel they should refuse to look after pets (any pets) that are not microchipped and neutered too. And guidance as on "benefits" - that should be looked into.. Weere the pets acquired BEFORE a person ended up on benefits or while they were on benefits? That could be a clue....

spookylukey

gettingready wrote: »

I feel they should refuse to look after pets (any pets) that are not microchipped and neutered too.

What a brilliant idea! :T I seriously think you should suggest that to them as a policy they could introduce. Rescues and animal charities are over-run because people do not neuter their animals and I dread to think how many cats and dogs are lost and then rehomed through a rescue due to not being microchipped and unable to trace the owner.

gettingready

Nobody who has a pet and is unable to look after it from his/her own means without having to resort to using charity vates ahould be allowed to have unneutered animal of any kind.

And yes, I really feel very strongly about harities having a right to PUSH neutering pets onto their owners.

Still, it is not poor pet's fault to end up with stupid owners so I guess they (pets) should not be punished.

I really do nto know what the solution here may be.

I never planned to have 6 cats - ended up having 6 (and my dog) as I just could not refuse to take on the last 2 from my ex, they would have ended up in a shelter otherwise.

And I know it is not only me in a position of having more pets than we "planned" for. Some of us just seem to attract them to come/end up with us and once they are here - they are our responsibility.

I am looking around at my 7 (dog and 6 cats) and yes, lots of people will say I have too many, I live in a flat , I work etc etc .. BUT they are happy and looked after to the best of my ability at any given moment.

I do not go out, I do not buy clothes, I do not have holidays.. People are absolutely shocked when I tell them what it costs me per month to look after my pets (food, litter, insurancem, worming, flea treatment, dog walker/sitter while I am at work) and everyone meaning well of course suggests I "rehome" some of them.. But I can not.

I come home after work to a flat that absolutely stinks (6 cats, all day,litter trays - imagine) but they all come to greet me at the door and within an hour I can sort of breathe in and out (after cleaning the trays LOL) and all is fine.....

I do not know what PDSA really can do for people not to abuse the system, for pets that need it to be able to use the service but I do not feel looking at benefits entilement ONLY is the solution.

Lots of working people are much worse off financially than people who do not and they still manage to look after their pets as they put them first..

Sorry, I am mumbling rambling blah blah - must be the heat...

Fire_Fox

Runningbackwards wrote: »

The above type of person is so deserving of help from the PDSA, yet they will in future not be covered :mad: Peoples circumstances can change drastically, and especially for someone with a long term illness/disability savings quickly run out, and as the above post shows, benefits can be swallowed paying for essential care. If this posters mother had 3 cross breeds they would be covered, but not 2 pedigrees - it just makes no sense. I can see animals being put to sleep as potentially owners will not be able to afford the veterinary care, even with the best will and budgeting in the world, especially for long term illnesses

All you folks who are ranting about other people being able to "afford" more animals than you - be thankful that you are able to work, and are not afflicted by some life altering disease such as MS.

I can only work part time due to my health and have taken prescription medication for many years; unlike Risingfromtheashes I manage to work part-time because of sensible financial decisions made when I was well. The system is not set up to allow single people to work part-time or accept temporary contracts, be that because it's the fastest route back into work after redundancy or for health reasons.

Crack on and pay £130 a month service charges/ ground rent out of £65 a week JSA and still eat, or your London mortgage plus service charges for three months on the £6K savings the state allows. Research how (financial) stress affects immune function, and think of RFTA's immune system. Why should we not feel disenfranchised by the state and charities pretending single people don't exist? Do you think of the starving children in Africa every time you run out of milk?

The reality is that the people bleeding the PDSA dry are not the tiny percentage who are on long term sick and have two pedigree dogs over the age of 11 (can be insured before then). It's those who come on MSE saying they are 'entitled' to use the PDSA for their pregnant b1tch or pair of kittens. I have no doubt those same people make the same boasts in the PDSA about breeding as they make in the Jobcentre and on Gumtree.

Most households - even on benefits - can afford pet insurance, in fact many realise they can't afford not to be insured. Here in a very deprived Yorkshire city the monthly premium for a single adult cat is ~£6, IIRC Gettingready who is in London has just insured hers for ~£10 per month per cat - both of these are 'for life' with AXA and Argos platinum.

Healthy animals are already being PTS because people didn't plan ahead and circumstances have changed. Potentially this policy will reduce that as more people choose not to purchase a pedigree they cannot afford or neuter rather than see their b1tch or queen as $$$. It's nonsensical to have Cats Protection handing out vouchers for neutering, while the PDSA props up backstreet breeding and both organisations struggle to cope. Do you have an alternative?

vax2002 wrote: »

The PDSA have one of the highest paid boards of directors of any UK charity, they have repeatedly refused to disclose the saleries of the directors other than in general expenditure terms.

You seriously think paying a handful of directors less would prop the whole charity up? It hasn't occurred to you that those people have been appointed for their business acumen, contacts and connections? That they might raise far more money than they cost?

Runningbackwards wrote: »

I feel they should refuse to look after pets (any pets) that are not microchipped and neutered too. And guidance as on "benefits" - that should be looked into.. Weere the pets acquired BEFORE a person ended up on benefits or while they were on benefits? That could be a clue....

