My Vets Advice and Bill

cx6

Yes, even in All Creatures Great and Small there was a line "it's not the animals that cause us trouble, it's the owners"

MalMonroe

powerful_Rogue said:

adcenv said:

Our dog was being sick and had diarohea...we didnt know how sick.  We had pet insurance which said £3k - we hadnt checked it at that point.  My wife took him in to vets on monday awaiting advice from vet.  At this point we were in the mind of 'if its just antibiotics etc then we will not use our insurance'.  When the blood test came back an indicated it wasnt anything like cancer etc, but that it was likely that he would need to be kept in overnight to rehydrate my wife decided that we should use the insurance and my wife told the lady at the desk that she was going home to get the insurers details and call them.  At this point the lady at the vets said to my very upset wife that ‘the practice could take our insurance forward on our behalf as it had a direct portal with the insurers'.  My wife took this advice on board believing that the vets were acting in our best interests and let them do this for us.  I then arrived at the vets.  Nobody made me aware this advice had been given to my wife.  We both went into see the vet and he then showed ME (not my wife) a consent form outlining POTENTIAL treatment (over £2k).  My wife and I agreed to the vet that we would be using our insurance and I then signed the form.  As I left the vets I said to my wife that we should call our vets and make sure we are covered for all that work before they do it.  To which my wife replied that it wasnt necessary because the vets were dealing with it for us.  4 days later our dog comes out.  One week later we get a bill for £2800 from the insurers of which only £200 is covered.  Our argument is that my wife and I relied on the advice of the vet practice.  Their advice changed our original plans to check with our insurers, and in an upset state we relied on them believing they were best suited to deal with insurers on our behalf, and for our benefit.  Originally we though the insurers were to blame and questioned why they let the work continue when they new we were not covered.  But they advised us that the vets had not checked with them on our behalf and simply put a bill in once our dog had undergone 24/7 care for four days in a vets being rehydrated and given antibiotics and paracetomol.  Our dog came out still sick and we cared for him 24/7 for a further 6 weeks before we had him put down by another vet.  When we questioned our vets as to why they are giving out incomplete, ambiguous and misleading advice at such a traumatic time, and why they had not followed their governing bodies Best Practice to check with the insurers before doing the work, they simply said that 'hadnt told us NOT to call our insurers' so it was our fault.  Then over the course of several letters the vet replied to us in person accusing us of a 'slew of misinformation' because we were questioning the policy and procedure at his practice.  Finally, the vet wrote a really accusational email to us saying that we were wrong and our account was wrong.  He then wrote a timeline of events as he said that happened to prove he was right and we were wrong and discredit us.  But I went to his practice and got the documents and proved that he was completely wrong and totally incorrect.  The then wrote back offering £200 of the bill for his mistake in the letter.  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.  We are thinking about letting this go to court.  Its not right in our opinion.

I ploughed through that huge wall of text, but i'm still none the wiser. What is your actual complaint?

Vets use a sytem called Pawtel to submit information to the insurance company. It's then up to the insurance company whether they accept the claim. You should have checked with your insurance company. This is not the fault of the vets.

That is a brutal response to someone suffering the loss of their beloved pet. I've just lost my beloved pet too and it's absolutely heartbreaking. I can tell you that in no way would I have been capable of 'checking ANYTHING with my insurance company' if I had been told by the vet that they 'would be taking caring of everything' for me.

It is so the fault of the vets. In my experience of my cat's recent illness and death, vets can be very manipulative with upset and grieving owners.

Please, if you cannot be kind to someone at a terrible time like this, just keep your opinion to yourself. 

MalMonroe

powerful_Rogue said:

adcenv said:

Imagine for arguments sake that your old mum walks in, all distressed, with her beloved pet and is told by the vet team...dont you worry ms simpson we will deal with all that nasty old insurance for you...and then send her a £x bill...how would people here feel about that?  Its wrong.  Either give full professional advice.  Or none at all.

I think Ill just rely on a civil court to decide this.  Every person has a duty of care when offering up advice.  By providing professional advice which a reasonable person might rely on is covered by Tort.  

They did exactly what they said they would do. They sent all the paperwork outlining the costs/procedures to the insurance company. It's for the customer to know what cover they have.

