# New:pdsa Pet care scheme



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

Some of you may know about recent changes to the PDSA Pet Hospital Scheme or the withdrawal of Pet Treatmaent Plan. We are currently at a PDSA Pet Practice and have been infoemed that the current pet pracice scheme will be completely axed and replaced with a schem called Pet Care
From the leaflet we will have to pay £4.50 per month which entitles us to free vacinations and a yearly check up plus a discount off pet insurance and 20% of pet treatment-and a free quarterly magazine.
Whilst we appreciate the PDSA have financial issues we feel this will severley affect many pet owners on the current scheme(we pay a minimum 10% (usually more).
As an example we inherited a border collie when our son left home -he cant have a pet at his home and he neglected to take out pet insurance .Hes now not in a position to take out insurance as hes on only 12 hours per week and has kids .
So the dog is now 14 and in good health and we have only used pet aid once for some blood tests .
I have looked at the PDSA pet insurance and even with the introductopry discount to cover him would cost around £350 per month 
We are both on the basic state pension of around £15000 per anum and have to get housing benefit to pay our housing association rent . There are no other charities in the area to help.
What concerns us apart from our own case is the axing of the current scheme will affect many pet owners especially elderly people who rely on a pet for company 
We would happily pay £20 per month if we still got help if and when needed -our last collie was 19 when she died of cancer but of course we were then both at work so didnt need PDSA nor insurance
What can be done -personally i would like the ODSA to rethink this scheme in its current format.
I would add if you live in the catchement area of a PDSA hospital you would get free and reduced treatment so thats a bit discriminatory -we would willingly drive 40 miles to acces one
By all means change the scheme to new users but existing users should not be cast aside


----------



## Westie Mum (Feb 5, 2015)

I haven’t seen anything about the changes, have you got a link to it ? 

My only suggestion would be for you to start putting a little away each week to build up a fund to pay for any treatment. We don’t insure but we are both working so it’s not an issue, so sorry I can’t advise what else you could do. 

Maybe someone else might know.


----------



## Smuge (Feb 6, 2017)

If they are having severe money issues, isnt a reduced service still much much better than nothing at all?


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

This is a shot of one that was posted elsewhere


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

Westie Mum said:


> I haven't seen anything about the changes, have you got a link to it ?
> 
> My only suggestion would be for you to start putting a little away each week to build up a fund to pay for any treatment. We don't insure but we are both working so it's not an issue, so sorry I can't advise what else you could do.
> 
> Maybe someone else might know.


Trouble is the basic state pension we are both on amounts to £270 per week and we have to claim housing benefits .Doesn't leave a lot .we have only used it once in seven years and then paid more than the 10 % donation but that's for blood tests .If he got really ill it could cripple not only us but others . 
The new scheme is basically you pay £4.50 per month . For that you get one free consultation per year ,free jabs or boosters,a quarterly magazine,15% of PDSA insurance and 20% vet bill reduction. In our case we currently have him checked every six months with is jabs so the cost would be the same .However we certainly couldn't afford the insurance of 350 pounds per month .Even the 20% of vets fees wouldn't help on larger bills . It's more a preventative scheme whereas existing clients are more in need of help with the treatment costs especially with older dogs . I contacted PDSA customer services and basically got told -tough - they would not even refer it to those who dreamt it up so no feedback allowed to them


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

paddyjulie said:


> This is a shot of one that was posted elsewhere
> View attachment 332447


Thanks.there was an accompanying leaflet and it's the detail that's the issue as apart from needing vet insurance which we couldn't afford at £350 per month.we would only get 20% of vet bills and many vets won't do payment plans . What good to us is free jabs or a magazine .we pay now for jabs and a twice yearly check up
I have been in touch with PDSA insurance who couldn't believe the cost. 
pDSA customer services say they consulted widely with carpets etc- but not with users .They won't even send comments to those who devised the scheme so it can be adjusted to help those who need it prior to implementation. I can see really elderly people taking there lives and their pets over this


----------



## ShibaPup (Mar 22, 2017)

Sadly a charity can only provide so much - it is sad that it also includes existing members but I understand the cuts, unfortunately some people do abuse the system.

You could look round at various insurance companies, Petplan would only offer 12 months essential which means any conditions would be covered for 12 months only. Excess would be £95 plus 20% of treatment cost - which seems rather expensive.

IMHO you would probably be best to put money into another bank account every month or week, so you have some money set aside if needed - perhaps ask if your son could contribute a little.
Not sure if a credit card might be an option for you or your son?
Speak with your vet - explain your circumstances and see if they might be able to offer a payment plan if it was ever needed.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Vet care is expensive, true, and being prepared for that is something you have to sort out when deciding to own a pet. I don't think it's right to get a pet if you have to rely on a charity to fund its medical care, but obviously circumstances change and people find themselves with existing pets and little or no money. I don't insure my 3 dogs - I couldn't afford the premiums. If anything very expensive happens, I'll have to release equity in my house or sell it and get a narrowboat, or move somewhere houses are much cheaper. I heard you can get a decent house in Bulgaria for under 40 grand.
An alternative is to take on some work, even if you're past retirement age, to earn something to put aside for the dog's care.


----------



## Westie Mum (Feb 5, 2015)

I know there was a discussion a while ago on here when they were limiting the numbers of Pets you could register and I know it caused a big debate. 

I’m not saying for one minute you are, please don’t think that ...... but there have been so many people taking advantage of the charity that didn’t need it, that could afford hundreds of pounds on pedigree dogs but no money for treatment. 

