Section 75 - Vets

kangaroo67

Hello, 

Has anyone here had experience of using section 75 with a veterinary practice? 

One of our pets went in to the local vets for treatment, and whilst he was there sustained injuries which have cost around £3-4000 to treat with a specialist elsewhere.
I tried to raise with my bank on the basis that the service to be provided was to provide a duty of care and not to cause other injuries.
The bank declined the request as they say they cannot assist where the dispute relates to a standard of service provided because they cannot sit in judgement on the erits of the claim or arbitrate between the parties involved. They say they are only able to get involved if the retailer is unwilling to provide goods or services.

My understanding was that the bank would be jointly liable as this was paid for on a credit card and the unrelated treatment for the first visit was around £1000.
We do not have any insurance that will cover this.

Any advice or similar scenarios would be welcome.

[Deleted User]

This isn't one for section 75. It's better suited to small claims.

MarvinDay

I can't think of any reason why S75 wouldn't apply but bear in mind that if the card issuer won't do anything and you took it to the financial ombudsman, you would still need to show that the original veterinary practice was negligent or didn't provide the required duty of care and to do this you would probably need a report confirming this from the specialist now treating your pet. 

cx6

Although section 75 does provide some remedy for consequential loss, it might be well to start with what you are actually alleging.

Are you saying the vet acted with professional negligence and it was this that caused your pet's injuries? If so, you might be best claiming against the vet and their professional negligence insurance policy.

Or are you saying it was not negligent but eg an accident? If so you have no claim against the vet and will have to pay for treatment yourself in the same way as if the pet had had an accident elsewhere.

On a personal note can I say well done for looking after the pet even though the cost seems to be horrendous for you.

kangaroo67

Deleted_User said:

This isn't one for section 75. It's better suited to small claims.

Thanks for the reply. Out of interest, what would make you think that? 
Is it not the case that the credit card company would be equally liable here or do you think I interpreting this in the wrong way? 

If the only scenario where section 75 kicks in is where something isn't received, it's less powerful than I had initially thought.

[Deleted User]

The card company shares liability, but it's an impractical way of dealing with it. You'd be asking the card company to do the research with the vets to establish liability - if the vets are aren't being forthcoming with you, they won't be forthcoming with the card company. So the claim would inevitably be declined as the card company has no expertise in animal care.

Better to take the direct route and deal with the vets yourself.

powerful_Rogue

Any thoughts @born_again ?

cx6

Also, did you pay the bill with your credit card AFTER you know about the problems ie when it came to take your pet home? This might also act against S75 being possible, as at that point you knew there was a problem.

kangaroo67

cx6 said:

Although section 75 does provide some remedy for consequential loss, it might be well to start with what you are actually alleging.

Are you saying the vet acted with professional negligence and it was this that caused your pet's injuries? If so, you might be best claiming against the vet and their professional negligence insurance policy.

Or are you saying it was not negligent but eg an accident? If so you have no claim against the vet and will have to pay for treatment yourself in the same way as if the pet had had an accident elsewhere.

On a personal note can I say well done for looking after the pet even though the cost seems to be horrendous for you.

Thanks. Yeah the costs are insane, but ultimately it's the right and responsible thing to do. The financial aspects come second to that.

On this, I would allege that the vet acted negligently and the insurance route is perhaps something to push.
I do worry though that they have more manpower to do everything possible not to pay out (that's what they are paid for I suppose) - and just wondered if I could legitimately leverage S75 to add some weight. Like a lot of disputes, I'm well aware that  legal fees can often end up being so prohibitive that it's just not worth bothering - but that doesn't feel an acceptable outcome either.

I didn't think the way the bank automatically declined it was necessarily right and unfortunately at the moment I feel I have to question everything!  

kangaroo67

cx6 said:

Also, did you pay the bill with your credit card AFTER you know about the problems ie when it came to take your pet home? This might also act against S75 being possible, as at that point you knew there was a problem.

Great question - no. Paid for by phone and then had him brought out to me (COVID rules and all...)

sheramber

Have you lodged a complaint with the vet practice?  I would think that would be the first step.