AmyMay
Situation normal
And takes 14 days to ‘kick in’, as you’ll be aware….
URGENT HELP!!! GET MY PUPPY HOME
- Thread starter Nf89
- Start date
And takes 14 days to ‘kick in’, as you’ll be aware….
Nf89
Member
Insurance isn’t instant though is it? So regardless of taking 10 mins or not it won’t of covered him. Credit card/ loan isn’t an option at present as in the process of getting accepted for a mortgage and been told not to apply for any credit (not that that is any of your business) and before you say well what’s more important your dog or a mortgage ect ect I don’t have some huge deposit saved which I could of dipped into I’m doing a first time buyer scheme. I can afford on going care because I would have insurance for any future problems and actually there isn’t ongoing care for this condition needed, they bounce back and recover with no other complications. 48 hours after surgery and he’s ready to go home and is just on pain meds. That was actually the update yesterday so 24hrs after surgery
The Xmas Furry
🦄 🦄
Well, then you've sadly answered your own questions ?
You didnt make provision before getting pup, no vet arranged, no funds to pay for any emergency and no means to secure funds.
Chalk it up as a learning experience and avoid getting another animal until you have everything covered.
SusieT
Well-Known Member
' Credit card/ loan isn’t an option at present as in the process of getting accepted for a mortgage and been told not to apply for any credit (not that that is any of your business) and before you say well what’s more important your dog or a mortgage ect ect I don’t have some huge deposit saved which I could of dipped into I’m doing a first time buyer scheme. ' -ok so you can't get credit or don't want to is really the answer- you could have delayed your mortgage while sorting puppy if it will only take you three months to pay off but choose not to. Why should the vets be down the money for 3 months who may also have bills to pay/credit to take care of?
You can't be that attached after only having him 2 days and not willing to compromise on anything personally to save his life , only wanting other people to compromise.
You can't be that attached after only having him 2 days and not willing to compromise on anything personally to save his life , only wanting other people to compromise.
AdorableAlice
Well-Known Member
Very sadly you are one of many who buy puppies without full history. The puppy, if it came from a licensed breeder did not leave the breeders premise until it was a minimum of 8 weeks old. So the third party whom you bought him off had only had him a matter of 7 weeks before they moved him on. Lucy's Law would apply in this case, however if you can't fund the veterinary care there is no way you will fund a civil case against the vendor and trading standards won't be interested in a one off case.
Nf89
Member
Thank you for the comments I’m not replying anymore as I feel bad enough as it is without being judged and made to feel worse. I’m not a bad pet owner Iv had dogs in the past who have been very well cared for and had the best lives and been loved unconditionally. No I hadn’t got insurance sorted yet but even if I had he wouldnt of been covered as you can’t claim on them for so many days after activation anyway, no I didn’t have a £2500 fund for a vet bill at that moment as I honestly didn’t expect 2 days after buying him to be hit with a bill like that (as nieve as that might sound) but really what are the chances. I just thought someone on here may of known another source of advice or if I had any rights at all which clearly I don’t ?
Thanks goodnight
Thanks goodnight
Gloi
Too little time, too much to read.
You are lucky the vets have been willing to take him if you can't afford to pay , rather than just put him down.
Next time take more care what you buy and don't support dubious breeding practices.
Next time take more care what you buy and don't support dubious breeding practices.
AmyMay
Situation normal
I think the only source of advice that anyone could recommend would be a solicitor.
AdorableAlice
Well-Known Member
With him in ownership for just 2 days I do wonder if the vendor knew there was a health issue about to erupt. Such a very sad situation all round.
Sadly not uncommon.
Sadly not uncommon.
P3LH
Well-Known Member
One wonders if we are all going trip trap over a bridge with this thread…
Umbongo
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately I don't think you have a leg to stand on. You either chalk this down to a learning experience or see if they will give you the puppy back if you can pay up in full. However they are not required to do that, and it sounds like they have not acted unlawfully or unethically.
There are some loan companies that work directly with veterinary clients, I would ask the vet if they can recommend one so that you can pay the vets up front and repay the loan company. Most vets will not set up a payment plan for a new client.
