Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • look at the pix on the NTK that show his car going in/out look at the drain covers .   now look at the picture in the PDF. same car park.     purley way carpark.pdf
    • https://completelyretail.co.uk/scheme/2418                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  I do think he is right about the car park.   This is the Purley Way Retail Park and the photos of the vehicle were taken in the other park.                           
    • That WS is appalling.   I got lost with all the "I", "he", there is only one person being sued.   You, personally, have been great at supporting your dad's mate, but as the mate is presumably retired I don't understand why he/she hasn't used the time to look up WSs that were successful on the forum.    
    • worthy to note on google earth that is the purley way carpark in their NTK pictures and if thats his car , the defence and that WS is not going to work.   he is looking at the WRONG carpark, in his statement, the caravan one with the bailff notice is not purley way !!
    • Having received a claim for a parking infringement in February 2020 my friend went to discover where the Purley Way Retail Park was.   He told me what the 6 shops within this complex were and I then knew that I had never been inside these shops or the car park that is situated in front of these stores.  Apparently, he had also spoken to a member of staff within one of the shops who confirmed that there was no time limit for parking in this car park.   I then replied to this with a defence claim stating the following.    "I have just received notification of a parking infringement which occurred 25/5/19." "Obviously, I can't remember where I was on that day but I have now visited the Purley Way Retail Park where the offence is alleged to have occurred and I can confirm that I have never shopped in any of these six shops in that retail park. also there doesn't appear to be any parking restrictions apart from caravans"     Perhaps I should have said that I had not parked there on that day in question 25/5/19 but that is what I meant.   I received a reply to this defence claim dated 5/3/20 rejecting my defence.   Mr then said he would help me in this matter and he returned to Purley Way Retail Park and took photographs of the entrance and the signs available at the entrance. He then emailed them to BW on the 20/4/20 as shown above after a phone conversation with them.   As requested, the 3 photos (numbered 1,2 and 3) of Purley Way Retail Park. The drive-in entrance is the only way into the units and although the 2 car parks either side of this unit only allow parking up to 3 hours, this car park has no parking restrictions which was confirmed to me by a member of staff about 2 months ago.   I suppose it's possible that a year ago parking restrictions were different and if so, can you please let me know when they changed. He received confirmation that they had been passed on to their client and would get back with a reply.   As he had not had a reply, he phoned on two more occasions but no reply had been received from TPS. Eventually he phoned on the 3/8/20 to be told that they now had a reply, after over 100 days and they would forward it on. On receiving that email, he immediately knew they were not photos of the Purley Way Retail Park (photo 4) as it was a much larger car park and he told that to BW.    On the following day further photographs were sent of my vehicle in the same car park as the previous days offering which is not the Purley Way Retail Park.   He was not completely sure what the car park was but on his return to this county he discovered they were photographs taken in the Lombard Retail Park (photo 5) which is situated over 3/4 mile (1.2km) from the Purley Way Retail Park. I have also enclosed photos of the same car park (numbered 6 and 7) in which you can clearly see the Matalan store and also the Range which replaced Homebase when it shut down.   Bearing in mind that you have shown a photo of my vehicle in this car park it could not be in the Purley Way Retail Park at the same time and I confirm it was not ever left in the Purley Way Retail Park.   I believe that the facts stated in this statement are true.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Mediator point - Hermes lost my parcel and it is offering just a partial refund of the total amount requested. What's next?. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/434633-mediator-point-hermes-lost-my-parcel-and-it-is-offering-just-a-partial-refund-of-the-total-amount-requested-whats-next/&do=findComment&comment=5109422
      • 13 replies
    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 33 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2409 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I'm disgusted at rip off vets, i was stroking my dog last night and noticed a wart looking thing on his face, my other half said it looks similar to a tick, this wart wasn't on his face the day before (at least i never noticed and im always cuddling and stroking him,). so we booked him in to the vets for him to have a look.

 

The vet looked and said no its a wart, he then looked for things to do like saying he looks a bit fat, hhmm how much are you feeding him, we said a small tin a day, the vet says feed him 7/8 ths of the tin instead. he got a stethoscope out and listened to his heart, we never asked for this, we said thank you and left the room, we went to reception and asked if there was a charge, and oh boy yes there was 22 quid, 22 quid for a vet to say nope its a wart !!!!.