So while I can completely understand how hard this is going to make things, they are a charity after all and donations only go so far. We ourselves donate to PDSA (and others) but haven’t heard anything about it. 

Can you contact someone like Age Concern to see if they can advise of anything ?


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

Burrowzig said:


> Vet care is expensive, true, and being prepared for that is something you have to sort out when deciding to own a pet. I don't think it's right to get a pet if you have to rely on a charity to fund its medical care, but obviously circumstances change and people find themselves with existing pets and little or no money. I don't insure my 3 dogs - I couldn't afford the premiums. If anything very expensive happens, I'll have to release equity in my house or sell it and get a narrowboat, or move somewhere houses are much cheaper. I heard you can get a decent house in Bulgaria for under 40 grand.
> An alternative is to take on some work, even if you're past retirement age, to earn something to put aside for the dog's care.


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

Westie Mum said:


> I know there was a discussion a while ago on here when they were limiting the numbers of Pets you could register and I know it caused a big debate.
> 
> I'm not saying for one minute you are, please don't think that ...... but there have been so many people taking advantage of the charity that didn't need it, that could afford hundreds of pounds on pedigree dogs but no money for treatment.
> 
> ...


We wouldn't mind if they looked after their existing clients in the change- at least until the pet died . They say they consulted but didn't contact any clients at all. The new scheme is ok as a preventative for the future but it's leaving existing clients in a poor situation .they could have said pay 50% rather than 20% off or set up a direct debit of £20 per month to get free or heavily reduced treatment. 
I have heard of people abusing it and have seen changes to those using pet hospitals run by them and withdrawal of the pet treatment scheme. This is the latest and we got a letter yesterday .had seen something on the net so queried at the time with customer services and was told we are looking at improving things for existing clients only- clearly not


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Roger hill said:


> We wouldn't mind if they looked after their existing clients in the change- at least until the pet died . They say they consulted but didn't contact any clients at all. The new scheme is ok as a preventative for the future but it's leaving existing clients in a poor situation .they could have said pay 50% rather than 20% off or set up a direct debit of £20 per month to get free or heavily reduced treatment.
> I have heard of people abusing it and have seen changes to those using pet hospitals run by them and withdrawal of the pet treatment scheme. This is the latest and we got a letter yesterday .had seen something on the net so queried at the time with customer services and was told we are looking at improving things for existing clients only- clearly not


To be fair, your argument is the same as the PDSA's - the money simply isn't there......


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

In our case it was our sons dog until he met his partner and left.Shes controlling so he's now got three kids all of which are in her words accidental.he lost his job and can only get 12 hours per week and she will only do 8 ,- she won't come over or let us see the kids .So he's no use until he sees Cher got what she is
When he left we said take out insurance to help us as we had medical problems and could only work part time but never happened and three years later we retired .The dogs healthy just old - our last dog was 19 when she died with cancer but we were in full time work. 
My son can't have the dog back as his housing association won't allow pets so we're stuck
We have thought about part-time work but because we're in a housing association property if we want 75 pounds we lose £40 so it would mean we were on £3.50 per hour. That's if we could find anyone to take us on at 68/65


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Roger, when does your current registration run out?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I am afraid I am another that does not see why a charity should subsidise the luxury of owning a pet. Maybe you earned a lot before so your £15000 a year does not seem much. It seems quite a lot to me and I know many people who earn less than that and pay their own vet's bills. I think your old dog living to 19 was exceptional, a more realistic age is anywhere between 12 and 14 and most people on here would not put their old dog through expensive procedures so realistically you are not likely to have any hefty vets bills with this dog.


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

Lexiedhb said:


> To be fair, your argument is the same as the PDSA's - the money simply isn't there......


But on the other hand they could have devised a much better scheme that would not be going to have such a devesting effect on certain client groups. 
They certainly put saving money first and pets second ,a complete lack of consultation with the very affected people who need it. 
I believe they should suspend implementation until greater though is given. It's like a scheme our vets do at the moment but at a higher cost. 
I also believe ,given they have seen the online quote from the PDSA insurance that I had ,that this aspect needs attention - £350 per month seems a little high ,the dogs not a pedigree so if mine is that high then what will be others and it's their insurance.
Perhaps pets over Seven need to be eligible for free treatment whilst younger pets could get insurance for life. Or basic state pensionsers on housing benefit get help but those with pets but get working tax credit don't .Just think the new scheme is I'll thought out and maybe a petition might be the only way of making them rethink


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

Are you sure it is £350 a month and not £350 for a year? I have a decent wage and still wouldn’t pay that amount as I only pay £80 for 2 dogs. What do you actually get for that?


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Roger hill said:


> But on the other hand they could have devised a much better scheme that would not be going to have such a devesting effect on certain client groups.
> They certainly put saving money first and pets second ,a complete lack of consultation with the very affected people who need it.
> I believe they should suspend implementation until greater though is given. It's like a scheme our vets do at the moment but at a higher cost.
> I also believe ,given they have seen the online quote from the PDSA insurance that I had ,that this aspect needs attention - £350 per month seems a little high ,the dogs not a pedigree so if mine is that high then what will be others and it's their insurance.
> Perhaps pets over Seven need to be eligible for free treatment whilst younger pets could get insurance for life. Or basic state pensionsers on housing benefit get help but those with pets but get working tax credit don't .Just think the new scheme is I'll thought out and maybe a petition might be the only way of making them rethink


To be fair, they are a charity & have done what they can to help those in need. Now the money isn't there they are having to make changes.Regardless of what you think they should have done is not relevant, if the dog was your son's then maybe the 'blame' should be with him for not arranging insurance cover for the dog notthe charity who has offered help

If you do want to get insurance then you have a look at various companies, the prices can range quite a bit in reality would this be worthwhile due to the dog's age ....


