Which? uncovers evidence of unclear pricing and potential overtreatment by vets - and calls for action from CMA review

Which? has found evidence of unclear pricing and concerning examples of potential overtreatment of pets by vet practices. 

The consumer champion surveyed 2,000 pet owners who had used a vet in the past 12 months and looked at the websites of veterinary practices, finding a number of problems around pricing and treatment information.

This research comes at a time when the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is investigating the veterinary industry amid concerns that pet owners are not getting a fair deal. 

Which? found that seven in 10 (73%) pet owners consider vet consultation fees expensive. Eight in 10 (82%) think that vet treatments and medications are expensive, but it is hard to shop around because vet prices are often not displayed on the individual practice or chain website. More than a third (36%) of pet owners said they are usually only informed about the price after the appointment at the reception.

Difficulty in comparing prices is likely a result of obscure pricing on veterinary websites. Which? reviewed the websites of practices in the six large corporate groups*, as well as a sample of independent practices. Most practices did not have prices for any treatments on their website. 

It is common for vets to advertise prices for a ‘pet plan’ (or similar), which cover some basic services such as vaccinations and basic health checks for a fixed monthly price and are distinct from pet insurance. It is often claimed the pet plans give significant savings, but since the prices of individual services are usually not advertised, it is often impossible to verify this based on the information available on the website.

In the CMA’s review, Which? anticipates that there will, at the very least, need to be action to improve the transparency of prices and to ensure that practices display prices for standard treatments on their websites. 

The consumer champion also found that a quarter (27%) of pet owners had at some point doubted whether a treatment recommended by their vet was really necessary. Over half (53%) went ahead with the treatment anyway, but more experienced pet owners were more likely to refuse. Of those who had gone ahead with the treatment they doubted, nearly three in 10 (28%) pet owners said that they had done so because they did not have enough information to know whether it was necessary or not.

Lisa Saunders took her dog, who was on a special diet due to severe food allergies, to the vet when he began passing blood and diarrhoea. Around £700 and various consultations, blood tests and antibiotics later, her dog was not getting any better. When she saw a fourth vet at the same practice, she was told the antibiotics probably made him worse, and he would have recovered on his own without taking any. The vet took him off of all medication, and eventually, he got better.

A respondent from the survey said: “I'm worried that if I refuse the treatment from the vet, my pet will get worse. So although I doubt that these treatments are valuable, I still choose to treat.”

Many pet treatments and medications are available at potentially far cheaper prices from other sources, such as online pharmacies. However, fewer than a quarter (22%) of pet owners who have bought medication purchased it from places other than their vet.

As part of Keith Dancey's cat's treatment, the vet had quoted him £188.96 for a powder to treat his cat’s constipation, a product that can be found online and is available over the counter for a fraction of the price. As well as this, because travelling upsets Keith’s cat, the vet suggested that he could call and update the vet on how the cat was responding to treatment. Keith agreed and made a phone call lasting approximately two minutes, but only found out on receiving his bill that he was being charged a full consultation fee of £36.89 for this brief conversation. 

The research also highlighted issues relating to large chains taking over hundreds of previously independent vet practices. Independent veterinary practices accounted for 89 per cent of the UK industry in 2013, but this share had fallen to less than half (45%) by 2021. However, because these ownership changes are often unclear, there is a risk of pet owners wasting time “shopping around,” when the vet practices they are looking at are actually part of the same overarching business. 

For example, Which? found an example of three vets within two miles of one another in Birmingham, which have different branding but are all owned by one company. 

Which? asked pet owners whether their main vet was part of a chain or independent. Of over 900 vets that were identified as part of one of the six large corporate groups, only around six in 10 (57%) were identified as such by the pet owner using the vet - one in 10 (11%) said they did not know and a third wrongly (32%) thought that their vet was independent. In the survey, nine in 10 (90%) of customers of Vets4Pets and Companion Care, both owned by Pets at Home and with clearer corporate branding, identified their vet as a chain, compared to just a third (34%) of another company’s customers.

Consumers’ lack of awareness of the ownership of their practice may not be directly harmful, but it could reduce competition within the market, especially where groups have practices branded differently within the same local area. 

Which? is urging the CMA to crack down on unclear pricing practices and ensure pet owners using veterinary services are able to easily shop around for the best treatment option for them and their pet, without being ripped off.

The consumer champion shared its findings with the CMA before it launched its review into veterinary practices. The regulator is expected to share its initial findings in the new year. 

Sue Davies, Which? Head of Consumer Protection Policy, said:

“Millions of UK households own pets and consider them part of the family - which leaves them exposed to practices such as unclear pricing and unnecessary treatment if a pet falls ill. 

“Which?’s findings show that shopping around and getting reliable information about paying for veterinary services is much more difficult than it should be. That’s why it’s important that the CMA’s review gets to the bottom of this issue and ensures pet owners are treated fairly when they seek help from a vet.”

- ENDS -

Notes to Editors

An online survey of 2,035 pet owners was conducted by Yonder on behalf of Which? from 30th May to 4th June 2023. The survey included a range of behavioural and attitudinal questions about pet owners’ experiences of using veterinary services, exploring their views around pricing, their decision-making processes and their perception of and trust in these services. 

In the survey, we asked pet owners for details about their vet practice and matched this with information from chain websites to determine whether their vet was part of a large chain or not. 

Read the full report here. (Page to go live on Friday 22nd December) 

*The six large corporate groups mentioned: CVS, IVC-Evidensia, VetPartners, Pets at Home, Medivet, Linnaeus

About Which?

Which? is the UK’s consumer champion, here to make life simpler, fairer and safer for everyone. Our research gets to the heart of consumer issues, our advice is impartial, and our rigorous product tests lead to expert recommendations. We’re the independent consumer voice that influences politicians and lawmakers, investigates, holds businesses to account and makes change happen. As an organisation, we’re not for profit and all for making consumers more powerful.

The information in this press release is for editorial use by journalists and media outlets only. Any business seeking to reproduce information in this release should contact the Which? Endorsement Scheme team at [email protected].