Vet Invoice - Health Plan Payment Shortfall

sheramber

On the 21st August I chased my now ex vet for a refund discrepancy for less than £20 and in response I was issued an invoice from the vet for "Pet Health Plan Payment Shortfall" and in the accompanying email I had a breakdown of all the treatments and costs and a note of the payment made.

You claimed a refund and they counterclaimed with an invoice.

You have details of their invoice charges and you have not indicated you disagree with what has been invoiced. 

Why were you claiming a refund? 

How much are they claiming?

ZorbaTheSmall

The T&Cs should spell out if I need to make up any shortfall after any cancellation - If it had, I wouldn't have signed up for the plan - Simple.

I signed an agreement to pay ~£15 per month, for which I would receive the treatment in section 3 (detailed in an earlier post). I did not sign up for £x of treatment annually and a payment plan of £x/12 monthly 

The plan was cancelled by the vet not by me, without notice, in breach of the T&Cs

The costs have been £145 and I've paid £85 leaving an invoice for £60, since the anniversary of taking out the plan in February 2025 - NOT the entire history of payments and treatments since February 2024 when I started the plan. Even if I extrapolated further payments and expected treatments (flea & worming) based on the costs in the vets email to February 2026 I would pay a further £85 in DD and incur costs of £94 - so the deficit at the anniversary would be greater, assuming the vet had allowed me to continue at  the practice. This indicates that the costs provided in the email from the vet are not at the discounted rate but at full rate.

The RCVS Professional Standards section 9 covers invoices:

9.15  All invoices should be itemised showing the amounts relating to goods including individual relevant medicinal products and services provided by the practice. Fees for outside services and any charge for additional administration or other costs to the practice in arranging such services should also be shown separately.

The invoice does not detail any of this. The invoice has a date range of 28th July 2025 to 28th July 2025. I have an email from Vetsure dated 8th July informing me that the plan has been cancelled and in any case I was in France with both my pets on the 28th July, as my passport stamps will demonstrate. I have informed the vet that I do not agree with the basis of the invoice and also raised a formal complaint.

In September 2024 I cancelled my plan as he had gone missing on holiday but rescinded that a week later as he had been found. I was not invoiced then for any shortfall. This leads me to suspect this is a vindictive act in issuing me an invoice following the debacle below.

I was claiming a refund for an incorrect Animal Health Certificate (AHC) that the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA - the agency that authorises vets to issue the AHCs) deemed the AHC unfit for purpose. This was despite attempts made to discuss my concerns with the vet, when I was told I was confused. I was also yelled at the by the vet who told me to take the matter up with the government, which I did by raising my concerns with the APHA. I was refunded short by £11 which, I was informed, was the fee for a worming tablet for my dog (the Vetsure plan was for my cat) as part of the AHC consultation, even though the treatment was not needed at all for travel to France (also confirmed by the APHA). The practice then countermanded with an invoice. The AHC is needed to travel with animals to the EU and replaces the previous pet passport scheme (Brexit).

I wrote to the vet on the 6th July suggesting we put the matter of the AHC behind us as he has been the best vet to look after my animals but the response I received was somewhat insulting, ending the email saying I was no longer welcome at the practice.

eskbanker

The most pragmatic way forward will presumably be to simply do nothing - if the vet is confident that his invoice is both accurate and valid then he'd take recovery action via the courts but if it's only £60, and potentially open to question, then chances are he won't take it that far.

Grumpy_chap

If this is only £60, or even £80 if the original £20 the OP tried to claim back is added in, rather more important than the money involved is for the OP to understand which aspect of their behaviours resulted in the pet being removed from the veterinary practice.  The focus might well need to be on securing the services of a replacement vet, particularly if local vets are likely to converse between themselves.

With regard to the money owed (or not owed) the suggestion immediately above seems a sound one.  Before court action, there would need to be an LBA issued by the vet - that might be the time to simply pay and be done with it such as to avoid the risk of a CCJ.