----------



## Westie Mum (Feb 5, 2015)

Blitz said:


> a more realistic age is anywhere between 12 and 14 and most people on here would not put their old dog through expensive procedures so realistically you are not likely to have any hefty vets bills with this dog.


Very true. Lucy will be 14 in March and I wouldn't put her through anything major.



Roger hill said:


> They certainly put saving money first and pets second


It's not so much about saving money. They don't have the money in the first place.

Things are tight for a lot of families now. PDSA rely on charitable donations from people. If there are less donations then there is less money available, meaning they are unable to pay for it anymore.

While you might give a 10% donation (many don't) the charity still has to fund the rest. With what ? Less monthly donation from charitable donators means they don't have it to fund it.

Sad, but that's what's happening to a lot of charities now.


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

Blitz said:


> I am afraid I am another that does not see why a charity should subsidise the luxury of owning a pet. Maybe you earned a lot before so your £15000 a year does not seem much. It seems quite a lot to me and I know many people who earn less than that and pay their own vet's bills. I think your old dog living to 19 was exceptional, a more realistic age is anywhere between 12 and 14 and most people on here would not put their old dog through expensive procedures so realistically you are not likely to have any hefty vets bills with this dog.


In my working life I have never earned over 15000 myself nor has my wife who was very ill for many years . My state pension is 145 per week and my wife £125 out of which we pay rent and all other bills. The government say we can all live on less so as we can get housing benefit it's reduced by aroundv£5 per week . When you look at what the government say the people in this country it's not even the equivalent to the minimum wage. 
Point is he's healthy ,we currently pay his jabs and check up ourselves but qualify for the PDSA scheme as per their eligibility requirements - all we and others in the same situation want is for his medical needs to be met even if it meant we paid 50% - a newsletter doesn't help nor would using their insurance at £350 per month,and he's not a pedigree dog


----------



## Westie Mum (Feb 5, 2015)

Sorry this is completely off topic ..... but you never earnt more than 15 grand a year when you were working, really ?

So you are better off as pensioners than before ?


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I put my 7 year old dog in for a quote. Monthly he is £5.63 for accidents only. The next level for £2000 worth per incident is £13.40. The highest level is £42 for lifetime cover worth £8000.


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

However our last 


Westie Mum said:


> Very true. Lucy will be 14 in March and I wouldn't put her through anything major.
> 
> It's not so much about saving money. They don't have the money in the first place.
> 
> ...


However our last pet was nineteen and while she had medical issues including a spinal operation we as we were working paid it . She died of Cancer and was helped by a PDSA hospital as we qualified . If I move 23 miles we'd be covered for free let alone 10% . It's the way existing clients are being treated over the changes


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

Who with please .I got 


Jobeth said:


> I put my 7 year old dog in for a quote. Monthly he is £5.63 for accidents only. The next level for £2000 worth per incident is £13.40. The highest level is £42 for lifetime cover worth £8000.


Quotes from PDSA and Argos and they came up with the 35O per month .In the case if PDSA their rate includes a 15% introduction amount .top cover is nearer £450


----------



## Westie Mum (Feb 5, 2015)

Ok so I've just done a quote as a male pensioner with a 14 yr old border collie

So the top cover is expensive but for an old dog you don't need that level of cover (surely you wouldn't put an old dog through a lot) the classic is £89.33 or at a push the advance at £140.68


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

Westie Mum said:


> Sorry this is completely off topic ..... but you never earnt more than 15 grand a year when you were working, really ?
> 
> So you are better off as pensioners than before ?


That is true ,many people never earned more that that . And now we find that a single pensioner should be able to live on less than £7000 per year .in our case as a couple we are £5 over limit so as we're in rented they reduce our housing benefit accordingly .you can find out the current figures on many websites. And enpven worse if at 68 I went to work say for 10 hours they take off Money from housing benefit so on minimum wage I'd earn £3 50 per hour - and my colleagues on £7.50 - would you do it ? Same rules apply to any savings over 10000 . I have sympathy for today's youth on zero and even worse low hours contracts who will never be able to have more than the state pension let alone own a home or a private pension


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Roger hill said:


> But on the other hand they could have devised a much better scheme that would not be going to have such a devesting effect on certain client groups.
> They certainly put saving money first and pets second ,a complete lack of consultation with the very affected people who need it.
> I believe they should suspend implementation until greater though is given. It's like a scheme our vets do at the moment but at a higher cost.
> I also believe ,given they have seen the online quote from the PDSA insurance that I had ,that this aspect needs attention - £350 per month seems a little high ,the dogs not a pedigree so if mine is that high then what will be others and it's their insurance.
> Perhaps pets over Seven need to be eligible for free treatment whilst younger pets could get insurance for life. Or basic state pensionsers on housing benefit get help but those with pets but get working tax credit don't .Just think the new scheme is I'll thought out and maybe a petition might be the only way of making them rethink


How could they? They simply don't have the money...... You say "client group" but basically it's a nearly free service...... Should the vets work for free? No they shouldn't. My dog is coming up 8 and doesn't cost me anywhere near £350 a month to insure. Have you looked at other companies?


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I changed him to 14 years and it was £5.63 for accidents and £86 for Vet fees of £2000. If you put an excess of £25 it drops to £81. At 14 for mine I’d personally just choose the cover for if he had an accident.


