Vet treatment not consented to but demanding payment

[jorainbow]

In January my dog was taken poorly whilst I was at work. I called the vets and made an appointment but advised them my mum would be bringing the dog but I was on my way. She was suffering from d&v (typical Labrador probably something she ate from under a bush!). The vet spoke to my mum telling her the options but my mum said she wasn't going to make the decision (take her home and see how she went with some anti sickness meds or take her to another branch and put her on a drip). Mum called me , mentioned in hospital treatment and then passed the phone to the vet. I was on hands free on a bypass and couldn't hear properly - something I kept saying and something acknowledged by the vets in their 'investigation' letter. I ended the call with I can't hear you I will be there in 15 to 20 mins and take her to the hospital branch (this was the only option I had been given). The vet then came off the phone and proceeded with £200 of treatment I hadn't agreed to nor had my mum. Mum assumed I had said yes as she didn't hear the conversation. I have complained and simply been told tough even though they admitted the conversation was not clear.

I have a complaint in with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons which has been accepted and is at investigation stage but they wont get involved in fee disputes just the professional misconduct.

I am prepared to pay for everything I consented to obviously. The consent form does not mention the initial treatment nor do the notes. What is the legal position here as it seems very much that the vet can do this and simply not be responsible for their error and I risk going to court if I don't pay that portion. Any advice as always welcome

[des8]

Trust dog is now recovered.
As you remark not unusual in labs and 24 hours without food seems to cure problem!

I would not pay and just see if that vet even bothers to go to court.
For him/her to take court action will cost more than can be recovered, so other than some threatening letters, nothing might happen.
And if he does get serious you might be able to negotiate a smaller settlement figure before it gets to a court hearing.
Or you could defend yourself on the basis that you did not give informed consent i.e. you could not have consented as you did not know the nature of the procedure or treatment to be undertaken, the estimated costs and the risks and possible side-effects which may have ensued from the course of treatment.

[jorainbow]

She is thank you! And still trying to eat stuff from under bushes Ive already been threatened with solicitors as my insurers are being slow in sorting the claim out which will be paid to me. I was planning on paying the portion I consented to and witholding the rest on those grounds . I am hoping the RCVS will agree there was no consent so this would give weight. Just seems there is little in the way of redress especially as their investigation amounted to the vet was right and your mum is not telling the truth. Have obviously changed vets! Thank you.

[des8]

If your insurers pay the claim and you then withhold payment to the vet you could leave yourself open to a problem with your insurers as having made a profit from your insurance (so be careful)

Being threatened with solicitors is nothing to be worried about.
IF they instructed solicitors, the solicitors would write to you requesting payment, and possibly (depends on what sort of solicitors they are!) threatening you with all sorts of legal outcomes just short of taking your children and selling them into slavery!
Solicitors can do no more than the vet, which is to write to you!
If the vet wants he could then instruct the solicitor to initiate court action, but if they follow through on that it will cost him four figures for court representation and he will not be able to recover those costs

[jorainbow]

Thanks. Then that leaves me in the position of having to pay for the treatment I am disputing and I'll have to take them to court? Perhaps I call the insurers and ask them not to pay that portion of the claim as it is in dispute? If I had a complaint with a shop then I'd be backed by law but this doesn't seem to be the case!

[des8]

That isn't what I meant!

Just be prepared to return to the insurers any "profit" you might make.

A word of caution though.
You are obviously and rightly very emotionally swayed in this matter.
However a third party looking at the incident might very well decide the vet probably did act correctly.

As your insurers are paying the claim, is it worth putting yourself through all the stress of fighting this.
If you don't pay there is a possibility the vet will initiate a court claim (although I do wonder if it is worth his while)
Other than being held to be correct if you win what other satisfaction do you gain?

You have already changed vets (which is what we did in similar circumstances and left it at that)

[jorainbow]

Thanks for the reply. It was the insurers who advised I do a direct claim if there was a dispute so I'll give them a call after the bank holiday to clarify. The fact they are paying out their percentage shouldnt detract from the fact that £200 of treatment was not consented to and thats the reason I've complained to the RCVS. If they agree with the vets following their investigation, I've lost only my time writing the complaint.