By all means let it go to court, I do however think you have a slim to none chance of winning.

Another totally unnecessary and rude response to someone who is grieving the loss of their beloved pet. Please don't, if you can't be kind.

MalMonroe

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.

I'm really so very sorry for the loss of your pet, I've just lost my beloved cat. (And am crying as I type this for both our pets). It is absolutely heartbreaking and if anyone is in their right mind at a time like that then I truly envy them. I certainly wasn't. I'm with you all the way and I deplore the way some people on here are being so brutal, judgemental and downright nasty. But that's what you sometimes get with this forum. (I was reported the other day for making what I thought was a jokey and friendly comment.) 

When I can get my wits about me, I will be complaining about the vet who treated my pet. (Heartless, money-grabbing and other things I'm not prepared to disclose here). I discovered from the internet that you should complain to the practice in the first instance. So that is what I'm going to do. Then complain to the RCVS (of which most vets are members). My advice would be to try to stick to the facts and try not to get too emotional - which is why I'm hanging on a bit as I don't think I can do that just yet. You can probably tell I'm far too emotional. . . 

I read this - https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/i-m-unhappy-with-my-vet-what-are-my-rights-a73oY4o7d4ga

You may find it helpful. 

I don't want any compensation or anything, I just want to let them know what I think of their policies and how I think they could make things better for patients whose pets are at the end of their lives. In my case I have a friend who also had to have her cat put to sleep two months before ours and suffered the same fate at the same vet. Neither of us was impressed with the treatment received. Either by our pet, or us. We just want to tell them that we feel they could do better.

If we have to continue to complain then we will do. One way all vets could help is by giving information about organisations to turn to when a pet has died. 

Sorry to have rambled on but I think you are right to at least let the vets know how you feel and if you think it necessary, to take things further. 

All the very best to you and your wife xx

sheramber

On the other hand I have had 7 dogs over many years, 6 of whom are now gone.  I have used several vet practices and many more vets due to moving around. I have had excellent and supportive treatment from them all. 

powerful_Rogue

MalMonroe said:

powerful_Rogue said:

adcenv said:

Our dog was being sick and had diarohea...we didnt know how sick.  We had pet insurance which said £3k - we hadnt checked it at that point.  My wife took him in to vets on monday awaiting advice from vet.  At this point we were in the mind of 'if its just antibiotics etc then we will not use our insurance'.  When the blood test came back an indicated it wasnt anything like cancer etc, but that it was likely that he would need to be kept in overnight to rehydrate my wife decided that we should use the insurance and my wife told the lady at the desk that she was going home to get the insurers details and call them.  At this point the lady at the vets said to my very upset wife that ‘the practice could take our insurance forward on our behalf as it had a direct portal with the insurers'.  My wife took this advice on board believing that the vets were acting in our best interests and let them do this for us.  I then arrived at the vets.  Nobody made me aware this advice had been given to my wife.  We both went into see the vet and he then showed ME (not my wife) a consent form outlining POTENTIAL treatment (over £2k).  My wife and I agreed to the vet that we would be using our insurance and I then signed the form.  As I left the vets I said to my wife that we should call our vets and make sure we are covered for all that work before they do it.  To which my wife replied that it wasnt necessary because the vets were dealing with it for us.  4 days later our dog comes out.  One week later we get a bill for £2800 from the insurers of which only £200 is covered.  Our argument is that my wife and I relied on the advice of the vet practice.  Their advice changed our original plans to check with our insurers, and in an upset state we relied on them believing they were best suited to deal with insurers on our behalf, and for our benefit.  Originally we though the insurers were to blame and questioned why they let the work continue when they new we were not covered.  But they advised us that the vets had not checked with them on our behalf and simply put a bill in once our dog had undergone 24/7 care for four days in a vets being rehydrated and given antibiotics and paracetomol.  Our dog came out still sick and we cared for him 24/7 for a further 6 weeks before we had him put down by another vet.  When we questioned our vets as to why they are giving out incomplete, ambiguous and misleading advice at such a traumatic time, and why they had not followed their governing bodies Best Practice to check with the insurers before doing the work, they simply said that 'hadnt told us NOT to call our insurers' so it was our fault.  Then over the course of several letters the vet replied to us in person accusing us of a 'slew of misinformation' because we were questioning the policy and procedure at his practice.  Finally, the vet wrote a really accusational email to us saying that we were wrong and our account was wrong.  He then wrote a timeline of events as he said that happened to prove he was right and we were wrong and discredit us.  But I went to his practice and got the documents and proved that he was completely wrong and totally incorrect.  The then wrote back offering £200 of the bill for his mistake in the letter.  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.  We are thinking about letting this go to court.  Its not right in our opinion.