----------



## Westie Mum (Feb 5, 2015)

Roger hill said:


> That is true ,many people never earned more that that . And now we find that a single pensioner should be able to live on less than £7000 per year .in our case as a couple we are £5 over limit so as we're in rented they reduce our housing benefit accordingly .you can find out the current figures on many websites. And enpven worse if at 68 I went to work say for 10 hours they take off Money from housing benefit so on minimum wage I'd earn £3 50 per hour - and my colleagues on £7.50 - would you do it ? Same rules apply to any savings over 10000 . I have sympathy for today's youth on zero and even worse low hours contracts who will never be able to have more than the state pension let alone own a home or a private pension


I think this is getting muddled. If you never earnt more than 15 grand a year working but you get 15 grand now then you are better off now.

And you said you paid for your Vet treatment when you were working, but you earnt less money then.

Confused .....

Edited to add: leaving shortly to go out for OH's birthday dinner, will read other posts tomorrow.


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

Sadly the Pdsa has been abused as a charity for years , it’s these people that have drained them .


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

I can't see the issue with any charity changing the services it provides for free or reduced costs - they have no obligation to do so.
I've never had any dealings with the PDSA as there is no PDSA hospital in my area and I don't believe they offer any other services.
And I personally don't necessarily agree with how they operate - they should be for those that have fallen on very difficult times but it appears to be that too many people take advantage and expect to be able to use them.

My insurance company have advised me that from 2019 my excess will change dramatically as my dog turns 10 next year and I will be considering if it will be worth me continuing with the policy.
An older dog I would not put through a lot of treatment anyway and it seems common practice for insurance companies to make premiums too expensive to dissuade owners from continuing with the insurance.

A dog that is 14 personally I would be looking at accident only cover and to be realistic about making the decision to PTS if there was any long term illness - it may sound harsh but it is what I would do with my own dogs


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

Roger hill said:


> That is true ,many people never earned more that that . And now we find that a single pensioner should be able to live on less than £7000 per year .in our case as a couple we are £5 over limit so as we're in rented they reduce our housing benefit accordingly .you can find out the current figures on many websites. And enpven worse if at 68 I went to work say for 10 hours they take off Money from housing benefit so on minimum wage I'd earn £3 50 per hour - and my colleagues on £7.50 - would you do it ? Same rules apply to any savings over 10000 . I have sympathy for today's youth on zero and even worse low hours contracts who will never be able to have more than the state pension let alone own a home or a private pension


I believe the current state pension is around 155 per week . In my last job three years ago I was down to one day per week and for handling all the payroll,accounts,office functions,evening cleaning the office i was paid £7 per hour with no lunch break for 8 hours work and in very poor working conditions . That's what we older workers have to put up with now imam afraid
My son whose now 27 and had a controlling partner who refuses to work more than 8 hours can only get a job here for 12"hours per week. Can't get to 16 to claim working tax credit and relys on odd but of overtime but it's not consistent. Know if many more people in same boat .


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

Jobeth said:


> Are you sure it is £350 a month and not £350 for a year? I have a decent wage and still wouldn't pay that amount as I only pay £80 for 2 dogs. What do you actually get for that?


Yes it's per month. The PDSA scheme has six levels so 250to 400 ,most have 75 pounds excess plus 10% of claim . I rang their customer services who nearly fainted when she pulled it up . She said she'd never seen that amount before ,has promised to have a word with her tech team. However Argos Insurance was nearly as much. I suspect they all use one underwriter . That's why I think PDSA haven't thought it through by realising older dogs are in more need of using their services than a young dog or with clients young enough to pay reasonable insurance Currently they allow people on Working Tax Credit to get help for example . I also wonder if they get a kickback from insurance


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

Smuge said:


> If they are having severe money issues, isnt a reduced service still much much better than nothing at all?


Not if it affects many of the client groups who are currently registered and in real need - I accept they need to redesign it not to make it less than most pet owners voluntarily do now eg we pay 50% not the voluntary 10% .we also have time checked twice a year with his jabs so as far as we can see we get under the new scheme a quarterly magazine and 20% if treatment and with any older dog over 7 it's treatment that more needed 
Also if you live in a pet hospital postcode you remain getting free or discounted help so that's a bit discrimitary


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

Westie Mum said:


> Ok so I've just done a quote as a male pensioner with a 14 yr old border collie
> 
> So the top cover is expensive but for an old dog you don't need that level of cover (surely you wouldn't put an old dog through a lot) the classic is £89.33 or at a push the advance at £140.68
> 
> View attachment 332456


Who was it with please ?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I'm confused  Can someone please explain what these changes are and how they will affect existing clients of the PDSA. I've had a quick look on their website and can't see anything

*ABOUT PDSA*
Founded in 1917 by animal welfare pioneer, Maria Dickin CBE, PDSA is the UK's leading veterinary charity. Operating through a UK-wide network of 48 Pet Hospitals, PDSA provides free veterinary care to the sick and injured pets of people in need and promotes responsible pet ownership

We're proud to continue her work, ensuring that today, and in the years to come, people who, through no fault of their own, can't afford to pay for veterinary care for their beloved pets still have somewhere to go for help and *free *treatment.

Is this no longer going to be the case even for those people who have existing pets and have been deemed eligible? If so I won't be donating another penny to them


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

ShibaPup said:


> Sadly a charity can only provide so much - it is sad that it also includes existing members but I understand the cuts, unfortunately some people do abuse the system.
> 
> You could look round at various insurance companies, Petplan would only offer 12 months essential which means any conditions would be covered for 12 months only. Excess would be £95 plus 20% of treatment cost - which seems rather expensive.
> 
> ...