The vets did offer you an option to eleviate suffering...euthanasia. It is not a nice option but an option none the less. You were lucky that your vets were in the position to offer to have him signed over and the puppy was able to get the treatment he required. The costs and risks involved will transfer to the member of staff who is keeping him.
Some insurance companies do a free 4 week puppy/kitten cover where the cover starts straight away.
Intususeption can occur very quickly and would have required surgery ASAP, so your puppy would not have had time to wait. You made a good decision and the puppy will go on to have a good life.
There are some loan companies that work directly with veterinary clients, I would ask the vet if they can recommend one so that you can pay the vets up front and repay the loan company. Most vets will not set up a payment plan for a new client.
The vets did offer you an option to eleviate suffering...euthanasia. It is not a nice option but an option none the less. You were lucky that your vets were in the position to offer to have him signed over and the puppy was able to get the treatment he required. The costs and risks involved will transfer to the member of staff who is keeping him.
Some insurance companies do a free 4 week puppy/kitten cover where the cover starts straight away.
Intususeption can occur very quickly and would have required surgery ASAP, so your puppy would not have had time to wait. You made a good decision and the puppy will go on to have a good life.
Last edited:
Red-1
I used to be decisive, now I'm not so sure...
I actually think that in this situation I would thank the vet profusely for taking the puppy on and shouldering the responsibility so he wasn't put to sleep.
I say this from the perspective of having been in the same situation, although with us, we found Hector on the street, took him on (after advertising and failing to find any owner interested in having him back) and he then became very ill. The final bill was actually around £1,400 but, at the time of going through it, we didn't know what the final bill would be for a scraggy, aged mongrel dog. The vet's receptionist took a shine to him and offered to pay his bills if we signed him over.
We didn't as we were already fond of him, and he was now (having picked him up) our responsibility. However, far from being insulted at the offer, I was glad that someone fought his corner. I had some of the money and my lovely mum paid some for us too, but otherwise we would have taken a loan. If that hadn't been possible, then PTS would have been his fate, if the vets staff hadn't stepped up.
It seems that, if the vet staff hadn't stepped up, the puppy would already have been PTS? I would say that, whichever staff member stepped up, they have earned the right to own the puppy, as they took the £ risk. They took ownership, in every way as well as the signed over one.
As you are in a tricky time of life, getting a mortgage etc, I would move on. Once established in your new home, then consider another dog. I don't think you did much wrong, BTW. You took on a dog, it fell ill and you didn't have potentially thousands to put the dog right. Someone offered to take the responsibility and you accepted. It worked out right for all concerned, including the dog. The only issue is now, that you are trying to reverse the decision. So, I would drop that.
I say this from the perspective of having been in the same situation, although with us, we found Hector on the street, took him on (after advertising and failing to find any owner interested in having him back) and he then became very ill. The final bill was actually around £1,400 but, at the time of going through it, we didn't know what the final bill would be for a scraggy, aged mongrel dog. The vet's receptionist took a shine to him and offered to pay his bills if we signed him over.
We didn't as we were already fond of him, and he was now (having picked him up) our responsibility. However, far from being insulted at the offer, I was glad that someone fought his corner. I had some of the money and my lovely mum paid some for us too, but otherwise we would have taken a loan. If that hadn't been possible, then PTS would have been his fate, if the vets staff hadn't stepped up.
It seems that, if the vet staff hadn't stepped up, the puppy would already have been PTS? I would say that, whichever staff member stepped up, they have earned the right to own the puppy, as they took the £ risk. They took ownership, in every way as well as the signed over one.
As you are in a tricky time of life, getting a mortgage etc, I would move on. Once established in your new home, then consider another dog. I don't think you did much wrong, BTW. You took on a dog, it fell ill and you didn't have potentially thousands to put the dog right. Someone offered to take the responsibility and you accepted. It worked out right for all concerned, including the dog. The only issue is now, that you are trying to reverse the decision. So, I would drop that.
Sandstone1
Well-Known Member
I have a feeling I have heard this story before or at least one very like it....
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
I think it's real. It certainly happens, if this particular story isn't, and it needs to be brought out into the open.
