Andrew Twydell
This was one of the most upsetting and poorly handled experiences I’ve had with a veterinary practice. I attended for what should have been a routine second vaccination for my dog. I was clear that he had been completely fine following earlier ear treatment. Despite this, the vet insisted she could see something concerning, described as a possible foreign body (“a yellow stalk” or grass seed). I was told sedation would be required to remove it. Based on that assessment, and trusting the advice given, I consented. After my dog was sedated, I was told that no foreign body was present and that only a very small piece of wax had been removed. Despite this, I was charged almost £300 for a procedure described as “grass seed removal.” After escalating through the formal complaints process, CVS later acknowledged that this billing description was misleading, but stated it was used because their system lacked an alternative code. They also forgot to clip my dogs nail as requested during the sedation. Ultimately, my dog was put at unnecessary risk of sedation for no reason. During the same visit, my dog who I had explicitly flagged as anxious, was left unattended in a kennel with his lead still attached. While unsupervised, he chewed through the lead. Being told this after the fact was extremely distressing and raised serious concerns about supervision and basic safety. I pursued this through the full complaints process, escalating beyond the practice to CVS at Regional Director level. The process involved repeated delays, missed response deadlines, and multiple follow-ups. Ultimately, the response focused on defending internal records rather than addressing the clear inconsistency between what I was told before sedation and what was actually found afterwards. Although some communication failures and procedural “learnings” were acknowledged, no responsibility was taken for the misleading procedure description, the unnecessary distress caused, or the handling of my dog while in their care. The only resolution offered was reimbursement for the damaged lead. This experience fundamentally undermined my trust in the practice. I would urge any pet owner to be extremely cautious, ask detailed questions, and ensure they fully understand and are comfortable with any proposed procedures before consenting.