Yes I think in our case putting money aside is maybe the option we will go for . Sons so controlled by his partner and him not being able to get more than a 12 hour contract I doubt he'd be able to help.
It's more about the effect on some of the other groups that are currently eligible so those on working tax credits and or with young dogs should be more capable of providing but dogs over seven,maybe older rescue dogs and certainly retired on state pension only claiming housing benefits may need more need of assistance. It's like they haven't really gone into it properly and some consultation with customers would have helped


----------



## ShibaPup (Mar 22, 2017)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm confused  Can someone please explain what these changes are and how they will affect existing clients of the PDSA. I've had a quick look on their website and can't see anything
> 
> *ABOUT PDSA*
> Founded in 1917 by animal welfare pioneer, Maria Dickin CBE, PDSA is the UK's leading veterinary charity. Operating through a UK-wide network of 48 Pet Hospitals, PDSA provides free veterinary care to the sick and injured pets of people in need and promotes responsible pet ownership
> ...


If there isn't a PDSA hospital in your area - previously the PDSA would work with certain vets and essentially pay vet fees I believe. If you were eligible.
They are now stopping that so only offer free treatment for one pet per household from the PDSA hospitals if you are within a catchment area for one.


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

Mirandashell said:


> Roger, when does your current registration run out?


Feb 28th .it's still covered till then. Got the letters yesterday and it mentions another due in December. I have emailed them but just get a we researched thourily and we've no money - sort of take it or leave it. Even emailed the insurance cost as an example


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm confused  Can someone please explain what these changes are and how they will affect existing clients of the PDSA. I've had a quick look on their website and can't see anything
> 
> *ABOUT PDSA*
> Founded in 1917 by animal welfare pioneer, Maria Dickin CBE, PDSA is the UK's leading veterinary charity. Operating through a UK-wide network of 48 Pet Hospitals, PDSA provides free veterinary care to the sick and injured pets of people in need and promotes responsible pet ownership
> ...


I think it applies to the availability of PDSA-funded treatment through private veterinary practices, as opposed to their own hospitals.

Basically they contacted participating practices a couple of weeks ago saying they were no longer going to provide funding for clients seen via private practices. At the time, the 'replacement' scheme (if any) had not been specified or explained but I guess details are coming out now.

The reason cited was lack of funds/it wasn't cost effective. The private practices who saw these patients often ended up losing money on them (ie they effectively donated a proportion of their time and stock for free to the charity's clients, as the PDSA couldn't always refund 100% of the cost). So things must be bad if the PDSA have decided they can't afford the service even when it was subsidised to a degree by the practices themselves.

Of course, it leaves owners who live outside the catchment area for a dedicated PDSA hospital in a very difficult position.


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

Westie Mum said:


> Ok so I've just done a quote as a male pensioner with a 14 yr old border collie
> 
> So the top cover is expensive but for an old dog you don't need that level of cover (surely you wouldn't put an old dog through a lot) the classic is £89.33 or at a push the advance at £140.68
> 
> View attachment 332456


So I clicked on the PDSA link yesterday and got my figures which was as I mention . I did ring up and she fell off her chair saying she had never had quotes like that in six years . But she'd check with her it department. I'll retry on Monday. It may still be better to put it by myself as I'd have no excess. Still think the scheme needs looking at as if some pensioners get the letter and go for the insurance and take it up at £350 or month as some might or some might do the other option


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

Ceiling Kitty said:


> I think it applies to the availability of PDSA-funded treatment through private veterinary practices, as opposed to their own hospitals.
> 
> Basically they contacted participating practices a couple of weeks ago saying they were no longer going to provide funding for clients seen via private practices. At the time, the 'replacement' scheme (if any) had not been specified or explained but I guess details are coming out now.
> 
> ...


That's my interpretation from emails I've had from there client service manager- even sending my insurance quote made no difference. I asked my emails to be referred to whoever devised the new scheme but they won't. So no consultation or feedback from users is being considered. I've gone to change.org and set up a petition asking for it to be revised


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Ceiling Kitty said:


> I think it applies to the availability of PDSA-funded treatment through private veterinary practices, as opposed to their own hospitals.
> 
> Basically they contacted participating practices a couple of weeks ago saying they were no longer going to provide funding for clients seen via private practices. At the time, the 'replacement' scheme (if any) had not been specified or explained but I guess details are coming out now.
> 
> ...


Thank you. It does seem very hard on existing clients who live outside a catchment area.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

I genuinely wish you luck.

Unfortunately I expect nothing will change - if the money isn't there, it isn't there - and unless they suddenly get a massive flux of donations I can't see it changing.


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

Ceiling Kitty said:


> I think it applies to the availability of PDSA-funded treatment through private veterinary practices, as opposed to their own hospitals.
> 
> Basically they contacted participating practices a couple of weeks ago saying they were no longer going to provide funding for clients seen via private practices. At the time, the 'replacement' scheme (if any) had not been specified or explained but I guess details are coming out now.
> 
> ...


They told me they had extensivly consulted with vets over many months. I had a suspicion several weeks ago some thing was up ,rang up and was also told this and a better scheme for existing clients was coming soon which would be better


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Roger hill said:


> That's my interpretation from emails I've had from there client service manager- even sending my insurance quote made no difference. I asked my emails to be referred to whoever devised the new scheme but they won't. So no consultation or feedback from users is being considered. I've gone to change.org and set up a petition asking for it to be revised


Where would you like them to magic the money up from to continue to treat existing clients?


