Bloo*y Cheek?

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Fri, 11 Jan 2019 15:58:01 GMT

We used to find February was our “ not for profit “ month on a regular basis annually , and whenever we opened a branch we had a whole not for profit year or more.

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Bob Russell — Fri, 11 Jan 2019 13:39:22 GMT

Accounts can be found with simple Googling (as for any other company!) at Companies House.

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Bob Russell — Fri, 11 Jan 2019 13:32:34 GMT

“Not-for-profit organisation” is a broad term for all independent organisations whose purpose is something other than to make private profit for directors, members or shareholders. Many different types of organisation can be “not-for-profit”. It is not a legal structure in and of itself.

I assume the owners take a salary determined by the organisation then the rest is reinvested. Not really that different to other businesses except these pay 'salary' as dividends.

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Niall Taylor — Fri, 11 Jan 2019 12:38:05 GMT

I would say, to your average MOP or anyone who hasn't ever managed and run their own business that "not for profit" would be taken to mean the owners do the work out of the goodness of their own hearts for minimal recompense and in all likelihood they are a charity. In actual fact this business is not a charity.

It is also possible in any business for the partners or directors simply to do a paper exercise whereby they pay themselves what they like, call it a salary rather than a "share of profit" and, hey presto, a "not-for profit" business is created!

While not dishonest or illegal, some might say it's a little disingenuous.

Niall

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 11 Jan 2019 11:59:42 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]The directors take whatever salary they dictate and reinvest the rest. No shareholders involved.[/quote]

I presume 'not for profit' could mean anything from:

All our directors/employees are paid 5/10ths of nothing, but that's OK, we all shop at Poundland and holiday in a caravan park in Swindon

... to ...

All our directors/employees are paid eye-wateringly well, in order to support the daily deliveries from Harrods, the annual yacht charters and the fleet of Bentley Bentaygas.

Or more likely something in between (and because I always assume the best, leaning more towards some self-sacrifice). In other words, I doubt there is anything dishonest about this. I'll bet the owners are doing as they say on the tin. But I don't actually know!

[quote user="Bob Russell"]No problem with the idea of a 'free' consultation[/quote]

Well, I have to say that I don't like the way it cheapens the value of veterinary advice.

[quote user="Bob Russell"] but owners should be aware that their bill on leaving is likely to be similar to other practices![/quote] Perhaps not, if the above is true and they are all living out of Poundland.

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Bob Russell — Fri, 11 Jan 2019 11:33:01 GMT

No entrance fee but very expensive rides and food?

Not for profit is the bit that still rankles as it suggests a charitable organisation. The directors take whatever salary they dictate and reinvest the rest. No shareholders involved.

No problem with the idea of a 'free' consultation but owners should be aware that their bill on leaving is likely to be similar to other practices!

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Anthony Dennison — Fri, 11 Jan 2019 10:57:08 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]If anybody could be bothered, this could be reported to a few regulatory bodies. Not least of which is the advertising standards authority. You can't state you don't do loss leaders, and then do consultations for free. So wrong.[/quote]

Could also talk to the RCVS about how they speak badly of other local vet practices. Or about how they refuse to do home visits...

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Niall Taylor — Fri, 11 Jan 2019 06:44:09 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]If anybody could be bothered, this could be reported to a few regulatory bodies. Not least of which is the advertising standards authority.[/quote]

The ASA seems to take the view that any complaint from one vet about another vet practice will not be considered because it looks like you are just worried about the competition and trying to undermine them. I once complained about a practice in Aberdeen or thereabouts which was advertising homeopathic cures for things like cancer. Even though it was about 800 miles away from us in the south-west of England they still wouldn't look at it.

Niall

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Gillian Mostyn — Thu, 10 Jan 2019 22:57:00 GMT

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]

“What we don’t do is offer ‘loss leader’ procedures to lure in new clients, only to charge very high fees in cases of sickness, illness or injury.”

