My Vets Advice and Bill

FeaturelessVoid

Your claim makes very little sense.

Why would a vet deliberately try to fleece you under the circumstances?

If they could rack up the charges for an insurer, that's one thing, but in this instance they have racked up the charges against a customer with no means to repay (or certainly an unwillingness to repay) who they now have to take through the legal system (probably flogging it to a DCA for pennies in the pound)?  Why would they do this?

Their offer to deal with the insurer direct is no different than medical insurance.  It doesn't mean they're limited to only what the insurer will pay out.  First and foremost their duty is to your animal, and keeping it alive/curing it and you should have made it clear if that you were unwilling to pay for anything that wouldn't be covered outside that.

Personally, I'd be nothing other than thankful for the effort put into preserving the life of my dog, rather than putting a monetary value on its life, but some of us are animal lovers and others see them as playthings I guess.

Undervalued

adcenv said:

Appreciate all the views.  My point is this.  We took the dog in and planned to deal with our insurers direct.  Until our vets gave us their professional advice that they could take it over for us.  Then we believed they were dealing with it, and wouldnt be carrying out work we were not covered for before checking for us.  If we had just carried on as we intended we would have discovered we were not covered. 

Im not disputing their care and certianly would have paid for the overnight rehydration...but not another 3 days of 24/7 giving my 13 year old dog paracetomol, anti sickness tablets to the tune of £700 a day...I could and did do that for 6 weeks.

Any insurance will only pay for what is necessary. If you could have provided part of the "treatment" yourself at no cost then that part is not a valid insurance claim. You cannot, with any insurance claim, just run up a bill because "the insurance will pay".

Ergates

Aylesbury_Duck said:

adcenv said:

I appreciate everyones comments and taking the time to reply.  Ill be taking this to small claims court.  Its out of principle.  Ill post the decision up here as and when.

Unless I've misunderstood, it's you that owes the vet, so why would you be taking it to court?  What would you be suing for?  Have you paid the debt already?

OP said they'd had a bill from the insurers - so it sounds like the insurers paid the vets and are now wanting to retrieve costs from the OP

elsien

OP also still hasn’t said why the insurers have declined the claim. 

sheramber

Ergates said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

adcenv said:

I appreciate everyones comments and taking the time to reply.  Ill be taking this to small claims court.  Its out of principle.  Ill post the decision up here as and when.

Unless I've misunderstood, it's you that owes the vet, so why would you be taking it to court?  What would you be suing for?  Have you paid the debt already?

OP said they'd had a bill from the insurers - so it sounds like the insurers paid the vets and are now wanting to retrieve costs from the OP

But then he says 

We then took it to vets arbitration which achieved nothing except his parting salvo through mediation being that he was going to pursue this by debt collectors.  

Which implies the vet wasn't paid.
It is unlikely the insurance company paid pot money they were not due to pay.

Rather than  the OP taking the case to small  claims court he intends not to pay and let the debt collection agency take him to court.  Which will lead to a larger bill if he loses, as they will add on their charges.

cx6

I think the OPs misunderstanding is that when the vet says they 'deal with the insurers' they mean submit the claim, give the insurance company any supporting documentation they may request and answer any questions they may have.

What vets do NOT do (and never have done) is ask insurance companies about limits on the policy and level of cover in place.

I don't want to seem harsh, but you signed the consent form and now you owe the money. You could ask if you can set up a payment plan

Ergates

sheramber said:

Ergates said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

adcenv said:

I appreciate everyones comments and taking the time to reply.  Ill be taking this to small claims court.  Its out of principle.  Ill post the decision up here as and when.

Unless I've misunderstood, it's you that owes the vet, so why would you be taking it to court?  What would you be suing for?  Have you paid the debt already?

OP said they'd had a bill from the insurers - so it sounds like the insurers paid the vets and are now wanting to retrieve costs from the OP

But then he says 

We then took it to vets arbitration which achieved nothing except his parting salvo through mediation being that he was going to pursue this by debt collectors.  

Which implies the vet wasn't paid.
It is unlikely the insurance company paid pot money they were not due to pay.

Rather than  the OP taking the case to small  claims court he intends not to pay and let the debt collection agency take him to court.  Which will lead to a larger bill if he loses, as they will add on their charges.

Yes, you're right.    It's all very confusing then.   

Who is taking who to small claims...?

Undervalued

Ergates said:

sheramber said:

Ergates said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

adcenv said:

I appreciate everyones comments and taking the time to reply.  Ill be taking this to small claims court.  Its out of principle.  Ill post the decision up here as and when.

Unless I've misunderstood, it's you that owes the vet, so why would you be taking it to court?  What would you be suing for?  Have you paid the debt already?

OP said they'd had a bill from the insurers - so it sounds like the insurers paid the vets and are now wanting to retrieve costs from the OP

But then he says 

We then took it to vets arbitration which achieved nothing except his parting salvo through mediation being that he was going to pursue this by debt collectors.  

Which implies the vet wasn't paid.
It is unlikely the insurance company paid pot money they were not due to pay.

Rather than  the OP taking the case to small  claims court he intends not to pay and let the debt collection agency take him to court.  Which will lead to a larger bill if he loses, as they will add on their charges.

Yes, you're right.    It's all very confusing then.   

Who is taking who to small claims...?

The vet presumably (or a company acting on their behalf) . If the OP refuses to pay the vet / debt management company will have to go to court and obtain judgement before they can enforce anything.

cx6

I would imagine that most (all) vets are used to people who cannot or won't pay and have the necessary procedures in place to pursue the debts.

Equally, I am sure they can help in terms of spreading the costs etc.

Undervalued

cx6 said:

I would imagine that most (all) vets are used to people who cannot or won't pay and have the necessary procedures in place to pursue the debts.

Equally, I am sure they can help in terms of spreading the costs etc.

Indeed.

There was an interesting and lengthy article in the Guardian (I think) a few weeks ago. Apparently significant numbers of vets are leaving the profession due to the unreasonable demands of owners, some of whom become verbally and occasionally physically abusive. Despite that they have legal obligations to the animal which sometimes prevents them from refusing to deal with that owner / client again.

Considering the academic excellence required to even start the lengthy training, it is not particularly well paid compared to other professions.