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Roger hill said:


> They told me they had extensivly consulted with vets over many months. I had a suspicion several weeks ago some thing was up ,rang up and was also told this and a better scheme for existing clients was coming soon which would be better


I'm not sure how and when the consultation took place. Certainly the two PDSA-providing practices I'm familiar with found the announcement confusing and surprising.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Looks like they need to do some reassessment of their spending but I'm not sure how the people who have made all those donations are going to feel about their money not being spent how they anticipated it would be. Fair enough to change things for future clients but personally I think its terrible to leave existing clients in the lurch.

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.u...steredCharityNumber=208217&SubsidiaryNumber=0


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

No I am suggesting the halt this,consult existing clients and design a scheme that would allow some groups say elderly state pensioners with elderly dogs get a much scheme than what is proposed as an example. What they are really doing is restricting help to those living in a PDSA hospital only with no restrictions on eligibility whilst others suffer .Even worse they clearly did not research insurance costs before looking at this scheme


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

Chang


Lexiedhb said:


> Where would you like them to magic the money up from to continue to treat existing clients?[/QUOTEchange the scheme so not all those currently eligible qualify eg those on working tax credit. . Young dogs who can be insured should be but not older pets say over 10 . Set up furniture charity shops- from experience here one would net a minimum of 150,000 in one shop alone. It's the harsh unthought out scheme ,no consultation with vets either by what I'm reading either


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

The PDSA do have charity shops.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Roger hill said:


> Chang


Set up more shops? Requires cash? You can get reasonable cover for a dog for £25 a month, it's not the best cover sure, but it's out there. They, like you don't have the money to offer the care they have been providing. Your asking them to magic money out of thin air, can you do that?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

1,593 seems quite a lot of staff.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> 1,593 seems quite a lot of staff.


What roles does that include?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Ceiling Kitty said:


> What roles does that include?


It doesn't say but I assume it means paid staff rather than volunteers working in the shops etc.


----------



## Smuge (Feb 6, 2017)

Roger hill said:


> Not if it affects many of the client groups who are currently registered and in real need - I accept they need to redesign it not to make it less than most pet owners voluntarily do now eg we pay 50% not the voluntary 10% .we also have time checked twice a year with his jabs so as far as we can see we get under the new scheme a quarterly magazine and 20% if treatment and with any older dog over 7 it's treatment that more needed
> Also if you live in a pet hospital postcode you remain getting free or discounted help so that's a bit discrimitary


Currently registered customers would be impacted even more if they lost all assistance due to the money running out.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> 1,593 seems quite a lot of staff.


Does it? For an outfit that operates nationwide ( I presume?)


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> 1,593 seems quite a lot of staff.


I think for a charity that Helps up and down the country it's quite a small amount of paid staff


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

Let’s be honest people have abused the good nature of the charity for years .

I feel for the elderly who may struggle .

But for some the £4.50 a month is less than I price of 20 cigarettes or a bottle of wine !


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> It doesn't say but I assume it means paid staff rather than volunteers working in the shops etc.


I'm not sure if it incudes the staff in their veterinary hospitals but if it does, 50 hospitals nationwide each with 20 staff quickly reaches 1000.


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

Lexiedhb said:


> Set up more shops? Requires cash? You can get reasonable cover for a dog for £25 a month, it's not the best cover sure, but it's out there. They, like you don't have the money to offer the care they have been providing. Your asking them to magic money out of thin air, can you do that?


So please find me cover for a border Collie aged 14 for a pensioner aged 68 in Wr11 as the PDSA site is quoting £350 per month


----------



## Roger hill (Nov 9, 2017)

paddyjulie said:


> Let's be honest people have abused the good nature of the charity for years .
> 
> I feel for the elderly who may struggle .
> 
> But for some the £4.50 a month is less than I price of 20 cigarettes or a bottle of wine !


But £4.50 a months gives only one check up for one year ,your jabs,a quarterly magazine .however it only gives a 20% discount on vet bills which at the moment is 10% minimum .you also get 15% discount on your first year insurance only .Now we do all the above anyway as a responsible pet owner and under the current scheme they are all excluded anyway .. looks to us like the only real benefit is a magazine and many already pay a higher minimum or if there is one support a PDSA shop


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Roger hill said:


> So please find me cover for a border Collie aged 14 for a pensioner aged 68 in Wr11 as the PDSA site is quoting £350 per month





Roger hill said:


> But £4.50 a months gives only one check up for one year ,your jabs,a quarterly magazine .however it only gives a 20% discount on vet bills which at the moment is 10% minimum .you also get 15% discount on your first year insurance only .Now we do all the above anyway as a responsible pet owner and under the current scheme they are all excluded anyway .. looks to us like the only real benefit is a magazine and many already pay a higher minimum or if there is one support a PDSA shop


Then search for an insurance policy with other providers, you will easily find one for less than £350 a month (if that really is what you have been quoted)


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Cleo38 said:


> Then search for an insurance policy with other providers, you will easily find one for less than £350 a month (if that really is what you have been quoted)


I'm not sure finding insurance cover for a 14 year old dog would be that easy, likely to have a huge excess too I would suspect.

Interesting comment on the Chair's letter for the 2016 accounts

Ongoing cost control is an essential part of charity governance, not least during a period in which, i*n common with many other organisations, cash contributions to our pension scheme have increased, despite the many actions we have taken over recent years to limit our pension liabilities. *So it is pleasing to confirm that we have reduced our costs substantially in support areas and have achieved further efficiencies in our fundraising activities. We also continue prudently to manage our investments in driving both income and brand awareness in order to deliver the best returns possible. This has been demonstrated in the fully integrated approach taken to our high profile 'Save a Star' Christmas campaign (2016), which achieved significant success in both income and awareness.

and from the key results for 2016

There was a large actuarial loss of £28.9 million for the pension scheme in 2016. The main reasons were assumptions relating to liabilities, which increased the reported provision of the pension scheme from £26.2 million as at 31 December 2015 to £57.7 million as at 31 December 2016.

and for anyone interested in staffing costs/wages

*Employment costs*
The number of higher-paid employees whose emoluments were within the following scales was as follows: The first number is for 2016/the next one was 2015 so they have 4 staff earning more than £100,000 per annum and shockingly in 2015 had one earning between £150,000 and £160,000 and another earning between £160,000 and £170,000.