Followed by

Consultation fee sick or ill animal (sick Or ill?) - free

The irony

[/quote]

If anybody could be bothered, this could be reported to a few regulatory bodies. Not least of which is the advertising standards authority. You can't state you don't do loss leaders, and then do consultations for free. So wrong.

Maybe the fact that I no longer own a local (competing) practice would make my complaint sound more genuine? Or maybe they are just too good at sounding like the Robin Hood of veterinary practices for any complaint to be taken seriously.

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Jill Butterworth — Thu, 10 Jan 2019 21:00:20 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"] How would a minimum standard be set, and by whom? who would enforce it and how?[/quote]

The existing RCVS practice standards scheme is pretty fair and comprehensive, it's probably time it is compulsory.

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Kate Richardson — Thu, 10 Jan 2019 20:54:24 GMT

“What we don’t do is offer ‘loss leader’ procedures to lure in new clients, only to charge very high fees in cases of sickness, illness or injury.”

Followed by

Consultation fee sick or ill animal (sick Or ill?) - free

The irony

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Robin Grimmer — Thu, 10 Jan 2019 19:53:27 GMT

The founder is called Owen Monie!!! Something he has in common with most of the clients

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 10 Jan 2019 19:39:46 GMT

Well, you might begrudge the charitable-sounding proposition, but it looks like it is going down well with pet owners! https://www.vetsurgeon.org/News/b/veterinary-news/archive/2019/01/10/not-for-profit-vets-open-second-practice.aspx

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Anthony Dennison — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 08:42:10 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]Equally; their "free consultation" is akin to a free or very cheap Ryanair flight, but optional extras like carrying a bag, having a seat or breathing oxygen will costs £100's.[/quote]

Injection fees and dispensing fees that go on top of drugs are eye watering.

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Clive Ansell — Sat, 18 Mar 2017 13:10:13 GMT

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]I have read the article in Vet Times and I actually agree with him. His background is in the NHS. I do think practices need tighter regulation rather than being optional.[/quote]

I've read it and in principle I agree too, in theory at least. How would a minimum standard be set, and by whom? who would enforce it and how? Comparing the veterinary profession, which is a service industry, to the NHS is a non starter and not a fair comparison.

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]As a locum I see a wide variety of practices and while most do things very well, there are ones that don't keep up, don't do CPD etc, don't buy text books etc. [/quote]

Ditto

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Robin Grimmer — Sat, 18 Mar 2017 10:58:57 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]

It's not all a bed of roses at the Animal Trust:

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/malvyn-cat-put-down-vets-11690542

[/quote]

That could happen to any of us, just some half arsed sob story in the local rag. "Stray" cat that owners have looked after was PTS because FIV +ve. If a stray, "owners" consent not needed

[/quote]

True. Probably one of these owned cats that becomes a 'stray' when presented to a vet to try and get out of paying!

I have read the article in Vet Times and I actually agree with him. His background is in the NHS. I do think practices need tighter regulation rather than being optional. As a locum I see a wide variety of practices and while most do things very well, there are ones that don't keep up, don't do CPD etc, don't buy text books etc. We hear of these disciplinary cases of really quite poor standards of veterinary care which while hopefully rare does undermine the profession as a whole.

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Clive Ansell — Sat, 18 Mar 2017 10:36:47 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]However, their marketing insinuates that the first opinion work is somehow cut price or subsidised- which is incorrect. Therefore, the people who are most vulnerable/susceptible to this kind of marketing are the ones they exploit. I find that despicable. [/quote]

I agree, but this is nothing new and is in fact just another variation of an increasingly common business model to drag them in through the door with the promise of a cheap or "free" service, prior to turning on the hard sell for a full on cash extraction exercise.