That's because it's happening at vets all over the place. It's unethical, it shouldn't be happening. I know vets are human and I know it will mean some animals die who could have been saved, but ime people in the throes of an emotional storm should not be being put in a positron where they feel obliged to sign their animals over to employees of the practice which would otherwise charge them to treat it. It isn't ethical. Sooner or later there will be accusations that vet bill estimates were inflated and/or costs to employees were lowered to allow an employee to take ownership of a valuable animal. I don't think vet practices should be putting themselves or their clients in this position and I'm surprised the standards set by their professional bodies allow it.
.
meleeka
Well-Known Member
I think it’s unethical too. The charges are presumably costs only for the emoloyee so it’s not as if they are stepping in and paying the same bill.
It’s always worth remembering that vets are running a business and ultimately what they do is about making a profit (not so much independents, but definitely the likes of CVS), they aren’t the Florence Nightingales of the animal world. I wonder how that sits with those than went into the job with a genuine love of animals?
It’s always worth remembering that vets are running a business and ultimately what they do is about making a profit (not so much independents, but definitely the likes of CVS), they aren’t the Florence Nightingales of the animal world. I wonder how that sits with those than went into the job with a genuine love of animals?
Pearlsacarolsinger
Up in the clouds
That is what would concern me about the practice.
Perhaps people should just not take on pets that they can't afford to support.
I understand that Red-1's situation was somewhat different, as her dog was a stray but in fact if she hadn't been able to afford the treatment he should have been passed on to a charity which would have paid for the treatment and then rehomed him. Animals should only be rehomed to staff members by vet practices if their help has been actively sought in rehoming the animal. My grandparents rehomed a dog, after their own terrier had been pts, the Griffon had belonged to another long-term client who had had to move into residential care and was unable to take the dog with her. The vet practice asked my grandparents if they would take him.
I always think the potentially most worrying time in a dog's life is the few days/weeks after leaving the breeder, before the new owner knows what is normal for the animal and they are extremely vulnerable while so young. That is the time when we insure, although we self-insure for the rest of the dog's life.
MotherOfChickens
MotherDucker
Hmm, I am not sure its unethical. Isnt it unethical that people buy animals that they can't afford? Vets are not charities. Vets get sick to the back teeth of people spending sums of money on animals and then pleading poverty. My vet this year said that he'd had a huge number of new dog owners, spending thousands on poorly bred dogs claim that they cannot afford the vets fees and didn't bother with insurance. Most vets ime will try and accommodate someone who has fallen on hard times but many of these clients who claim they can't pay are repeat offenders (I am not saying you are OP but the bad ones tar everyone).
OP you had the money apparently, even though it's earmarked for a very important thing-its not for a veterinary business to subsidise your mortgage.
A solution was given, euthanasia might be a shame but it isnt a welfare issue. Signing over animals to staff has been going on for eons, even when I first started working for SA practices back in the 80s. Happens in equine practice as well. Often these animals are rehomed to people that they know who are reliable.
chalk it up to experience and be glad the dog has a good outcome.
OP you had the money apparently, even though it's earmarked for a very important thing-its not for a veterinary business to subsidise your mortgage.
A solution was given, euthanasia might be a shame but it isnt a welfare issue. Signing over animals to staff has been going on for eons, even when I first started working for SA practices back in the 80s. Happens in equine practice as well. Often these animals are rehomed to people that they know who are reliable.
chalk it up to experience and be glad the dog has a good outcome.
SOS
Well-Known Member
The bill is different for an owner and a staff member as the staff member can take off the labour costs involved as they are working there and doing it themselves. The owner can’t do that. It’s not a new thing for pets to be signed over to the practice, if anything with my anecdotal experience it’s getting rarer as people will sue over anything these days. FYI at several vets I have worked at there was NO discount for staff members at all but they could have treatment money docked off wages.
As for OP most points have been covered. Clearly another ill informed purchase, any reading around puppies tells you to insure immediately or have back up for emergencies. This was not done. The dog had an expensive emergency, which the vets offered options for treatment or PTS.
As for it “being a duty of care” that bit majorly got my back up. It is a duty of care for us to alleviate suffering. It’s not our fault that your lack of financial planning only allows it to be alleviated by PTS. Harsh but true and do not put your guilty conscious onto the vets.
