Is The Veterinary Market Unfair?

The Competition Markets Authority has referred the supply of veterinary services for household pets in the United Kingdom for a market investigation due to a concern that consumers are not getting a fair deal. 

Our work at Advocates for Animals has led us to the conclusion that the veterinary industry is both unfair to consumers and animals alike. 

Veterinary negligence 

Veterinary negligence is a common complaint that we deal with. Members of the public have experienced their companion animals suffering and even dying at the hands of veterinary malpractice. We have also come across complaints involving falsifying records and denying a customer’s version of events.

Meaningful accountability and establishing the scale of the issue is impossible, due to the structure of accountability mechanisms currently in place. 

Accountability mechanisms

When people experience the pain of poor treatment towards or the loss of an animal they would often consider a family member, they are provided with limited options to obtain any sense of justice or accountability. 

The main options are: 

1.  a complaint to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons 

2.  a civil claim through the courts, with the cause of action including breach of contract or negligence 

3. settlements, which in our experience is rare due to the fear of admitting responsibility 

RCVS

A complaint to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) is by far the most obvious step for raising a complaint about a veterinary service provider; this is the direction most are pointed in, it is free and it has the appeal of a less burdensome process than going to court. However, there are several reasons why a complaint to the RCVS is unsatisfactory. 

Firstly, The RCVS is a self regulator, which of course runs the risk of conflicts of interest. 

Secondly, the RCVS will only deal with serious professional misconduct. Where malpractice is concerned, the RCVS have described this as “very poor professional performance where there are serious departures from the standards set out in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct”.  This means that anything that is just standard poor practice will not be investigated. 

Thirdly, when making a complaint about malpractice to the RCVS, the standard of proof is that of the criminal standard, when  other regulators use the civil test of the balance of probabilities. This means a complainant must prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt, rather than the lower threshold of balance of probabilities. This has likely resulted  in the number of disciplinary hearings being kept low. During 2023, only 12 out of more than 3,300 individual issues, including 620 which progressed to become formal complaints, were the subject of full disciplinary hearings during 2023.

Finally, even in the event the RCVS did find against a professional, it has limited powers and cannot offer compensation. The  RCVS has  also stated it has no power to compel vets to hand over documents.

Civil claim

Another option available to the recipient of veterinary malpractice is a civil claim. 

Veterinary services will need to ensure that they act in accordance with the contract of the supply of service and in accordance with their professional duty of care (and also with their obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015). The consequence of breaching these legal duties means a claim in the civil courts is an option.

The cost consequences of pursuing a civil claim, however, make this option inaccessible to most. Pursuing any legal claim can be costly and requires serious thought before going into it; however, what makes pursuing a claim against a veterinary service provider unique is the status of animals under the law. 

Animals are seen as property under the law, which means that in almost all veterinary negligence cases, due to the material value of the claim, including that of the animal and veterinary bills, it is likely the claim will end up in the small claims court.  The small claims court is designed to deal with straightforward issues involving relatively small sums. It is not intended to deal with complex legal and scientific questions that turn on expert opinion, with huge emotional investment.  

Claimants should be able to represent themselves through the small claims procedure; however, in a veterinary negligence case, this would require instructing an expert or experts  and making complex arguments regarding questions such as specific cause of injury or death. All the while the defendant may have lawyers and experts funded by their insurers, as their professional credibility is on the line. As such, to have a real shot at success the claimant would need to hire a lawyer, the fees of which are not recoverable, who in turn would need to instruct an expert or experts, the fees of which have limited recoverability.  

It is a  possibility that a small claims district judge may consider the matter too complex for a small claim hearing and refer it up to the fast-track county court procedure. In which case the risk of paying the other side's costs order if the claimant does not succeed is substantial due to the above costs involved in a claim of this nature. 

We have also experienced real difficulty finding veterinary experts willing to speak out against the alleged malpractice of one of their peers, all the while the other side has access to a pool of experts willing to defend them. This is simply not a level playing field for any lay person.

Even in the event that the claimant was successful against these challenges, the claimant could not expect to receive any significant payout, which where an animal is concerned will likely mean their material value, rather than their emotional value. This means a claimant could spend thousands, if not tens of thousands of pounds, pursuing a claim and receive a far smaller amount back if successful.

Due to the poor viability of a civil claim, it is often advisable that a client complains to the RCVS, which for the above reasons is far from satisfactory.  

Conclusion

For the above reasons there is not adequate accountability for providing poor veterinary services. This not only means a consumer does not have any access to suitable redress, but also that the market itself is distorted by having unsuitable practitioners still allowed to practise, as a result of shielding poor service providers.

Following a submission from Advocates for Animals and others, we are very pleased to note however that the CMA in its’ recently published (July 2024) statement of issues, has noted that they will be looking into the regulatory framework for vets and whether in fact there are sufficient mechanisms in place for ensuring that the Code of Conduct is enforced.  We believe that both for the sake of consumers and for the welfare of animals, this needs to be closely and carefully scrutinised and the lack of enforcement addressed.

Getting advice

This post is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require legal advice on animal protection laws please contact info@advocates-for-animals.com.