Vet Invoice - Health Plan Payment Shortfall

ZorbaTheSmall

MyRealNameToo said:

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. 

Perversely, despite have an email saying my direct debit was cancelled on the 8th July, the next direct debit payment was taken and the vet refused to refund. The Direct Debit Guarantee Scheme via my bank has refunded that. Worst of both worlds.

eskbanker

ZorbaTheSmall said:
The scheme is on a rolling 1 month contract and isn't an annual renewal.

But this inevitably introduces the concept of variances between payments and services provided, i.e. if you were paying £15/month then you'd never be receiving exactly £15 worth of services each and every month, so some element of squaring up (in either direction) should have been expected on termination, even if not spelt out, in the same way as with gas bills, where usage is variable across the year, and unless extraordinarily fortuitous, there'll be an additional payment or rebate needed at contract expiry or termination.

The fact that the vet terminated this plan, rather than you, doesn't change that principle.

ZorbaTheSmall

eskbanker said:

ZorbaTheSmall said:
The scheme is on a rolling 1 month contract and isn't an annual renewal.

But this inevitably introduces the concept of variances between payments and services provided, i.e. if you were paying £15/month then you'd never be receiving exactly £15 worth of services each and every month, so some element of squaring up (in either direction) should have been expected on termination, even if not spelt out, in the same way as with gas bills, where usage is variable across the year, and unless extraordinarily fortuitous, there'll be an additional payment or rebate needed at contract expiry or termination.

The fact that the vet terminated this plan, rather than you, doesn't change that principle.

If I may.

The vet should have calculated the shortfall since the plan began and at discounted prices (as that is what the plan offers). I'm pretty sure if they did that they would be ahead on payments vs treatments for the 18 months.

To take your gas bill analogy:

My gas bill shows payments and costs, so it is clear what my current balance is - And in this day and age I can do the same on an app. This allows me to make an informed decision as to if I want to change suppliers etc. what I'll have to square up and so on.

So I would expect my plan, if I did have to repay any shortfall, to provide statements breaking down costs and payments on a regular basis, or offer a facility to check any shortfall online. Neither of these things are true.

eskbanker

ZorbaTheSmall said:

eskbanker said:

ZorbaTheSmall said:
The scheme is on a rolling 1 month contract and isn't an annual renewal.

But this inevitably introduces the concept of variances between payments and services provided, i.e. if you were paying £15/month then you'd never be receiving exactly £15 worth of services each and every month, so some element of squaring up (in either direction) should have been expected on termination, even if not spelt out, in the same way as with gas bills, where usage is variable across the year, and unless extraordinarily fortuitous, there'll be an additional payment or rebate needed at contract expiry or termination.

The fact that the vet terminated this plan, rather than you, doesn't change that principle.

If I may.

The vet should have calculated the shortfall since the plan began and at discounted prices (as that is what the plan offers). I'm pretty sure if they did that they would be ahead on payments vs treatments for the 18 months.

To take your gas bill analogy:

My gas bill shows payments and costs, so it is clear what my current balance is - And in this day and age I can do the same on an app. This allows me to make an informed decision as to if I want to change suppliers etc. what I'll have to square up and so on.

So I would expect my plan, if I did have to repay any shortfall, to provide statements breaking down costs and payments on a regular basis, or offer a facility to check any shortfall online. Neither of these things are true.

Just to be clear, I agree that you're perfectly entitled to dispute the timescale of the shortfall calculation, and/or the values of the services provided, but that's different from trying to deny liability to pay anything as a point of principle because of lack of explicit contract terms or statements!

ZorbaTheSmall

The vet has agreed to pay my refund and have stopped chasing the invoice.