Vet bashing is one of the reasons the suicide rate is so high in the profession.
I hope if this is real the poor puppy gets a permanent home after a rocky start. He’s been let down by the first family who should have handed him back to the breeder to find another home not sold on. And let down again by OP.
As for OP most points have been covered. Clearly another ill informed purchase, any reading around puppies tells you to insure immediately or have back up for emergencies. This was not done. The dog had an expensive emergency, which the vets offered options for treatment or PTS.
As for it “being a duty of care” that bit majorly got my back up. It is a duty of care for us to alleviate suffering. It’s not our fault that your lack of financial planning only allows it to be alleviated by PTS. Harsh but true and do not put your guilty conscious onto the vets.
Vet bashing is one of the reasons the suicide rate is so high in the profession.
I hope if this is real the poor puppy gets a permanent home after a rocky start. He’s been let down by the first family who should have handed him back to the breeder to find another home not sold on. And let down again by OP.
scats
Well-Known Member
What an unfortunate situation, but one that perhaps people really should plan for, or at least consider. I know nobody thinks that within 48 hours of getting a puppy (or any animal) that they will need expensive medical treatment, but the reality is that it can happen at any time.
No-where near the same situation, but when I was 18 I bought a kitten home from a cat rescue that clearly had awful cat flu. I had been to see it a few weeks before and put a deposit on it and was shocked to hear just a few weeks later it was ready to be collected when I knew it was only 5 weeks old. Anyway, I went along and took one look at it and saw the state it was in so took it. Within an hour I was at the vet with my long suffering parents, spending over £100 trying to save it’s life (which we did).
I always have an emergency credit card for situations like this, or the possibility that insurance won’t pay out for whatever reason.
In your situation OP, is it worth getting some legal advice about where you stand?
No-where near the same situation, but when I was 18 I bought a kitten home from a cat rescue that clearly had awful cat flu. I had been to see it a few weeks before and put a deposit on it and was shocked to hear just a few weeks later it was ready to be collected when I knew it was only 5 weeks old. Anyway, I went along and took one look at it and saw the state it was in so took it. Within an hour I was at the vet with my long suffering parents, spending over £100 trying to save it’s life (which we did).
I always have an emergency credit card for situations like this, or the possibility that insurance won’t pay out for whatever reason.
In your situation OP, is it worth getting some legal advice about where you stand?
poiuytrewq
Well-Known Member
Yes, which is why, surely you sort it as soon as!
Mine was in place 2 weeks before I collected Cecil so he was fully covered when I got him home. He also had 4 weeks free but I didn’t realise that until I’d arranged my own.
What an awful situation. I kind of think as some people have said that you may have to draw a line under this, grateful that the puppy is now healthy and has treatment and is in a presumably very good home where all his needs will be met.
poiuytrewq
Well-Known Member
Another thing I’d like to point out is that it’s easy to blame the vets for being unethical etc but the reality is they are a business, if you took a car to a garage, got £2000 worth of work done and couldn’t pay you wouldn’t get to drive it home.
In that situation everyone would think “fair enough”
In that situation everyone would think “fair enough”
Last edited:
teddy_
Well-Known Member
As most others have said, I think you and the puppy are incredibly lucky that these vets agreed to operate, cover the costs internally and provide a home for the puppy.
It's a sad situation but your expectations of this veterinary practice to accept a payment plan are frankly unrealistic.
Painful as it may be OP, get your mortgage and new house sorted then, when you're in a financial position to do so, either source a puppy / dog from a rescue centre or, purchase from a KC registered breeder. There is no shortage of wonderful dogs out there.
It's a sad situation but your expectations of this veterinary practice to accept a payment plan are frankly unrealistic.
Painful as it may be OP, get your mortgage and new house sorted then, when you're in a financial position to do so, either source a puppy / dog from a rescue centre or, purchase from a KC registered breeder. There is no shortage of wonderful dogs out there.
Parrotperson
Well-Known Member
wouldnt have mattered if you had sorted insurance out. Theres usually a 14 or 30 day clause on a policy before which they won't pay out.