£60,001-£70,000 17 31
£70,001-£80,000 5 8
£80,001-£90,000 4 3
£90,001-£100,000 1 1
£100,001-£110,000 2 1
£110,001-£120,000 1 1
£140,001-£150,000 1 -
£150,001-£160,000 - 1
£160,001-£170,000 - 1


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Roger hill said:


> So please find me cover for a border Collie aged 14 for a pensioner aged 68 in Wr11 as the PDSA site is quoting £350 per month


People have done this for you earlier in the thread.......


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Tesco's insurance will provide standard cover for £32.06 a month (£3k cover) with a £120 excess. Also 15% off for new customers ....& that's just me checking one provider so am sure there are more & even better deals around.


----------



## Westie Mum (Feb 5, 2015)

Westie Mum said:


> Ok so I've just done a quote as a male pensioner with a 14 yr old border collie
> 
> So the top cover is expensive but for an old dog you don't need that level of cover (surely you wouldn't put an old dog through a lot) the classic is £89.33 or at a push the advance at £140.68
> 
> View attachment 332456





Roger hill said:


> Who was it with please ?


It was with the PDSA. Input as a pensioner with a 14 year old border collie.

So I can't see why yours would be so much higher for basic cover. You dont need the top level of cover.



ShibaPup said:


> If there isn't a PDSA hospital in your area - previously the PDSA would work with certain vets and essentially pay vet fees I believe. If you were eligible.
> They are now stopping that so only offer free treatment for one pet per household from the PDSA hospitals if you are within a catchment area for one.


This does make sense.

Still funding Pets where they can at cost, rather than paying private Vet surgeries.

We do donate monthly and honestly, I'm still happy to do so. They are still helping Pets that are in need where they can. They simply cannot help them all.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I can totally understand their need to cut costs, they are spending more than their income but I cannot understand and will not support their decision to apply these cuts to existing clients. Make the changes by all means for future pets and review the eligibility criteria for future clients but I think this flies in the face of what the PDSA were set up to do and leaves some owners high and dry. I can see this will result in some not being able to afford medications such as pain relief for arthritic pets or heart meds. Its all very well to say we wouldn't put elderly pets through heroics but often the decision isn't that simple and drugs are not heroics but can make a huge difference to the quality of life of the pet. I hate to think some pets might be left without pain relief because elderly/disabled owners can't afford it having believed they were covered by the PDSA. I think they should take another look at cutting their staffing costs - why does a charity need 4 people earning over £100,000 each per year, one of which earns the same as the prime minister?


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

If you have a higher excess it drops further. I’d check if they exclude previous injuries/illness as you may find that you aren’t actually covered for much. As he is 14 I’d also consider putting aside a small amount and just taking the £5 cover if he has an accident. 

Off topic but I imagine that £100,000 is lower than you’d earn if you were in charge of a similar company that was private and not a charity.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Jobeth said:


> Off topic but I imagine that £100,000 is lower than you'd earn if you were in charge of a similar company that was private and not a charity.


But it isn't a private business its a charity, they are deciding how to spend money donated to them, often left in legacies by people who want to help animals in need. 4 people earning over £100,000 - one of those earning between £140-150,000 yet take cover away from animals who depend on it  I won't be supporting them anymore.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I'd check every charity then as I suspect you'll find the same at the strategic level. This is from 2013 but still interesting.
https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/ok-so-how-much-should-charity-bosses-be-paid-plus-your-chance-to-vote/


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

I would imagine most large charities are the same. 

My dad visited the HQ of a major cancer charity some years ago, through work. He met with the CEO (or whatever the guy's job title was) and noted that he had a top of the range luxury car and a large office with a leather sofa and a walnut desk. He said it left a bad taste in his mouth.

Plus, I don't mean to be negative, but say you cut those four people's salaries in half and paid them £50,000. That would give you £200,000 extra per year. That's a drop in the ocean and would be swallowed up in days through the PDSA PetAid scheme. I understand that every little helps, and I 100% understand and support the sentiment behind it, but in reality I'm not sure cutting salaries would enable the PDSA's scheme to continue in its current form if funding really is the problem.


----------



## Westie Mum (Feb 5, 2015)

Jobeth said:


> I'd check every charity then as I suspect you'll find the same at the strategic level. This is from 2013 but still interesting.
> https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/ok-so-how-much-should-charity-bosses-be-paid-plus-your-chance-to-vote/


It is the same for all big charities and I know a lot of people do object to it. Personally I don't, because I've always know that's what happens.

But equally these people cannot work for free and they are probably already earning less than they could elsewhere.

Treating through their own centres is obviously going to be a lot more cost effective. And yes it is desperately sad that people and their pets will loose out but that's the world we live in.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Jobeth said:


> I'd check every charity then as I suspect you'll find the same at the strategic level. This is from 2013 but still interesting.
> https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/ok-so-how-much-should-charity-bosses-be-paid-plus-your-chance-to-vote/


Thanks, I support very few big charities for this reason but will be even more careful about where my money goes in future. Hopefully the Salvation Army are ok still otherwise I'll have to put my Christmas box elsewhere this year.