I ploughed through that huge wall of text, but i'm still none the wiser. What is your actual complaint?

Vets use a sytem called Pawtel to submit information to the insurance company. It's then up to the insurance company whether they accept the claim. You should have checked with your insurance company. This is not the fault of the vets.

That is a brutal response to someone suffering the loss of their beloved pet. I've just lost my beloved pet too and it's absolutely heartbreaking. I can tell you that in no way would I have been capable of 'checking ANYTHING with my insurance company' if I had been told by the vet that they 'would be taking caring of everything' for me.

It is so the fault of the vets. In my experience of my cat's recent illness and death, vets can be very manipulative with upset and grieving owners.

Please, if you cannot be kind to someone at a terrible time like this, just keep your opinion to yourself. 

You may think it was brutal, however this is a consumer rights forum and this highlights the OP's consumer rights. Please don't go round telling people what they can and can't post. The vets did not say they 'would be taking care of everything', the OP said 'the practice could take our insurance forward on our behalf as it had a direct portal with the insurers''

Not that it's any of your business, but I am going through the same with my 13 year old cocker spaniel, thus I know how the vets deal via Pawtel by sending the claims direct to the insurance company. He has cancer and 2 months to live yet I still managed to go through my policy and check the inclusions/exclusions etc. Not that it would matter, I would have paid regardless.

powerful_Rogue

MalMonroe said:

powerful_Rogue said:

adcenv said:

Imagine for arguments sake that your old mum walks in, all distressed, with her beloved pet and is told by the vet team...dont you worry ms simpson we will deal with all that nasty old insurance for you...and then send her a £x bill...how would people here feel about that?  Its wrong.  Either give full professional advice.  Or none at all.

I think Ill just rely on a civil court to decide this.  Every person has a duty of care when offering up advice.  By providing professional advice which a reasonable person might rely on is covered by Tort.  

They did exactly what they said they would do. They sent all the paperwork outlining the costs/procedures to the insurance company. It's for the customer to know what cover they have.

By all means let it go to court, I do however think you have a slim to none chance of winning.

Another totally unnecessary and rude response to someone who is grieving the loss of their beloved pet. Please don't, if you can't be kind.

This isn't mumsnet.  If the OP wants to let the matter drag on to court, then he will have additional costs to pay on top. Being honest is not the same as being unkind.

elsien

MalMonroe said:

powerful_Rogue said:

adcenv said:

Our dog was being sick and had diarohea...we didnt know how sick.  We had pet insurance which said £3k - we hadnt checked it at that point.  My wife took him in to vets on monday awaiting advice from vet.  At this point we were in the mind of 'if its just antibiotics etc then we will not use our insurance'.  When the blood test came back an indicated it wasnt anything like cancer etc, but that it was likely that he would need to be kept in overnight to rehydrate my wife decided that we should use the insurance and my wife told the lady at the desk that she was going home to get the insurers details and call them.  At this point the lady at the vets said to my very upset wife that ‘the practice could take our insurance forward on our behalf as it had a direct portal with the insurers'.  My wife took this advice on board believing that the vets were acting in our best interests and let them do this for us.  I then arrived at the vets.  Nobody made me aware this advice had been given to my wife.  We both went into see the vet and he then showed ME (not my wife) a consent form outlining POTENTIAL treatment (over £2k).  My wife and I agreed to the vet that we would be using our insurance and I then signed the form.  As I left the vets I said to my wife that we should call our vets and make sure we are covered for all that work before they do it.  To which my wife replied that it wasnt necessary because the vets were dealing with it for us.  4 days later our dog comes out.  One week later we get a bill for £2800 from the insurers of which only £200 is covered.  Our argument is that my wife and I relied on the advice of the vet practice.  Their advice changed our original plans to check with our insurers, and in an upset state we relied on them believing they were best suited to deal with insurers on our behalf, and for our benefit.  Originally we though the insurers were to blame and questioned why they let the work continue when they new we were not covered.  But they advised us that the vets had not checked with them on our behalf and simply put a bill in once our dog had undergone 24/7 care for four days in a vets being rehydrated and given antibiotics and paracetomol.  Our dog came out still sick and we cared for him 24/7 for a further 6 weeks before we had him put down by another vet.  When we questioned our vets as to why they are giving out incomplete, ambiguous and misleading advice at such a traumatic time, and why they had not followed their governing bodies Best Practice to check with the insurers before doing the work, they simply said that 'hadnt told us NOT to call our insurers' so it was our fault.  Then over the course of several letters the vet replied to us in person accusing us of a 'slew of misinformation' because we were questioning the policy and procedure at his practice.  Finally, the vet wrote a really accusational email to us saying that we were wrong and our account was wrong.  He then wrote a timeline of events as he said that happened to prove he was right and we were wrong and discredit us.  But I went to his practice and got the documents and proved that he was completely wrong and totally incorrect.  The then wrote back offering £200 of the bill for his mistake in the letter.  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.  We are thinking about letting this go to court.  Its not right in our opinion.

