9 Dec 2025
Alison Scull shares an example of when an owner was dissatisfied with an operation on her horse, so mediation was used to reach a satisfactory end result for both parties.
Alison Scull
Job Title
Image: kwadrat70 / Adobe Stock
When a three-month dispute between a horse owner and a vet practice over what the client felt was an incorrectly performed castration escalated, mediation was sought to provide a calm and independent voice to bring the matter to a satisfactory resolution for all.
Maverick is a three-year-old Irish draught cross. In March, he was booked in for an elective standing castration, but his owner was not happy with the technique used by the vet and felt it was performed incorrectly, as Maverick then suffered bleeding and a subsequent infection.
Maverick’s owner first raised concerns the same day as the procedure, when she felt excess swelling and bleeding was present which she had never seen before with previous castrations on other horses.
She requested the vet come out free of charge to ensure Maverick was okay, which the vet declined, saying it would be chargeable. Pictures were sent instead, which were checked by three vets at the practice, and no one saw any discharge or cause for concern. Unhappy with the response from the vets, the owner sought a second opinion, and sent the same pictures to another practice where vets did see discharge.
Maverick was later hospitalised for an infection, and his owner felt the original practice did not respond appropriately to the pictures to spot the onset of infection. The owner proposed the practice waive the cost of the castration to close her complaint.
After three months, the practice’s complaints process had not been able to bring the matter to a close, so it was referred to mediation by the owner who felt her complaint was not being taken seriously.
As a result of the complaint still being active, the horse owner was withholding payment of the castration fee and the practice was preparing to start a debt collection process.
The practice felt the owner was confrontational, and that the second practice which had criticised their interpretation of the photographs had “thrown them under the bus” – further fuelling the complaint.
The vet confirmed that her tried and tested technique, carrying out the procedure by feel following a full visual inspection, was successfully undertaken. The likelihood of bleeding and swelling was raised with Maverick’s owner and the procedure consented to. Aftercare management was raised with the owner and a handout provided for reference.
When the owner called later that day to raise concerns about the bleeding and swelling, she was offered a return visit but told this would be chargeable, so opted to send photos instead. The vet advised that if there was a constant flow of blood they would insist on coming out, but the owner advised this was not the case. The vet then asked the owner to call them out to assess Maverick properly if they had further concerns.
The practice reviewed the case after a complaint was raised by Maverick’s owner and their records showed a number of offers to come out to examine the horse, but these were declined on the grounds of cost, although, the owner refuted this. The practice later consulted the VDS, which noted that there was consent and no clinical issue.
With tensions escalating, Veterinary Client Mediation Service was bought in to mediate and move the complaint along for both parties.
While agreeing to disagree over the offers to come out to see Maverick being declined or not, the practice declined to waive the full castration fee, but instead offered a good will gesture of £150 off the bill, leaving £243.37 to pay within seven working days to draw the matter to a close.
The practice also requested the horse owner share the subsequent practice’s clinical history with them, so that they could follow the case through from when they last saw Maverick. The horse owner agreed to both as full and final settlement of the complaint, with no liability accepted by the practice.
This complaint was unusual because of the involvement of a subsequent practice apparently criticising the previous practice.
This apparent justification informed and fuelled the client’s complaint, making it much harder for the first practice to draw the matter to a close.
