Section 75 - Vets

porkisnotmeat

kangaroo67 said:

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!  

Presumably, you're referring to their insurance here.

Worth pointing out that credit card companies also have more manpower to do everything possible to not pay out, and they are likely to do so for a claim in the thousands.  The FOS can only force them to investigate if they're refusing to deal with it for no good reason, but they won't get involved in the merits of the claim itself, they don't have the expertise to do so.

Realistically I suspect you're going to be up against an experienced solicitor in court whether you pursue the vet directly or the card company, you'll just get an outcome (be that a win or a loss) faster if you go after the vet.

Ditzy_Mitzy

Is this correct?

Pet was taken to first vet, who charged £1,000 for carrying out a procedure of some sort.
First vet injured the pet.  You decided that first vet should carry out no further work on the animal and took it to second vet.
Second vet fixed the damage and charged you £3,000 for the privilege.  

If so, what are you looking to do: not pay first vet £1,000 for the work that caused the injury; have first vet cough up for second vet's work; both?  

born_again

powerful_Rogue said:

Any thoughts @born_again ?

Thanks 👍👍
Should be no need for any card involvement. Would agree with the bank. Due to bill being paid afterwards & this is not a breech of contract or misrepresentation. S75 does not cover duty of care and not to cause other injuries. This should be the veterinary practice where the injuries were sustained that is paying for the other treatment.
Was this raised with them at the time as a complaint & what are they going to do? Really one for some legal advice.

If Op wants they can complain & let it go to FOS, but really would not hold out much hope. 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/somethings-gone-wrong-with-a-purchase/complaining-about-misconduct-or-negligence-vets/

I would also make sure you have pet ins going forward. I know it's not cheap. Our is 2 x £200 a year. But It's as much for 3rd party cover as anything else. Just think how much damage a dog can do if it runs into the road & there is a resulting accident.

porkisnotmeat

born_again said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Any thoughts @born_again ?

Thanks 👍👍
Should be no need for any card involvement. Would agree with the bank. Due to bill being paid afterwards & this is not a breech of contract or misrepresentation. S75 does not cover duty of care and not to cause other injuries. This should be the veterinary practice where the injuries were sustained that is paying for the other treatment.
Was this raised with them at the time as a complaint & what are they going to do? Really one for some legal advice.

If Op wants they can complain & let it go to FOS, but really would not hold out much hope. 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/somethings-gone-wrong-with-a-purchase/complaining-about-misconduct-or-negligence-vets/

I would also make sure you have pet ins going forward. I know it's not cheap. Our is 2 x £200 a year. But It's as much for 3rd party cover as anything else. Just think how much damage a dog can do if it runs into the road & there is a resulting accident.

Being a paid member of Dogs Trust (£25 a year) gives you £1m of 3rd party cover per claim.

bris

First off you need to prove liability, like any procedure there is always a risk.

Second, the pet is classed as goods as far as the law is concerened so technically you should have given the first VET the chance to put it right before takling it elswhere.

Of course pets are not toasters but the law treats them the same way.

Manxman_in_exile

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Is this correct?

Pet was taken to first vet, who charged £1,000 for carrying out a procedure of some sort.
First vet injured the pet.  You decided that first vet should carry out no further work on the animal and took it to second vet.
Second vet fixed the damage and charged you £3,000 for the privilege.  

If so, what are you looking to do: not pay first vet £1,000 for the work that caused the injury; have first vet cough up for second vet's work; both?  

This is what I don't understand either.

If the fees from the initial treatment from the first vet cost £1000, and that initial treatment can be shown to have been "unsatisfactory", then I don't see why the OP wouldn't have a s75 claim against their card provider for that £1000

But if the OP is saying that the first vet caused injury to the dog that cost £3000 to have put right by a second vet, I don't think there would be a s75 claim there to recover the £3000.  Surely the OP would be looking at suing the first vet in court for negligence?

(I understand the "equal liability" bit in s75 to refer to refunds etc for faulty goods or substandard services on a contractual basis.  I don't think s75 means that a bank could be liable for a "trader's" negligence beyond whatever is paid on the contract.  But maybe I'm wrong... )

Sandtree

born_again said:

Should be no need for any card involvement. Would agree with the bank. Due to bill being paid afterwards & this is not a breech of contract or misrepresentation. S75 does not cover duty of care and not to cause other injuries. This should be the veterinary practice where the injuries were sustained that is paying for the other treatment.
Was this raised with them at the time as a complaint & what are they going to do? Really one for some legal advice.

If Op wants they can complain & let it go to FOS, but really would not hold out much hope. 

Arguably there should never be a need for any card involvement but S75 is there because not every company does what it should etc (though we have shared views on the appropriateness of S75 in the modern world @born_again)

I would have strongly thought that the vet providing reasonable care of the animal whilst its in their possession is a part of the contract and therefore a failure to do so would be a breach of contract. 

If you look at Decision Reference DRN3493151 (financial-ombudsman.org.uk) it states that implicitly there is a duty of care in all contracts and as such a failure of that care is a breach of contract. The case isnt upheld however because the cause of the loss was the customer's actions not the merchants but the Ombudsman doesnt agree that duty of care isnt covered by S75.

There are many other cases on duty of care and S75 and not in one of them do they state S75 wouldnt cover duty of care... though like all complaints, most are turned down... normally because the customer has failed to sufficiently evidence the failure or the link between the failure and the outcome (as the above)

sheramber

The OP will have to prove negligence. At the moment he considers it negligence. 

Did the second vet confirm that it was negligence ? That would be the strongest proof but it is very difficult to get a vet to criticise. another vet.

Has the OP complained to the first vet and asked him   to pay the bill for the second vet?

 Has he reported the vet to the  RCVS?

From his post he has gone straight to the bank without trying any other avenue.

kangaroo67

Thanks all for the replies. 

To clarify a few questions - first vet couldn’t put it right as it required a referral to a specialist so they weren’t deprived of the opportunity, as such. 

My aim was to seek costs for both. 

Re “There are always risks” - the outcome was a broken leg which was never a reasonable risk or anticipated outcome if that makes sense - not like sedation where it’s feasible the animal may not come back round.. 

Yes a complaint has been lodged with the vet, but hasn’t resulted in agreement to reimburse costs so both routes tried in parallel. I have paperwork I believe can support negligence, but I don’t want to post full details surrounding it online at this stage (I was looking for advice on s75 and this thread has been both interesting and helpful). Second vet has provided useful details but not explicitly stated it is negligence - as suggested, it does put them in a difficult position and arguably passing comment like that isn’t the job they signed up to do. 

There was also suggestion of RCVS. Should that avenue be pursued prior to a letter before claim (and action) or would it be deemed reasonable to do both in parallel if it got to that stage? I don’t believe RCVS can force financial decisions but I will certainly look into it  

A number of valid points raised and the decision reference in one of these posts was also very interesting. Thanks again for the input. 

Ms_Chocaholic

What did your dog go to the vet for initially, you can be vague-ish but just so we can get an idea.

Do you have pet insurance, would that cover the vet fees for the broken leg?