I absolutely agree in theory, but how do you enforce it and what age limit do you insist upon? That would mean puppies and kittens for sale could be given free treatment just not the b1tch or queen. According to my vet it's difficult to tell whether a female cat has been spayed; having established by physical exam Lulu is not obviously carrying kittens she suggested waiting to see if she goes into season. :eek: Plus some older animals will not be fit to undergo the operation, and who pays for the neutering when the owner is already claiming to be in hardship?

There is no way of the PDSA proving when ownership started, unless the animal was already microchipped or insured. AFAIK the PDSA don't have access to other vets notes or DWP records, and it would be very time consuming (= expensive) to check up on everyone. It's a lot cheaper just to turn away obvious pedigrees.

rising_from_the_ashes

Fire_Fox wrote: »

I can only work part time due to my health and have taken prescription medication for many years; unlike Risingfromtheashes I manage to work part-time because of sensible financial decisions made when I was well. The system is not set up to allow single people to work part-time or accept temporary contracts

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Research how (financial) stress affects immune function, and think of RFTA's immune system. Why should we not feel disenfranchised by the state and charities pretending single people don't exist?

This is a bit off topic, however, single people do seem to be invisible to practically everyone (supermarkets with their BOGOF on fresh goods, politicians etc) despite the fact we're the highest growing population of the country.

I have tried to get DLA - and was turned down (at the hearing and appeal) - the reasons cited were that:

• as I managed to work full time - it can't be that bad and
• as I lived by myself, there was no-one to help me at home so how would it help anyway

This is despite DLA supposedly not being in any way related to whether you work, or whether you live by yourself (or not).

I had letters of support detailing my conditions and how they do (and will in the future) affect me, as well as representation from the local Welfare Rights team.

To be perfectly blunt, I would probably be better packing in work and being made homeless (therefore forcing the state to support me) - however, this isn't the type of person I am.

So, forgive me if I seem a bit harsh - however, a system that lets some people (I am not in any way disputing the fact that there are people who genuinely need the benefits system) sit on their backsides their entire lives and get the roof over their head paid for, free loft/cavity wall insulation etc - as well as all their dentistry, prescriptions, eye tests, glasses and pet treatment as well is simply not sustainable and it's quite frankly not right.


On the subject of low cost neutering - I am positive that if this was available to everyone then it would cut down on the huge numbers of unwanted pups/kittens and this would surely have more benefit to all charities such as PDSA, RSPCA as well as the countless rescues, then only giving them to those on "qualifying" benefits.

gettingready

Oh dear - just looked at my post from yesterday and the amount of typos... sorry LOL

Was just thinking - about difficulty to establish if a female cat/dog is neutered. My loyt have that info on their microchip details AND on their collar tags too.

If microchiping was compulsory, this could be recorded against the microchip.....

And do not even get me started about single people on benefits/low income, I mean the genuine ones...

I have made a BIG mistake of going off JSA and taking on THIS job - total financial diseaster. And the job is temporary/ongoing. I get no benefits with it whatsoever, dread getting ill, being late etc etc. Getting paid peanuts (by London norms and by my previous income) per hour and.. I wish I never took it. Keep on looking though....sigh

Fire_Fox

gettingready wrote: »

Was just thinking - about difficulty to establish if a female cat/dog is neutered. My loyt have that info on their microchip details AND on their collar tags too.

If microchiping was compulsory, this could be recorded against the microchip.....

And do not even get me started about single people on benefits/low income, I mean the genuine ones...

Good idea! :T

donnap83

If mum had a crystal ball, i'm sure she'd have checked it before buying the dogs. However, no one knew she had MS at the time. It would be like me saying 'hang on, i might get MS in the future, i'd best not buy a dog/cat'

Those dog's are everything to her. Had she been diagnosed prior to getting the dogs, things would be different. She'd still have got a dog, but only one, for companionship. And hopefully she would have been in a position to pay for insurance herself.

Hindsight is a lovely thing...

aloise

We are now eligible for care from the pdsa as we are now in our 70s and claim some council tax benefit. We've both worked for over 50 years ( I worked till i was 67 and dh till he was 72 ) and always had our pets insured. However our pets are old now and the insurers don't want to know so thank god we are eligible for help from the pdsa.
However i totally agree with their change of policy.I have seen young people with large pedigree dogs who are breeding them and still claiming free treatment.They openly brag about the hundreds of pounds they make on the animals.And their treatment is free as they won't make a donation to them.
I think the PDSA should go further and charge everybody at least £5 plus medication to be seen.Once you have paid vet bills you wouldn't begrudge £5 or £10 for your pets health.

rising_from_the_ashes

aloise wrote: »

We are now eligible for care from the pdsa as we are now in our 70s and claim some council tax benefit. We've both worked for over 50 years ( I worked till i was 67 and dh till he was 72 ) and always had our pets insured. However our pets are old now and the insurers don't want to know so thank god we are eligible for help from the pdsa.
However i totally agree with their change of policy.I have seen young people with large pedigree dogs who are breeding them and still claiming free treatment.They openly brag about the hundreds of pounds they make on the animals.And their treatment is free as they won't make a donation to them.
I think the PDSA should go further and charge everybody at least £5 plus medication to be seen.Once you have paid vet bills you wouldn't begrudge £5 or £10 for your pets health.

IMHO you and DH are exactly the type of people that the PDSA should be helping - if they cut down on the "scroungers" who "use and abuse the system" (as you also mention), it would mean that they could help more people who genuinely need it.

I think a £5 to £10 charge would be fair - however, some medication can be very expensive so this may still be a struggle for some people.