Need some advice after our Cat was killed

SergeantBaker

diystarter7 said:

TBagpuss said:

Undervalued said:

diystarter7 said:

Am I the only one that is confused re who pay?

The cat owner did not take the cat to the vet nor ask for treatment.
how on earth does the owner have to pay?

Who authorised the treatment?

Imagine you have a cat, its chipped,  car driver runs over cat and takes it to a vet - the bills comes to 30k, who pays - incredible thread unless I've totally missed the point which I doubt.

I think you have largely missed the point and many of the issue were covered in my post shortly before yours.

The owner of an animal is legally obliged to prevent its suffering, either by arranging for appropriate vet treatment of if they prefer have it humanely put down.

A vet is legally obliged to provide first aid or euthanasia even if the owner can't be identified to authorise or pay for the treatment.

So, as I see it, given that the owner was identified via the microchip (which they chose to have fitted) they are liable for at least the cost of the minimum necessary treatment to comply with the law.

They may have a claim against the car driver but that would depend if it could be proved, on the balance of probabilities that he was at fault. 

Unless the car driver agreed to pay for any vet treatment himself (unlikely) then he is in effect saying to the vet "please do your legal duty".

I don't belive that they would have a  claim agaisnt the driver. Cats and dogs are treated differently under the law. Had it been a dog, the driver might have been liable if itwere shown they were negligent (e.g. driving too fast or without due care) although it's likely that contributory negligence on the part of the owner in allowing their dog to run free would extinguish most, of not all, liability, and the dog owner might be liabke for any damage to the car.

Cats are not expected to be under their owner's control in the same way ut the other side of that is that the driver isn't liable (uless, possibly, they deliberaly ran over the cat) 

If the driver told the vet to do eveything they possibly could then they might be considered to have a contract with the vet and be responsible for anything over basic care. However, as others have said, I think as the owner you would be responsible for the cost of the vet providing basic care and euthanasia.  If you don't have pet insurance then your best bet is probably to try to arrange a payment plan with the vet, and to ask for a breakdown of the bill to see whether there wwas more than the basic minimum required.

Hi

Yep as per my post, cats are treated different to dogs, pigs, cows etc.
I stand by what I have posted - what happens if a cat owner was living hand to mouth or worse as millions are in the uk and lumbered with a 900 bill.
Thanks.

If they can't pay then they can't pay. I don't know why you need to ask more than once. 

sheramber

diystarter7 said:

maisie_cat said:

diystarter7 said:

Tucosalamanca said:

diystarter7 said:

Am I the only one that is confused re who pay?

The cat owner did not take the cat to the vet nor ask for treatment.
how on earth does the owner have to pay?

Who authorised the treatment?

Imagine you have a cat, its chipped,  car driver runs over cat and takes it to a vet - the bills comes to 30k, who pays - incredible thread unless I've totally missed the point which I doubt.

What would you suggest as the alternative? Compulsory insurance for pet owners??

Perhaps you can afford to pay hundreds/thousands authorised on your behalf without your consent but I am certain most people can't and many are already on the breadline

FYI. Anyone who spends money on my behalf without my explicit consent will end up paying for it, trust me.

Thanks

Firstly, no vet is going to run up a 30k bill in these circumstances. Secondly, and more importantly in my view, is the welfare of a sentient being.
Turn it around, if you have a animal, would you prefer them screaming in pain while you give consent or would you tell them to do whatever they needed to do?

Perhaps you are of the view that every cat owner has 990+ plus lying around even when a good proportion of households are in debt, fearing their bills for fuel, and mortgage payments, already behind with their payments and then someone spends an amount that may be easily manageable for you but ask those and others using foodbanks etc.

Turn it around, what would happen to the many cat owners that are in massive debt, fearing eviction, losing their home, not able to feed/clothe their kids and having access to the 900 as mentioned here and it could be easily a lot more

You may be able to fund others spending/agreeing to spend money on your behalf but I'm not and millions could just not pay the
900, never in a life time

Have you not see the deprivation many are living in the last thing they want is a 900 bill that they have no way of paying then the vet chases them, takes them to court and before you know it the 900 has easily doubled with court costs/bailiff letters/etc and where as the family may just have been manging may end up on the street or kids go without

Noy for a second I will accept a third party spends 900 on someone's behalf and the vet/retailer/business expects the owner to pay.

If you can't afford the responsibility of having a cat - or any pet- then you should not have it.

Hence , why rescues are overflowing with pets that owners can no longer afford.

I have my vet's telephone number in my contacts list so I know it is the vet calling.

Would the OP rather the driver had left the cat lying suffering at the side of the road  - there is no law that he should have reported the incident nor that he should go out of his wy to take the cat to a vet.

strawb_shortcake

diystarter7 said:

TBagpuss said:

Undervalued said:

diystarter7 said:

Am I the only one that is confused re who pay?

