Gobsmacked by RCVS reply

hachette

PennyGSD wrote: »

Reminds of one of my favourite films - A Few Good Men

"I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider."

Sounds like Hachette is hoping the RCVS will reconsider because of her strenuous objections.

Asked and answered. End of.

Very amusing. The fact. RCVS will never reconsider because they have a power not to reconsider. It has taken me over 1 year but now I know where I stand and most of pet owners whose pets died due to the vet’s negligence.

MothballsWallet

At the risk of getting my post deleted, I'm surprised the vet in question hasn't instructed her own lawyer to contact hachette regarding this matter because some of what she's said may put her on shaky legal ground...

hachette

MothballsWallet wrote: »

At the risk of getting my post deleted, I'm surprised the vet in question hasn't instructed her own lawyer to contact hachette regarding this matter because some of what she's said may put her on shaky legal ground...

Just wondered what I have said that may put me on shaky legal ground? Could you make it more clear please?

Money-Saving-King

hachette wrote: »

Just wondered what I have said that may put me on shaky legal ground? Could you make it more clear please?

You're still saying she's 'negligent vet' and shouldn't be working but the RCVS disagrees.

hachette

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

You're still saying she's 'negligent vet' and shouldn't be working but the RCVS disagrees.

The fact that she was negligent was supported by the forensic vet reoprt. That is a fact. If RCVS think she should still be working well thay have a power to say so sadly. Negligent she was and proof is my hand meaning the report.

Money-Saving-King

hachette wrote: »

The fact that she was negligent was supported by the forensic vet reoprt. That is a fact. If RCVS think she should still be working well thay have a power to say so sadly. Negligent she was and proof is my hand meaning the report.

The wording though is "would demonstrate inexperience" not negligence. It also say's "in my view" so that's only one persons opinion.

imoneyop

hachette wrote: »

The fact that she was negligent was supported by the forensic vet reoprt. That is a fact. If RCVS think she should still be working well thay have a power to say so sadly. Negligent she was and proof is my hand meaning the report.

What gives your "forensic vet" the power to decide another vet is negligent? Who is he that he has such power - he is just another vet who has decided to give himself a pompus title and set up a website to get fees from suckers like you.

The vet's regulatory organisation has decided that she was not neglegent - they are the ones with the expertise.

Undervalued

hachette wrote: »

Negligent she was and proof is my hand meaning the report.

No, you don't have proof you have a professional opinion.

Now it may be be correct, I don't know, but it doesn't become "proof" simply because it says what you want to read.

Undervalued

hachette wrote: »

Originally I was going to take my case to the court myself however through the advice that I have received here by some nice people I have decided to get a lawyer and that I have done. My insurer’s legal team are dealing with this now.

I'm probably going to regret asking this but what legal action are they taking (or you are hoping they will take)?

Somehow I doubt normal legal expenses insurance would cover seeking a Judicial Review of the RCVS's decision which they would fight tooth and nail.

So, I can only assume you are suing the vet for damages in the County Court?

If so, you might very well get some compensation (without admission of liability) but it won't be a great deal and it won't in any way give you the "justice" you seem determined to seek.

Your legal insurance will require you to accept a reasonable offer to settle. The vet's insurers will rely on the RCVS decision but may well offer some some small settlement as it is cheaper than fighting. It will have a confidentiality clause attached. Reject the offer and your insurers will walk away, you will be on you own and at significant risk of paying costs if you lose or are awarded less.

The chance of it ever getting to court is slim. Even if it did a County Court judgement sets no precedent.

OK, it might put a few quid in your bank account but it won't give you "justice".

Money-Saving-King

imoneyop wrote: »

What gives your "forensic vet" the power to decide another vet is negligent? Who is he that he has such power - he is just another vet who has decided to give himself a pompus title and set up a website to get fees from suckers like you.

Exactly. Otherwise who would go to the RCVS if this forensic vet is much better?