The Pet Vet Feltham part 2. More poor practice…

The Pet Vet, part two: we asked the CEO to intervene. She sent us back to Terry.
A further update on the Feltham flooring dispute: director escalation, another promise of a response, and the cost of chasing £7,226.76.

We asked the leadership of The Pet Vet to look at how our company had been treated over the final account for its Feltham surgery.

We explained the deductions, the missed payment assurance, the unanswered chasing and the time we were spending trying to resolve it. We asked for someone at director level to review the matter and take responsibility for getting it settled.

The CEO replied. Her answer was to leave it with the person whose handling of the account had prompted our complaint.

That deserves to be recorded, along with what happened next.

For readers joining this story here, Cavendish deVere carried out the flooring works at The Pet Vet’s Feltham surgery. We maintain that £7,226.76 remains due. The Pet Vet disputes part of our account; we dispute its deductions. The correspondence described below has not resolved that disagreement.

The CEO’s response

On 22 September, The Pet Vet’s CEO, Dr Mel Fuller, replied to our request for director intervention. She explained that she had returned from annual leave, spoken to Terry Pearson and been brought up to speed. Terry would respond directly.
She then wrote:

“Terry has been responsible for the Feltham fit-out, so Rob & my intervention will only complicate matters.”

The reference to Rob was to Dr Rob Jones, the other director we had approached.
We had asked for their intervention precisely because attempts to resolve the matter with Terry had failed. His involvement in the project was already understood. Our concern was how the account was being handled after the work was finished.

We wanted the directors to examine that handling, consider our evidence and give us a clear route to a decision. Her email offered no director-level assessment of the disputed deductions or the missed payment assurance.

I found that response dismissive of the problem we had put before her. A small contractor had escalated a serious complaint, and the stated reason for declining the requested intervention was that it would complicate matters.

From our side, matters were already complicated. We had completed the work, received less than we said was due and spent considerable time chasing an answer.
Terry’s reply: another seven to ten days.

That evening, Terry emailed our accounts team. He did not copy the directors into that email.

He opened by referring to our correspondence as:
“your rather verbose emails, your unilateral deadlines for response”

He said he was the only person within the company able to conclude the outstanding issues. He then committed to providing a substantive response in the next seven to ten days.
He also said that, if we wished to pursue litigation as mentioned in our earlier emails, that was our decision, adding:
“without any frustration on my part.”

Readers can judge that tone for themselves. I consider it an unnecessarily antagonistic way to address a supplier trying to resolve an outstanding account.

Our emails were detailed because there were specific deductions to answer and a payment history to explain. We set deadlines because previous chasing had not produced the promised substantive response. It is difficult to see how criticising the length of those emails helps resolve any disputed quantity or charge.

On 14 September, Terry had already promised a substantive response to our rebuttal. Eight days later, his new email supplied another waiting period. It did not answer that rebuttal or provide supporting documents for the deductions.

For clarity, the new seven-to-ten-day period has not expired at the date of this article. We are recording what he has now promised. We will report what he provides.
We put that reply directly before Mel
On 23 September, we wrote to Mel again. We acknowledged that she had replied promptly on returning from leave, then explained plainly why referring the matter back to Terry had left us dissatisfied.

We included his email so she could read his words herself.

We also tried to narrow the financial issues. We asked her to address the additional-labour and screed deductions, which together accounted for £5,688 including VAT in our request, while allowing the additional-vinyl issue to be examined separately.
Our position on labour is that the additional charge was agreed and had already been substantially reduced as a compromise. Terry disputes the circumstances of that agreement and says the extra payment was linked to quicker completion. We disagree with his account and want the correspondence examined properly.

On screed, we explained again that the 180-unit material entry referred to bags, not square metres of floor area. Questions about quantities and their supporting records should be addressed explicitly. Treating bags and floor area as interchangeable does not produce a useful reconciliation.

We considered those two deductions unjustified and asked for payment. That was our position; it would be inaccurate to suggest The Pet Vet had accepted those sums as undisputed.

Mel’s reply on 23 September was brief:
“I have raised your comments with Terry and have asked him to confirm asap.”

She had taken the step of contacting him again. But her reply did not say whether she accepted or rejected our explanation of either deduction. It did not provide a payment commitment, a fixed response date or the director-level review we had requested.
Once again, the next step depended on Terry.

This is now a question of how the company handles complaints
A CEO will naturally rely on colleagues who know a project. But when a complaint concerns that colleague’s own handling of an account, simply referring it back leaves an obvious problem: who is reviewing the complaint about the process itself?

Our concern now extends to the company’s response to escalation. Its leadership has been shown our complaint and Terry’s latest email. The response communicated to us has been to keep the matter with him.

We do not expect a director to agree with us merely because we complain. We expect someone to examine the evidence, explain the company’s position and take responsibility for a timely resolution.

If our calculation is wrong, show us where. If a charge is rejected, identify the reason and the records supporting it. If further time is needed, explain what needs checking and when the decision will be made.

Those are ordinary expectations when two businesses disagree over money.

The cost continues on our side

The amount being pursued is £7,226.76. The work involved in pursuing it keeps growing.
We have had to retrieve correspondence, explain invoice entries, assemble supplier records, prepare an evidence pack and approach solicitors. Every hour spent rebuilding the history of this job is an hour taken away from estimates, customers, scheduling and running our business.

This is the exposure small contractors face after delivery. The materials are committed and the labour has been provided. The customer has the benefit of the work, while the contractor must decide how much more time and money to spend seeking the balance.
Our own correspondence has become blunt. We are angry about the handling of this account, and we have said so. That does not remove our obligation to explain our charges or examine evidence that challenges them. We expect the same seriousness from The Pet Vet.

We will keep this account public.
We are pursuing legal assistance with recovery and will continue to document the progress of this dispute.

The extracts above are from the business correspondence of 22 and 23 September. They allow readers to see the words behind our assessment. The wider disagreement over the invoice remains unresolved; no court or adjudicator has determined our claim.

If The Pet Vet supplies a substantive explanation, we will report it fairly. If the balance changes or the dispute is settled, we will report that too. Any factual error identified will be corrected.

We were proud to deliver the flooring at Feltham. We should be able to describe what followed just as openly.

We asked the CEO to intervene. We were sent back to Terry. We now have another promise of an answer.

We are still seeking a resolution.