The cat owner did not take the cat to the vet nor ask for treatment.
how on earth does the owner have to pay?

Who authorised the treatment?

Imagine you have a cat, its chipped,  car driver runs over cat and takes it to a vet - the bills comes to 30k, who pays - incredible thread unless I've totally missed the point which I doubt.

I think you have largely missed the point and many of the issue were covered in my post shortly before yours.

The owner of an animal is legally obliged to prevent its suffering, either by arranging for appropriate vet treatment of if they prefer have it humanely put down.

A vet is legally obliged to provide first aid or euthanasia even if the owner can't be identified to authorise or pay for the treatment.

So, as I see it, given that the owner was identified via the microchip (which they chose to have fitted) they are liable for at least the cost of the minimum necessary treatment to comply with the law.

They may have a claim against the car driver but that would depend if it could be proved, on the balance of probabilities that he was at fault. 

Unless the car driver agreed to pay for any vet treatment himself (unlikely) then he is in effect saying to the vet "please do your legal duty".

I don't belive that they would have a  claim agaisnt the driver. Cats and dogs are treated differently under the law. Had it been a dog, the driver might have been liable if itwere shown they were negligent (e.g. driving too fast or without due care) although it's likely that contributory negligence on the part of the owner in allowing their dog to run free would extinguish most, of not all, liability, and the dog owner might be liabke for any damage to the car.

Cats are not expected to be under their owner's control in the same way ut the other side of that is that the driver isn't liable (uless, possibly, they deliberaly ran over the cat) 

If the driver told the vet to do eveything they possibly could then they might be considered to have a contract with the vet and be responsible for anything over basic care. However, as others have said, I think as the owner you would be responsible for the cost of the vet providing basic care and euthanasia.  If you don't have pet insurance then your best bet is probably to try to arrange a payment plan with the vet, and to ask for a breakdown of the bill to see whether there wwas more than the basic minimum required.

Hi

Yep as per my post, cats are treated different to dogs, pigs, cows etc.
I stand by what I have posted - what happens if a cat owner was living hand to mouth or worse as millions are in the uk and lumbered with a 900 bill.
Thanks.

Who do you think should pay? 

Would you be willing to pay £900 if you were the driver? 

Should the vet absorb the costs? 

Or should a responsible pet owner have insurance or an emergency fund to cover such events? 

As with any bill, you can't pay what you don't have, but pet owners have the ability to mitigate against such unexpected bills either through insurance or savings, if they have neither they wholly hold the risk. 

Some people start go fund me pages for such incidents, I wouldn't donate for a number of reasons but plenty do

CurlySue2017

TBagpuss said:

Cats are not expected to be under their owner's control in the same way ut the other side of that is that the driver isn't liable (uless, possibly, they deliberaly ran over the cat) 

This. 

If you own a cat and let it roam, this is a risk that YOU take.  It's no-one elses problem but yours if something then happens to that cat while it's roaming.  It may sound cold, but to me if you love your pet you don't allow it to roam around alone whether it is legal or not to do so.

Tigsteroonie

I have my vet's telephone number in my contacts list so I know it is the vet calling.

And what if your cat is taken to a different vet practice? I live near three, and my cat is registered at one further away than those (having moved during the cat's life).

I would have the same question if our cat were in an unfortunate accident, taken to a nearby vet, and their life saved but at a high cost. I don't have £900 to spare. We love our cat but not at all costs.

CurlySue2017

Tigsteroonie said:

I have my vet's telephone number in my contacts list so I know it is the vet calling.

And what if your cat is taken to a different vet practice? I live near three, and my cat is registered at one further away than those (having moved during the cat's life).

I would have the same question if our cat were in an unfortunate accident, taken to a nearby vet, and their life saved but at a high cost. I don't have £900 to spare. We love our cat but not at all costs.

Let me ask you this - who do you think should pay?

Undervalued

Tigsteroonie said:

I have my vet's telephone number in my contacts list so I know it is the vet calling.

And what if your cat is taken to a different vet practice? I live near three, and my cat is registered at one further away than those (having moved during the cat's life).

I would have the same question if our cat were in an unfortunate accident, taken to a nearby vet, and their life saved but at a high cost. I don't have £900 to spare. We love our cat but not at all costs.

The situation here was that the owner (quite rightly) had the cat micro chipped but didn't answer the phone when the vet rang the registered number, because they didn't recognise who was calling. With hindsight that was a big mistake.

We don't know what decision they would have made had they answered the call, or what costs would have been involved in doing sufficient tests etc to make an informed decision.

Without wishing to sound harsh, that is something any animal owner should give some thought to in case they find themselves in a similar position.