We have the same in the South Birmingham area, a proliferation of low cost back street sweat shop type clinics with dubious offers and discount services. A few years ago, one of them had a website promotion flogging all in cat dentals for £45, all including 5 days of Antirobe and Metacam. I, and many colleagues in other practices, picked up many of these cases as second opinions and the £45 would often morph into between £300 and £400 by the time fluids, bloods, extractions were added in - In almost all cases the local established independent practices would have done a cheaper (and a whole lot better!) job. Lets just say the standard of some of the work was "less than optimal" and leave it at that

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Clive Ansell — Sat, 18 Mar 2017 10:23:12 GMT

[quote user="Robin Grimmer"]

It's not all a bed of roses at the Animal Trust:

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/malvyn-cat-put-down-vets-11690542

[/quote]

That could happen to any of us, just some half arsed sob story in the local rag. "Stray" cat that owners have looked after was PTS because FIV +ve. If a stray, "owners" consent not needed

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Bob Russell — Sat, 18 Mar 2017 10:05:49 GMT

"We trusted the Animal Trust"

Has The Animal Health Trust had anything to say about an organisation doing a pretty good job of mimicking a pet charity?

I cannot believe the RCVS did not stamp on this in the first place.

Not for profit, No consultation fees, believe care should be about making animals better and not making profits, affordable plus that .org address all smack of charity status.

I know we have been here before but I consider the article in the Vet Times to be a new low.

I run a business, my clients know that it has to make a profit and they can see what car I drive!

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Robin Grimmer — Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:51:39 GMT

It's not all a bed of roses at the Animal Trust:

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/malvyn-cat-put-down-vets-11690542

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Gillian Mostyn — Sat, 18 Mar 2017 08:27:50 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]Maybe one for trading standards[/quote]

I tried. 5 years or so when they opened their first small, local practice. I was politely told to put up and shut up by everyone, including the OFT. They sail close to the edge with everyone but are very careful not to cross the line. I assume most thought it was just sour grapes at having some local competition. It wasn't.

I won't discuss their clinical deficiencies, because obviously i wont get to hear of their success stories so that would be unfair. I'm sure that, individually, the clinical staff have their hearts in the right place. But we get a LOT of clients who come to us clasping invoices and estimates...They are always very interesting.

They now have 5 large hospitals. Barn door....Horse bolted....

I think that the idea of providing a veterinary service to those clients who fall through the cracks left between charity and private practice is brilliant. They do provide some referral standard services at lower rates, which is also much needed. However, their marketing insinuates that the first opinion work is somehow cut price or subsidised- which is incorrect. Therefore, the people who are most vulnerable/susceptible to this kind of marketing are the ones they exploit. I find that despicable.

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Clive Ansell — Sat, 18 Mar 2017 08:04:15 GMT

I can't believe people are taken in by their BS advertising.

"not for profit" is meaningless - the directors could legally be paying themselves 6 figure salaries and be strutting around in cars in excess of £100,000 while their Ltd co on paper makes no profit. Nonsense.

Equally; their "free consultation" is akin to a free or very cheap Ryanair flight, but optional extras like carrying a bag, having a seat or breathing oxygen will costs £100's.

Maybe one for trading standards?

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Gillian Mostyn — Sat, 18 Mar 2017 07:26:50 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]I'd suggest that many of those prices equal or exceed what many 'for profit' 1st opinion practices might charge?[/quote]

No - really?

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Rob Loxley — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 22:54:06 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]comprehensive price list toshare their low prices:[/quote]

I'd be interested what 'payment advance of procedure' means in reality?
I'd suggest that many of those prices equal or exceed what many 'for profit' 1st opinion practices might charge?

RE: Bloo*y Cheek?

Clive Ansell — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 21:27:24 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]It would not be wrong at all. If something is true it should be said, free speech at and all that.[/quote]

6.5 Veterinary surgeons must not engage in any activity or behaviour that would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession

Unless you insinuate that other vets are putting profits before pets. That's OK. Obviously.

[/quote]

I don't think an open and honest discussion on this forum (If you wanted too) would come within that category?