 

im disgusted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

You were charged a fairly standard consultation fee. Vets are a business and not necessarily a very profitable one. If you break down your 22 quid for a ten minute appointment into business rates, running costs, staff wages etc. there probably isn't that much left over to go into the pocket of the expert.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jack1966

 

I agree with you the prices are a lot.

 

I took Hattie to the vet on Saturday morning - she suffers with really mucky ears and although I clean them regularly, sometimes I can tell she needs drops as she is constantly shaking her head. The consutation fee was £23.50 (it lasted 3 minutes) and the drops cost £15. She's fine now (until the next time!!:()

Although I work I don't get paid until next week so I paid by cheque as I had no money (which will now cost me double with bank charges).

 

Cassie x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are those drops a prescription item or just something the vet happens to sell? There's no need to pay that consultation fee if you can buy the same product OTC. Have you checked? If you make an appointment to consult a vet then it's going to cost.

 

I'm a fan of Thornit ear powder for dogs. I too went years paying out money for recurrent ear problems in a dog. Never had a problem since I discovered Thornit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello hightail

 

Thanks for your response.

I don't quite know if they're prescription only - everytime I have a problem with my dog I take her to the vet, probably very niaive (or stupid:(. These were given to me at the surgery when I came out of the consultation. They are called "EASOTIC". Her ear is better now (she didn't have a tic) and they are only good for 10 days after opening, so I can't keep them for future use.

 

Cassie x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that is a POM-V product. If you Google Thornit you'll see it's very cheap, lasts for months and you'll probably never need to pay the vet again for ear problems. I put a pinch in my dog's ears - well when I remember to be honest and have not had a problem in years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Your consultation charge is lots cheaper than mine. That's £35 just to walk through the door !!

No wonder many don't take their animals in till things are desperate.....

 

Cheers, Lynda~:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

If it's the first time you've the vet then £22 is a fairly average charge, as it covers the admin and gets the pet registered on their systems. We have two kittens that weren't given the best of starts and when we took them in they had a bit of an infection. Only one of them (Blaze) showed symptoms at first and the bill for the initial consultation, 2 jabs and some eye drops was £30.86 (including £24 for 'consultation' as well as a massive charge of 3p for one jab!!!! :D). We then had to take them both in a few days later (as advised by the vet) to make sure the ill one was responding and the second one (Sphynx) was OK, and even though it was Sphynx's first visit they only charged us £14.05 which included another jab for Blaze and some drops for Sphynx. We were suprised, but got told that the higher price on the first visit was down to the initial registering and consultation.

 

I think people get surprised at the prices vets charge, mainly because we have the NHS for us and we just assume it's 'free'. If you had to pay for your medical treatment, you'd see that vets fees are actually quite reasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, YOUR vet charges are great !! I feel we end up paying more than further up north here the same as we pay more for everything.....under the assumptions we earn more when sadly some of us don't !!!

I'd not be complaining if I paid your prices !!

 

Cheers,

Lynda ~:shock:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something worth checking is whether your vet allows you to pay in installments. Some vets allow this, especially if people are on benefits and can prove it. Some also have a scheme where you can pay in small increments for any vaccinations that are required in future. These are definitely worth it because you're not getting hit with a massive bill all at once.

 

Also, if you're on a low income check to see if there is a PDSA in your area. They don't charge a set fee, but a donation of whatever you can afford. They're also a registered charity and will gladly accept donations whether you use their services or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
one of the few places left where you do not have a clue how much you are paying until the very end

 

Don't be shy of asking up front. When you have a pet needing treatment you don't want to look as if money matters but vets are obliged to give you the approximate cost of a course of treatment in advance. A shot of antibiotic is a course of treatment and you are entitled to know so ask. Amazingly, when you do start to discuss costs with your vet you may find that alternatives are mentioned. If you make it clear that you don't want to pay for any extras without knowing the guaranteed benefits you'll find your vet being slightly more circumspect in the treatment they suggest. They won't hate you for it, they'll respect you more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

We've been having an ever-escalating argument with our vet about repeat prescriptions for our dog with an under-active thyroid. We've had blood tests every year or two (she's now 6 years old) and the dosage of her medication hasn't fluctuated for years, but now the vet is insisting that it's a "legal requirement" that her bloods are checked every 6 months (at over a £100 a time!).

 

Then there's the argument over the cost of her meds: the vet charges about 3 times as much as they are available for on the Internet, so we pay the vet over £10 for printing out a bit of paper with a signature (it's called a prescription), so we can get the meds online!

