‘Smug and indecisive vet is to blame for the death of my cat – I want justice’
Has a company treated you unfairly? Our Consumer Champion is available to help. For how to contact her click here.
Dear Katie,
I’m writing because I’m very unhappy with my local branch of Vets for Pets, which is the veterinary service attached to Pets at Home. My four-year-old cat recently died and while the vast majority of the team were caring, competent and willing, one vet was condescending, smug and indecisive, and I am holding him responsible for the death of my animal.
An otherwise healthy feline, he developed a small cough, so we brought him in for a check-up, where he was seen by a nice vet. He was prescribed anti-inflammatories but he didn’t improve, so we brought him back for a second time around a week later.
He was examined by the vet in question, who didn’t attempt a diagnosis, Googled symptoms, ran out of ideas, and suggested we film our cat before coming back to show them. This is not the behaviour of a trained professional in my view.
Around a week later we brought our cat in again for a morning appointment, and he was given some further medication and cleared to be allowed home. By 2:30pm that day he was dead. He coughed and stopped breathing while I was in the next room.
We rushed him back as an emergency but they were unable to do anything.
I feel we’ve been rinsed of money and our young cat has died as a result of a sheer lack of concern and courtesy, so I complained, but got nowhere.
Vets for Pets’ records do not match up to the reality of what happened. For example, it claims my cat died the day after his last appointment when it was actually the same day.
I’m not going to sit by and allow this. I’m considering legal action to get justice for my cat. He was in exceptional health before we initially brought him in. Me and my partner have been left truly heartbroken by his death.
Anon
Dear Reader,
Instinctively something didn’t feel right about a young and otherwise healthy four-year-old cat dropping dead after having been to the vet three times in three weeks, where, allegedly, no serious medical issues were spotted. You are incredulous as to how this could have been allowed to happen and a full investigation of the case was carried out ahead of a mediation session.
Unfortunately, this process has failed to quell your anger and, in fact, seems to have inflamed it, as you feel the blame has now been entirely pushed on you for neglecting your animal.
The vet in question supplied you with a written statement of events which you shared with me. It stated that you first presented your cat with a history of coughing for the preceding week, and a full physical exam was performed. Your cat was prescribed Metacam, an anti-inflammatory, and also offered antibiotics, which you declined.
It was also apparently suggested that if your cat made no improvements, that chest X-rays to assess his airways should be considered.
The following week your cat’s condition had deteriorated, so you brought him back and he was assessed by a different vet, the one you are complaining about. Having performed a full physical examination, he said you discussed the potential causes for your pet’s intermittent cough and wheezing.
These included a type of infection called mycoplasma, heart failure, feline asthma and inflammatory airway disease, he said. Apparently it was discussed that your cat could be put under a general anaesthetic and given an X ray and CT scan at a cost of £450 to £750.
The vet says he recommended the investigations be scheduled “without excessive delay” – specifically, early the following week, given the nature of the symptoms. You apparently left with no further medication on the understanding that you would book your cat in for the investigations that were discussed, which you did not do.
You say this is because although investigations were mentioned to you, you were not made to feel they were urgent, or that your cat was seriously ill. In fact you vehemently deny that any kind of timeline was discussed and have accused the surgery of retrospectively changing its notes to support its defence.
In his letter to you, the vet also raised concerns about your cat’s weight, which the surgery has recorded as being 10kg, rendering him clinically obese. Unfortunately nearly half of cats in the UK are overweight or obese due to overeating and sedentary lifestyles.
The vet said you blamed this on your cat “having a lot of human food” when it was raised in a consultation. You say you never said this, and that the extent of your cat’s human food consumption is that he sometimes eats bits off the floor, just like most other cats would.
The vet says he advised against feeding him human food, describing the dangers that this could lead to in cats, including certain deficiencies, namely that of taurine, which can cause a dilated heart. You say you don’t recall any such conversation.
The last time you brought your cat to the vet alive, on July 20, he was sneezing with a productive clear discharge from his nose, the vet said. He has retrospectively suggested that this fluid could have been from congestive heart failure, which happens to be one of the consequences of a dilated heart.
You say, however, that this connection between the physical symptom of nasal discharge and potential diagnosis was never mentioned in the consultation. Though joining these dots together faster may still not have saved your beloved cat, I can see why the fact that this connection has only been made one you complained, has left you incensed.
Recommended
‘Booths cereal left me with a cracked tooth – and now I face a £3k dental bill’
Meanwhile, I was baffled by the discrepancy over the day on which your cat died. The vet’s letter clearly stated that your cat died the day after the consultation, on July 21, however you were adamant it was on July 20, around two hours after his appointment.
This felt like a very important point. If Vets for Pets was wrong it potentially meant its records could not be trusted. And if you were wrong I might be left wondering what else you might be dramatising.
I asked if you could supply any dated texts to friends or family letting them know your cat had died on July 20. Sure enough, within five minutes of me asking, you supplied me with a heartbreaking exchange with your mother timestamped from that day, in which you said: “He’s stopped breathing, at the vet, praying they can do something”.
The exchange ended with “he’s gone”. When I presented this information to Vets for Pets proving its records were wrong, it declined to comment.
I’ll be honest, as an outsider looking in on this case it is extremely difficult to establish what happened during the three appointments in question, and whether this vet can be held responsible for your cat’s death. To borrow a phrase from the late Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, this is definitely a case of “recollections may vary”.
What is clear, though, is that this vet has been willing to clear his name by painting you as an irresponsible pet owner, effectively shifting the focus away from him and on to your inaction.
I have read your initial complaint to Vets for Pets, which was polite and rational, but by the time you wrote to me you were irate and full of hatred for the vet in question.
I feel Vets for Pets has also used this to its advantage by making you out to be not only a bad pet owner, but also an abusive customer, which I can see no evidence of.
Throughout, it has been keen to point the finger of you – but stayed silent when it needed to look in the mirror and recognise its own failings.
Whatever the truth was, it can’t surely be surprised that you’ve been left deeply offended by all this.
I wonder if its hyper-defensive stance was because this isn’t the first time the practice has dealt with serious complaints. A few years ago another customer complained after being told its sick cat was well and not in pain, only for it to die of advanced cancer two weeks later after being taken to another vet.
Another cat owner complained that a serious and long-standing kidney disease was missed, with the animal being brought in but dismissed on multiple occasions.
I do not know the outcome of these complaints, but I did spot an online review by a former receptionist who said customers were “always angry”.
That said, the practice does have good reviews generally. And all trained medical professionals do sometimes make mistakes. Of course they do. But it’s how they are dealt with which makes so much difference to customers, especially when they are grieving their cherished animals.
On this occasion Vets for Pets has dug its heels in further and refused to pay you any compensation or apologise for the way its handling of your case has made you feel.
The only option left for you, now that mediation has failed, is legal action. But be warned, the burden of evidence required will be high and currently you have little. You would probably need to prove that the vet’s notes were forged and inaccurate to get a payout.
So all that’s left for me to say is that I’m so very sorry for your loss and for the stress the vet’s response has caused you. You’ve switched to a different vet for your surviving cat, which I hope you’ll get on better with.
A spokesman for Vets for Pets said: “We put pet welfare first and our dedicated veterinary teams work hard to deliver the highest standards of care. Advanced tests were offered to help determine the underlying cause of the cat’s case, and medical treatment was also provided for his symptoms – as well as the opportunity to book further appointments.
“It is always very sad to hear of the passing of a beloved pet and our deepest condolences are with the customers at this difficult time.”