Ceiling Kitty said:


> I would imagine most large charities are the same.
> 
> My dad visited the HQ of a major cancer charity some years ago, through work. He met with the CEO (or whatever the guy's job title was) and noted that he had a top of the range luxury car and a large office with a leather sofa and a walnut desk. He said it left a bad taste in his mouth.
> 
> Plus, I don't mean to be negative, but say you cut those four people's salaries in half and paid them £50,000. That would give you £200,000 extra per year. That's a drop in the ocean and would be swallowed up in days through the PDSA PetAid scheme. I understand that every little helps, and I 100% understand and support the sentiment behind it, but in reality I'm not sure cutting salaries would enable the PDSA's scheme to continue in its current form if funding really is the problem.


Quite, I wasn't suggesting the money saved from salaries could on its own support the current PDSA scheme - more that it makes me even more angry about the cuts they are making to existing clients and their pets who rely on them. They are not included in our wills but if they were I'm afraid I would be removing them pdq.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Salvation Army are ok


They don't earn a wage as such, they get a remuneration of around £9000 and £15000 from what I remember :


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> They don't earn a wage as such, they get a remuneration of around £9000 and £15000 from what I remember :


Thanks, I would be surprised if they were taking huge salaries and very disappointed but will do some digging before making my usual Christmas donation.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

Salvation Army officers don’t get paid a wage. They get money to cover living costs (maximum of £15500) and are provided with housing. They do employ a small amount of specialist staff (not officers) who do earn more than £60,000 but less than £100,000. This is because that expertise then helps bring in £10 million a year to continue with their work. When I served as a soldier with them overseas I was given accommodation. Each month I had £35 to live on and £100 that went into a savings account at home. They publish their accounts if you want to check.


----------



## tantrumbean (Aug 23, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Thanks, I would be surprised if they were taking huge salaries and very disappointed but will do some digging before making my usual Christmas donation.


They might not take huge salaries, but it depends how happy you are to support an organisation that is deeply homophobic and discriminatory towards the LGBT community (and that's only the start of my issues with them...)!!!!


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

tantrumbean said:


> They might not take huge salaries, but it depends how happy you are to support an organisation that is deeply homophobic and discriminatory towards the LGBT community (and that's only the start of my issues with them...)!!!!


Evidence?


----------



## tantrumbean (Aug 23, 2011)

For a start, gay people aren't allowed to be officers and they have been actively promoting conversion therapy. I'm at work at the moment, so haven't got time to find and post you the links, but a quick Google search will do it for you


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

tantrumbean said:


> For a start, gay people aren't allowed to be officers and they have been actively promoting conversion therapy. I'm at work at the moment, so haven't got time to find and post you the links, but a quick Google search will do it for you


Eh??? Are you sure you are talking about the same organization as has been discussed... PDSA (People's Dispensary for Sick Animals)?


----------



## tantrumbean (Aug 23, 2011)

NOOO! We'd moved on to the Salvation Army! No wonder you sounded dubious! @Cleo38


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

tantrumbean said:


> NOOO! We'd moved on to the Salvation Army! No wonder you sounded dubious! @Cleo38


Hahahaha, I wondered what this had to do with pets


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

https://www.advocate.com/religion/2015/12/23/salvation-army-insists-its-our-side-really

http://www.salvationarmydanecounty.org/danecounty/news/lgbtq_news

https://m.mic.com/articles/106076/t...to-know-they-don-t-hate-gay-people#.Q3uXcvWzQ

You can actually be gay and an officer, but you must be celibate. That is the same rule for single straight officers. There was a link to gay conversion therapy, but it was pulled straight away. There will be articles both saying they are anti gay and those that say they are not as I've posted.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

Cleo38 said:


> Hahahaha, I wondered what this had to do with pets


It's certainly been an off topic thread!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Surely it would be illegal to be openly homophobic or discriminatory.

And even more off topic I HATE the term LBGT community. How discriminatory is that - making out they are not part of the rest of the human race.


----------



## tantrumbean (Aug 23, 2011)

Jobeth said:


> https://www.advocate.com/religion/2015/12/23/salvation-army-insists-its-our-side-really
> 
> http://www.salvationarmydanecounty.org/danecounty/news/lgbtq_news
> 
> ...





Blitz said:


> Surely it would be illegal to be openly homophobic or discriminatory.
> 
> And even more off topic I HATE the term LBGT community. How discriminatory is that - making out they are not part of the rest of the human race.


But even if you "only" have to celibate, it's still a different rule as you can't be in a gay relationship and be an officer, whereas you can if you are straight.

Church organisations do get away with different rules based on faith quite regularly. As for the LGBT community, it is a community and most of its members are quite happy with that terminology


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

tantrumbean said:


> But even if you "only" have to celibate, it's still a different rule as you can't be in a gay relationship and be an officer, whereas you can if you are straight.
> 
> Church organisations do get away with different rules based on faith quite regularly. As for the LGBT community, it is a community and most of its members are quite happy with that terminology


Why is it a community. Makes no sense to me. I know a lot of gay couples, they are part of the general community. Why would they want to make themselves different from everyone else and then kick up if they get treated differently!


----------



## tantrumbean (Aug 23, 2011)

Blitz said:


> Why is it a community. Makes no sense to me. I know a lot of gay couples, they are part of the general community. Why would they want to make themselves different from everyone else and then kick up if they get treated differently!


It's not about making yourself different. It's about having a sense of belonging and identity (and feeling safe) whilst there is still a lot of ****/transphobia about That doesn't mean they are not part of the general community.


----------