 

Now our other dog has an infection and needs a prescription antibiotic: we were charged £1.90 per tablet, when online they're available for 45p.

 

I know the old chestnut about vets' overheads compared to the Internet, etc., but surely they make enough money from their fees and charges, without adding a 400% mark-up on meds that they insist our pets need.

 

We're so fed up with our vet's increasing profiteering, we've investigated paying the PDSA for our pets' treatment, but we don't qualify...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your vet does have to check your dog every six months. Annoying but true. When I pop into mine for something like prescription wormers I pick up loads but they put it under the name of whichever cat they have seen within the last 6 months for forms sake.

 

When it comes down to it vets are private medicine so will always be expensive. They charge less than a private GP and most of them have much more expensive kit in their surgeries. There's not much anyone can do about the price of consultations and one-off prescriptions I'm afraid. Vigilance is the key for everything else they try.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your vet does have to check your dog every six months.

...

 

Says who? If it is a 'legal requirement' (as my vet is now claiming) when was the law changed (because we never used to need 6 monthly blood tests)?

 

I suspect there's just been a re-reading of the drug companies' recommendations and an opportunity for more profiteering by all involved (the vets, the drug companies and the testing labs).

 

I'd compromise on an annual check-up but this new insistence on a 6 monthly blood test (the results of which I never see and which in any case never vary) is just a money-making exercise for all involved (except me).

 

EDIT:

 

Just found this from the RCVS (nothing about 6 months!):

 

Frequency of re-examinations

 

Before prescribing a POM-V medicine, a veterinary surgeon must have the animal in

question ‘under his or her care’ and have made a ‘clinical assessment’. This requires a

veterinary surgeon to see or examine an animal, or to have seen or have examined an

animal recently enough to have the animal ‘under his or her care’.

 

9) The RCVS provides an interpretation of ‘under his or her care’ which forms the legal basis

for the frequency of consultations. On the basis of this interpretation, the frequency of

re-examination is a professional decision for the veterinary surgeon.

 

Under his care

5. The Veterinary Medicines Regulations do not define the phrase 'under his care' and

the RCVS has interpreted it as meaning that:

a. the veterinary surgeon must have been given the responsibility for the health

of the animal or herd by the owner or the owner's agent

b. that responsibility must be real and not nominal

c. the animal or herd must have been seen immediately before prescription or,

d. recently enough or often enough for the veterinary surgeon to have personal

knowledge of the condition of the animal or current health status of the

herd or flock to make a diagnosis and prescribe.

e. the veterinary surgeon must maintain clinical records of that

herd/flock/individual

What amounts to 'recent enough' must be a matter for the professional judgement

of the veterinary surgeon in the individual case.

(RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, Part 2H)

 

10)Due to numerous variables (for example, condition, age, weight, medicine,

species/breed), how often an animal should be seen or examined will depend on the

specific circumstances of each individual case and is a matter for the professional

judgment of the veterinary surgeon. This is a professional decision, made in the best

interests of the animal and should not be made on commercial grounds.

 

Edited by Johnny Blue
Link to post
Share on other sites

The blood test may only be a recommendation but I'm fairly sure you'll not find any vet prepared to prescribe for more than six months without seeing the animal.

 

the results of which I never see and which in any case never vary

Ask for it! You are entitled to see it - you paid for it. I've once had a junior vet first refuse to give me a copy of results then told me I'd have to pay £1.50 for a copy. Two days later when my SAR dropped through their letterbox the senior vet phoned me and apologised for the 'mistaken actions of a new colleague'. My £10 cheque and the paperwork I wanted was (by agreement) through my letterbox the next day :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I so reasonably pointed out, it was a matter of simple economics. £1.50 for one sheet of paper against a tenner for everything. As I'd had a number of animals registered with them for quite a few years plus many litters of kittens vaccinated at that surgery the SAR was simply better value :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
As I so reasonably pointed out, it was a matter of simple economics. £1.50 for one sheet of paper against a tenner for everything. As I'd had a number of animals registered with them for quite a few years plus many litters of kittens vaccinated at that surgery the SAR was simply better value :-)

 

Tried following your link about "subject access request", but it doesn't lead to the letter to which you refer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told by a vet I used to use that their meds are more expensive because they HAVE to get theirs from approved suppliers only and they are limited.

I don't understand that about because they're private they're more pricey because private prescriptions in human cases are usually way cheaper than a standard prescription charge of £7+ and you only pay what the meds are worth instead of the standard NHS charge.

 

Lynda~

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...