I ploughed through that huge wall of text, but i'm still none the wiser. What is your actual complaint?

Vets use a sytem called Pawtel to submit information to the insurance company. It's then up to the insurance company whether they accept the claim. You should have checked with your insurance company. This is not the fault of the vets.

That is a brutal response to someone suffering the loss of their beloved pet. I've just lost my beloved pet too and it's absolutely heartbreaking. I can tell you that in no way would I have been capable of 'checking ANYTHING with my insurance company' if I had been told by the vet that they 'would be taking caring of everything' for me.

It is so the fault of the vets. In my experience of my cat's recent illness and death, vets can be very manipulative with upset and grieving owners.

Please, if you cannot be kind to someone at a terrible time like this, just keep your opinion to yourself. 

And my experience has been completely the opposite. Regardless of how upset you are, it is still your responsibility to check what your insurance covers before making a claim. Whether it's pet, house, car or any other sort and your insurance document makes that clear. 

born_again

Both these statements from the OP.

One week later we get a bill for £2800 from the insurers of which only £200 is covered. 

 The (vets) then wrote back offering £200 of the bill for his mistake in the letter.  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. 

So OP needs to clear this up. Just who is owed the money?

To me it seems ODD that the insurance co would pay the bill upfront to Vets without checking the dog was covered. If it is the Insurance co that the money is owed too, then the way forward is a complaint to them & then if not resolved. It on to FOS for them to look at.

If as per 2nd comment it is the vets that are owed money. Then if they take OP to court over the debt. Can't really see the OP has much chance of winning as the vets provided the treatment. Sadly dog being put down 6 weeks later has no bearing on the debt. 
Not sure that the advise vet gave OP on insurance would make any difference when the vet explains it.

Not even sure why the OP has said
 Ill be taking this to small claims court.  Its out of principle.  Ill post the decision up here as and when.

As they have nothing to claim as they are the ones who owe money to either Vet Or Ins co.
Going to be a long wait for any outcome. Given the current wait times.

pinkshoes

adcenv said:

Imagine for arguments sake that your old mum walks in, all distressed, with her beloved pet and is told by the vet team...dont you worry ms simpson we will deal with all that nasty old insurance for you...and then send her a £x bill...how would people here feel about that?  Its wrong.  Either give full professional advice.  Or none at all.

I think Ill just rely on a civil court to decide this.  Every person has a duty of care when offering up advice.  By providing professional advice which a reasonable person might rely on is covered by Tort.  

If you take this to court it will come down to the interpretation of what "dealing with the insurance" means.

And as most posters have said, "dealing with insurance" means sending off paper work, receipts etc... but has nothing to do with how big you excess is or what your policy covers. That is entirely for the customer to check.

We have 2 dogs and when we use the vets for emergencies, we inform the vets that we do not have insurance so will be paying the bill ourselves. When we previously had insurance, we were fully aware what was and wasn't covered.

I'm intrigued as to why they won't cover it.