Vet still allowed to practice despite leaving surgical instrument inside dog
30 May 2025, 13:52
A vet who left a surgical instrument inside a dog has been allowed to keep practising depite leaving the animal 'permanently injured'.
Listen to this article
Loading audio...
Pet owners have raised concerns over veterinary standards in Britain as their complaints feel ignored.
Trace Brown, living in East Lothian, said she got “precisely nowhere” after complaining that her dog, Honey, had been injured after an operation.
The vet reportedly left a surgical instrument inside the dog.
The owner took her complaint to the Veterinary Client Mediation Service (VCMS) and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), but was offered just just £120 in compensation.
She said she had to spend £12,000 on corrective treatment for her dog and that the matter is still unresolved.
Trace said she suffers from ongoing stress and anxiety.
Read More Drivers can save £1,100 a year with scheme starting this week
This comes as Which? found pet owners are often put off making complaints about vets when things go wrong - and those that do find that the odds are stacked against them by a system that is not fit for purpose.
The consumer campaigner found that in a survey of over 1,000 pet owners who have experienced some kind of problem with their vet or vet practice in the past two years, pricing was the most common issue experienced.
Steph Drew from Lincoln said that the complaint system is “designed to protect vets”. Her dog Daisy was left injured when her vet operated on the wrong leg.
Steph complained to the RCVS but her case was initially dismissed after a year.
After appealing the RCVS decision, Daisy’s case went on for three years, finally ending in a disciplinary hearing.
The vet has now been struck off and found by the RCVS to have ‘failed to provide adequate care’ to 18 animals in total, resulting in the ‘unnecessary injury’ of several of these animals.
Sharon Khan from Warwick told Which? “It’s stacked against you from the start” when talking about her experience of the complaints process after her vet changed the cost of treatment for her German Shepherd, Fury.
She was given estimated treatment costs of £700 to treat gastrointestinal issues, however the next day the vet said they needed to operate and gave a new cost of £3,600.
Sharon’s insurer rejected the new cost as they did not understand the sudden change. This meant that the vet refused to do the surgery until the owner paid, leaving Fury for two hours without treatment, or even pain relief.
Sharon did manage to come up with the money, but it was too late for her dog, who died.
She felt that the vet had allowed Fury to die. Sharon said she was dissatisfied with the vet practice’s response to her complaint so she took her complaint to the RCVS but her case was later dismissed.
Over half surveyed by Which? (53%) said the price of care or treatment was excessive, while a quarter (27%) said the price was higher than they thought it would be.
Which? found the third most common issue was the quality of care (23%), followed by customer service (22%), not being given the relevant information (16%), being charged the wrong price (11%) and the vet or vet practice making a mistake (11%).
Many of the pet owners in the survey who had been put off from making a claim said they did not think they would be successful (38%), did not want to fall out with their vet (33%) or did not know how to complain in the first place (16%).
Very few pet owners then go on to escalate the complaint. Those that do, however, find that the options available are often inadequate.
The Vet Client Mediation Service (VCMS) only requires vets to participate voluntarily, while the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) has very high thresholds for investigating and progressing a complaint, leaving pet owners feeling dismissed, or that the process is biased in favour of veterinary professionals.
Court is rarely a viable option, due to the associated costs coupled with the perceived unlikelihood of success.
A VCMS spokesperson said: “While we can’t comment on individual cases, many pet owners and veterinary practices value the resolution support provided by the VCMS. Last year, we received more than 3,500 enquiries from pet owners, and the VCMS helped resolve over 80% of complaints. The service has evolved since its trial in 2017. It continues to develop the mediation process to improve outcomes and satisfaction for consumers and practice teams, as well as the delivery of veterinary care.”
Which? supports several of the remedies for redress set out by the Competition and Markets Authority, specifically that vet practices should all have clearly signposted internal complaints procedures and that there should be a veterinary ombudsman to provide comprehensive and mandatory alternative dispute resolution (ADR) scheme for when issues cannot be resolved at the practice level.
Rocio Concha, Which? Director of Policy and Advocacy, said: “Millions of people in the UK consider their pets to be part of the family, so it is completely unjust that many pet owners feel not only unhappy with the service and treatment received by their vet when their pet is taken ill, but also lack the means to make a complaint that will be properly investigated.
"It's clear that the regulation of vet services is outdated and needs an overhaul in order to work for pets and their owners. Vet practices need to be completely upfront about pricing and the treatment needed as well as provide pet owners with the information they need to make a complaint and escalate it if necessary.
“There also needs to be a veterinary ombudsman to provide a comprehensive and mandatory alternative dispute resolution (ADR) scheme for when issues cannot be resolved at the practice level.”
