30 Jun 2025
Vet who first registered more than half a century ago was criticised for “inadequate and out-of-date” care at a disciplinary hearing.
Vet Times
Job Title
Image © Chinnapong / Adobe Stock
A Bedfordshire-based vet has been struck off over failings that occurred after he had reversed his retirement to work in a relative’s new practice.
An RCVS disciplinary committee described aspects of Siew Loong Ng’s clinical approach as “inadequate and out of date” and said animals had suffered serious harm as a result.
Mr Ng, who first registered with the RCVS in 1974, faced seven charges that contained dozens of individual allegations during a three-week hearing earlier this month.
The incidents occurred after he had returned to work in January 2020 as a locum at a practice called The Little Pets, which was set up by a member of his family.
While that business ceased operating the following year, Mr Ng continued to work from the same premises under the name Tilsworth Veterinary Practice.
But despite receiving what was described as a “substantial number of testimonials” supporting Mr Ng, the committee also heard multiple allegations of clinical failings, poor record keeping and dishonesty.
The report criticised his treatment of two dogs with diabetes as falling far below expected standards, adding: “Both animals had come close to death as a result of the respondent’s failure to offer the intervention that should have been offered by a first opinion veterinary surgeon.”
The panel also described his approach to the treatment of cherry eye, where he had argued in evidence that alternative options to amputating the Harderian gland were not effective, as “deeply concerning and many years out of date”.
It said his treatment of the diabetes and cherry eye cases should be considered as disgraceful conduct in a professional respect because of the “actual injury” caused and there was little in his CPD record to suggest he had sought to address shortcomings.
Elsewhere, repeated concerns were raised about record keeping, including incidents where records were amended retrospectively and two others where Mr Ng admitted deleting patient records altogether.
During the consideration of sanction, he insisted he had instigated new systems and “engaged extra help” in that area.
But while it was claimed his dishonest conduct occurred at a time of “great stress”, the committee said the amendment made in one of the diabetes cases was particularly serious because the pet owner’s dissatisfaction with the care offered had been known at the time.
The report added: “The alteration presented a false account of the owner’s attitude towards immediate therapeutic intervention. Conduct of this kind was liable to damage trust in the profession.”
In total, Mr Ng admitted specific aspects of five of the charges against him, while the committee found other matters proved in relation to six. Some points on two of the charges were found not proved.
He later expressed “shame” over his actions, while his legal representatives argued suspension was an appropriate punishment because of his long career without previous disciplinary matters and a public interest in enabling him to continue practising.
But the committee said his actions had shown “serious departures from the code and a deliberate or reckless disregard for professional standards”.