Like all things there is a balance, I am not suggesting that pet ownership should be restricted to those who can afford (or at least afford the premiums to insure to cover) unlimited "supervet" type treatment. However, an unexpected accident or sudden illness can easily happen, so I feel any owner should be able to cover the basics, either themselves or via insurance.

A thousands pounds really doesn't go far in professional fees these days and the NHS (for all its faults) tends to hide that reality form many people.

diystarter7

sheramber said:

diystarter7 said:

maisie_cat said:

diystarter7 said:

Tucosalamanca said:

diystarter7 said:

Am I the only one that is confused re who pay?

The cat owner did not take the cat to the vet nor ask for treatment.
how on earth does the owner have to pay?

Who authorised the treatment?

Imagine you have a cat, its chipped,  car driver runs over cat and takes it to a vet - the bills comes to 30k, who pays - incredible thread unless I've totally missed the point which I doubt.

What would you suggest as the alternative? Compulsory insurance for pet owners??

Perhaps you can afford to pay hundreds/thousands authorised on your behalf without your consent but I am certain most people can't and many are already on the breadline

FYI. Anyone who spends money on my behalf without my explicit consent will end up paying for it, trust me.

Thanks

Firstly, no vet is going to run up a 30k bill in these circumstances. Secondly, and more importantly in my view, is the welfare of a sentient being.
Turn it around, if you have a animal, would you prefer them screaming in pain while you give consent or would you tell them to do whatever they needed to do?

Perhaps you are of the view that every cat owner has 990+ plus lying around even when a good proportion of households are in debt, fearing their bills for fuel, and mortgage payments, already behind with their payments and then someone spends an amount that may be easily manageable for you but ask those and others using foodbanks etc.

Turn it around, what would happen to the many cat owners that are in massive debt, fearing eviction, losing their home, not able to feed/clothe their kids and having access to the 900 as mentioned here and it could be easily a lot more

You may be able to fund others spending/agreeing to spend money on your behalf but I'm not and millions could just not pay the
900, never in a life time

Have you not see the deprivation many are living in the last thing they want is a 900 bill that they have no way of paying then the vet chases them, takes them to court and before you know it the 900 has easily doubled with court costs/bailiff letters/etc and where as the family may just have been manging may end up on the street or kids go without

Noy for a second I will accept a third party spends 900 on someone's behalf and the vet/retailer/business expects the owner to pay.

If you can't afford the responsibility of having a cat - or any pet- then you should not have it.

I agree

FYI, only a very small percentage of pet owners have insurance for their pets.
Perhaps it should be a legal requirement as well as a cat/dog license etc.

diystarter7

Tigsteroonie said:

I have my vet's telephone number in my contacts list so I know it is the vet calling.

And what if your cat is taken to a different vet practice? I live near three, and my cat is registered at one further away than those (having moved during the cat's life).

I would have the same question if our cat were in an unfortunate accident, taken to a nearby vet, and their life saved but at a high cost. I don't have £900 to spare. We love our cat but not at all costs.

Thanks you for sticking your head over the parafet to agree with what I said re someone spending money on your behalf without your consent.

I'm not sure why people can't see the facts as I have explained that there are millions living from hand to mouth or already dorwing in debt and 900 charged for something they did not agree to - iMO would drive many over the financial edge if not already there.

Thanks

MalMonroe

doggtired said:

A few nights ago our Cat was run over by a car and the driver took her to a local vet.Using the chip in the cat, the vet called my wife in the early hours of the morning, but as it was an unknown answer she didn't answer.
That morning my wife seached the unknown number, discovered it was a vets and gave them a call but it was to late and Tabitha had passed away. We arranged to collect her and were expecting a bill the following day.
The bill has now arrived and it's £900. We have absolutely no chance of paying that amount of money with only myself working at the moment and I'm unsure where we stand. I have no issues with paying for her pain relief and the time the vet spent with her but £900 seems an incredible amount for something we never actually agreed on or were warned about.
It's hard to write this and not sound callous but we're already coming to terms with losing part of the family and like everyone else, we just don't have that sort of money on hand.
Do we have any options here? Any advice would be really appreciated.
Thanks for reading

Hi, I'm so very sorry for your loss. We lost our beloved cat earlier this year to an incurable illness and it's really heartbreaking. She was a much valued and treasured member of our family.

At a time when you are grieving, to have been presented with what does appear to be a very unreasonable invoice seems very cruel.

I would phone the vet and ask for an appointment so I could have a face to face chat about how the bill is so very high and how we could possibly come to some arrangement to pay it.

As for people being critical about pet insurance, I have to say that it doesn't always cover everything, there's always an excess to pay and it is getting more expensive by the month. 

You don't need criticism right now, you need a sympathetic ear and a good chat with that vet. If you become emotional during any meeting with any vet, please don't ever be ashamed or worried. I've done it many times and they expect it. (Unless they have hearts of stone.)

All the best, again, I'm so sorry.