13 Oct 2026
Image: Yakobchuk Olena / Adobe Stock
A client brought her cat to a veterinary clinic for treatment of a suspected ear infection. The consultation was straightforward: the vet examined the cat, confirmed an ear infection, administered an injection and dispensed an ear cleaner and medicated ear drops.
Following the consultation, the client proceeded to reception to settle the bill.
At reception, the client was informed that their invoice had not yet come through. The client asked whether that meant there was nothing to pay, and the receptionist responded that it was possible. No invoice was printed or presented at that time. After waiting briefly and receiving no further clarification, the client left the clinic without making a payment.
Three weeks later, the client received an invoice by post for the consultation, injection and medications provided.
Upon receiving the invoice, the client disputed the charge, stating that she had attempted to pay at the time of the visit but was informed that the invoice had not come through.
She explained that the receptionist’s response led her to reasonably believe there may have been nothing to pay and noted that she was not contacted shortly after the visit to clarify any outstanding balance.
The clinic maintained that services and medications had been provided, and that payment was due at the time of consultation in accordance with clinic policy. It further stated that the delay in issuing the invoice was due to an administrative or system error, and that the client remained responsible for payment regardless of the communication at reception.
The receptionist’s use of the word “possibly” created uncertainty and failed to provide clear direction.
The client was not advised to wait while the issue was resolved or informed that the clinic would follow up with an invoice at a later time.
The client interpreted the absence of an invoice as meaning no payment was required, while the clinic assumed the client understood that payment would still be due despite the billing delay.
The three-week delay in issuing the invoice contributed to the client’s frustration and diminished trust, as the matter was not clarified promptly after the consultation.
After discussion, both parties acknowledged shared responsibility:
The clinic offered a partial reduction of the invoice as a goodwill gesture.
The client agreed to pay the reduced amount within an agreed timeframe.
The clinic implemented a new protocol.
This case illustrates how minor miscommunication at the point of payment can escalate into a formal dispute.
While the services were legitimately provided, the breakdown in clarity and follow-up contributed significantly to the conflict.
Through mediation, the matter was resolved in a way that balanced accountability with goodwill, preserving the client relationship and improving clinic procedures for the future.
Jules Neuman qualified as a veterinary surgeon in South Africa in 1993 and subsequently completed a postgraduate honours degree in small animal medicine. Following his move to the UK in 1998, he managed a small animal practice in north-west London and became a branch partner, a role he held for more than 20 years. In 2017, Jules transitioned from clinical practice into veterinary professional development, designing and leading a national graduate programme for a major UK veterinary corporate group. A qualified mediator, Jules joined the Veterinary Client Mediation Service as a resolution manager in April 2026, bringing extensive experience in veterinary practice, leadership, training and dispute resolution.