Its hard but I don't see what you can do if you haven't got the money or can't raise it.
Nest time buy from a reputable breeder and do your research first. Don't buy off adverts on the internet (Facebook, pets4homes etc).
Mrs. Jingle
Well-Known Member
I think you have been very unlucky OP - and I can understand that you are probably emotionally all over the place with what has happened, and so quickly within just 48 hours of getting the pup. I don't think you need a lot of online bashing and holier than thou comments in response to your original post, I can imagine you are beating yourself up over it all enough without help from others to make you feel even worse about yourself.
But you have been very lucky, or at least the pup has, that a member of their staff was happy to step in and pay for all vet fees in exchange for ownership for the sick pup. I think you have had some clear answers that really do tell you the bottom line is you cannot get your pup back, but at least the pup's life has been saved so that must be some comfort.
Perhaps just move on now, get on with settling into your new home and consider getting a rescue dog at a later date. Hopefully when you are more financially prepared to take on a pet with all the commitment that needs, both financially and emotionally. Sorry you have had such a bad experience, we all make mistakes from time to time, hopefully it can be a learning curve and be happy the pup did not have to be PTS.
But you have been very lucky, or at least the pup has, that a member of their staff was happy to step in and pay for all vet fees in exchange for ownership for the sick pup. I think you have had some clear answers that really do tell you the bottom line is you cannot get your pup back, but at least the pup's life has been saved so that must be some comfort.
Perhaps just move on now, get on with settling into your new home and consider getting a rescue dog at a later date. Hopefully when you are more financially prepared to take on a pet with all the commitment that needs, both financially and emotionally. Sorry you have had such a bad experience, we all make mistakes from time to time, hopefully it can be a learning curve and be happy the pup did not have to be PTS.
meleeka
Well-Known Member
Just to be clear, I don’t think it’s unethical for the vet to expect to be paid, I think it’s unethical for them to put pressure on the owner to sign the animal over when they are already in a stressful situation. What I think should happen is that the owner should be given the option to try and find/borrow the money and only when they’ve done that and decided the dog should be pts should an alternative be mentioned.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
I don't think anyone is suggesting that vets should provide treatment for free. But a car doesn't die overnight if the owner is given 24 hours to get their head straight and their act together about how much the bill will be, so I don't think the situation compares. I do think these cases could do with the involvement of an independent third party to avoid putting down animals which are likely to survive, which would probably need to be a charity.
I can foresee the big insurance companies issuing a blanket ban on staff employed by the practice taking on client's animals in lieu of payment from the owner.
.
Quigleyandme
Well-Known Member
I do feel for you but you have been the author of your own downfall. I suspect you have been duped into buying a sick puppy from a puppy mill. By doing so you have supported this repulsive industry. There is loads of information online about the pitfalls to avoid and the right way of going about buying a puppy. Dog ownership is expensive. You really shouldn’t have one if you can‘t afford to cover contingencies. With regard to the vet; the arrangement sounds really unethical and akin to emotional blackmail to me. The pup is OK which is a blessing. I echo others here who have advised walk away and chalk it up to experience. I had to do so when I paid £7500 for a young horse (pre-pandemic when that was a lot) that arrived with a snotty nose and died a few months later. The vet fees were as much as the horse and I still lost him so I am not talking without some self-awareness of my own mistakes and lack of judgment.
Quigleyandme
Well-Known Member
Is the PDSA turning prospective clients away or were they not an option geographically?
skinnydipper
Well-Known Member
Intussusception is an emergency and not something that could wait for the owner to try and drum up funds.
The gut telescopes and cuts off the blood supply.
Babies can die from this if not diagnosed and operated promptly, I expect puppies would too.
The gut telescopes and cuts off the blood supply.
Babies can die from this if not diagnosed and operated promptly, I expect puppies would too.
Last edited:
Pearlsacarolsinger
Up in the clouds
PDSA is only able to treat the pets of people claiming certain benefits. As OP has a mortgage application in the pipeline, I doubt that she falls into one of those categories. I have no idea why she didn't use part of her saved house deposit to pay for the treatment and then work out how to put that amount back. That is one of the things that don't add up to me.