Okell

ZorbaTheSmall said:

The T&Cs should spell out if I need to make up any shortfall after any cancellation - If it had, I wouldn't have signed up for the plan - Simple.,, saying I was no longer welcome at the practice.

Ah.  "Simple..."

So at this point we know you are willing to back track out of any deal.

I have no sympathy for you whatsover.

Pay your legitmate debts

Ergates

ZorbaTheSmall said:

The T&Cs should spell out if I need to make up any shortfall after any cancellation - If it had, I wouldn't have signed up for the plan - Simple.

Why would you *not* have to make up any shortfall after cancellation?   I'm confused...

What you're suggesting is that if you sign up, pay one monthly payment of £15, then receive £150 worth of treatment, then immediately cancel, you don't think you should have to make up the difference?

MyRealNameToo

Undervalued said:

But....

The OP cannot comply with term 11 of the contract as the vet refuses to have them as a client and the vet has failed to give the required notice to end the contract.

Also we don't know why the OP has been "struck off" by the vet or if the vet is guilty of any breach of professional standards. 

I would imagine if the OP files a professional standards complaint with the RCVS, win or lose it will cost the vet a lot more than the value of this dispute!

If they were to give notice on the funding arrangement then the OP would have to pay one more months payment but still wouldnt be allowed into the surgery having been banned. That to me feels like a more perverse outcome than a termination without notice and the OP having to just pay for the shortfall from treatment received to date. 

ZorbaTheSmall

Grumpy_chap said:

If this is only £60, or even £80 if the original £20 the OP tried to claim back is added in, rather more important than the money involved is for the OP to understand which aspect of their behaviours resulted in the pet being removed from the veterinary practice.  The focus might well need to be on securing the services of a replacement vet, particularly if local vets are likely to converse between themselves.

With regard to the money owed (or not owed) the suggestion immediately above seems a sound one.  Before court action, there would need to be an LBA issued by the vet - that might be the time to simply pay and be done with it such as to avoid the risk of a CCJ.

Thanks, already got another local vet. No problem at all.

I was removed from the practice owing to the AHC. The vets assured me it was OK - I wasn't convinced so asked the authority (APHA) that licenses the vet to issue AHCs and they agreed with me. The vet didn't like this as I suspect it caused them some significant problems with the APHA. As I said. I suggested putting that behind us, I got a rude reply from the vet and was informed I was no longer welcome at the practice.

ZorbaTheSmall

Okell said:

ZorbaTheSmall said:

The T&Cs should spell out if I need to make up any shortfall after any cancellation - If it had, I wouldn't have signed up for the plan - Simple.,, saying I was no longer welcome at the practice.

Ah.  "Simple..."

So at this point we know you are willing to back track out of any deal.

I have no sympathy for you whatsover.

Pay your legitmate debts

I think I've not been clear. If the T&Cs, which I needed to agree to take out the plan, had indicated a clear an unambiguous need to repay shortfall, I would not have taken out the plan. I don't think this is about backtracking, I think it's about a lack of clarity in the T&Cs

My new vet offers the Vetsure plan. I will not be taking it out.

ZorbaTheSmall

Ergates said:

ZorbaTheSmall said:

The T&Cs should spell out if I need to make up any shortfall after any cancellation - If it had, I wouldn't have signed up for the plan - Simple.

Why would you *not* have to make up any shortfall after cancellation?   I'm confused...

What you're suggesting is that if you sign up, pay one monthly payment of £15, then receive £150 worth of treatment, then immediately cancel, you don't think you should have to make up the difference?

But I didn't do that. I've paid in 18 months worth of payments into the plan and I didn't cancel the plan.

I think the scheme is geared so that you can't in effect, do that. The bulk of the difference in value of the details quoted by the vet is approximately £75 of annual vaccinations. The first year of starting the scheme doesn't cover those - So the reality is I've paid in something like £255 and back of the fag packet calculation received treatment for £295 of treatments at full retail value (I'm obviously not privy to what the discounted rate is) since the plan began. The plan is on a rolling 1 month contract and isn't an annual renewal, the vet choosing the calculation from the anniversary of the plan is an arbitrary date.