Jump to content

Recommended Posts

"Currently those that get the train from QRP, get to QR in the morning and hop on a train to London bridge - there within 10 mins. They would AIM for certain train to reduce platform time. Then they get the tube and carry their journey on


In future they'd have to get a train to PR or Canada Water CHANGE. Then wait for another train and get on that to london bridge "


No! Again!!! :D


They would go to QRP and catch the train direct to London Bridge.


Currently QRP gets 6 trains an hour direct to London Bridge. After the changes thaey will have 8 trains per hour at rush hour. That's MORE. Aaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!!!!


All the trains from QRP still go to London Bridge. They just won't go from DH to London Bridge.


You will be able to get from DH to QR DIRECTLY on the ELL. Please R&A, you need to check the reality, not listen to the wool pullers. The pdf's on a previous post of mine.


PGC, currently there are 4 trains per hour from ED/PR to South Bermondsey. After the changes there will be 6 per hour. Your trip to The Den will be even MORE convenient!!


Boris supports the protest because it gives him votes in Southwark he hasn't got. He doesn't need any more votes in Bromley, he's got them all.


Tess supports it because she's the Southwark MP.

There are currently 6-8 trains per hour from DH to PR, this will raise to 11 after the changes. Eleven!!!!!


Passengers wishing to catch the train from DH to London Bridge will need to change at either PR or QRP, and will wait an average of 3.5 minutes and a maximum of 7 mins.

Ah, no worries. :)


There will also be 6 trains per hour running direct from London Bridge to South Bermondsey on Saturday afternoons - that's a 50% increase after the changes.


Sadly this namby pamby West Ham fan would have to go via Heathrow. Heathrow will have no improved services.

Existing workers/patients who live west of DH as far as Victoria will be able to continue their journeys to the hospital exactly as before. Train frequency is 3 an hour at rush hours, and 2 at other times.


There'll be an additional ELL service 4 trains/hour allowing people in areas such as Clapham and beyond get to Kings easier. This service also means that frequency of trains serving Clapham High Street and Wandsworth Road will double from 2 an hour to 4.


Great eh?


Existing workers/patients who live east of DH as far as Peckham Rye and Queens Road will see their service increase to 4 per hour at QRP, and increase to 11 an hour from PR


Even better eh?


Unfortunately although passengers from London Bridge and South Bermondsey will see services increase from 6 to 8 at rush hour, they will have to change at PR, waiting an average of 3.5 mins and a maximum of 7 minutes.


However, connections on the ELL to the whole of the East End will see workers/patients from that region have so many additional other swift options that London Bridge will have a much lower priority.


All in all, more than 30,000 new people will be within 30 minutes of Kings College Hospital services.


....and that is an absolute winner.

The reasons for these changes ARE NOT to improve train services in South London. They are to make way for more very long distance commuters on a revamped Thameslink service that requires more through platforms at London Bridge station which means reducing the number of terminating platforms used by services such as the South London Line. Actually London bridge has the physical space for more through platforms and the same number of terminating platforms but has lacked the political will to make this happen and now probably lacks the cash.


So the South London Line as the least used line into London Bridge station is beign sacrificed. Lesast used. No barriers at any of the station. Rarely opened ticket offices. No recording of the free train services some have used it as.

East London Line phase 2 should be useful for some and has been chosen over Victoria-Belligham services to make up for some of the loss of utility of losing the SLL.


Changing trains to get to London Bridge from Denmark Hill etc. If people have to do it they will. They'll have no alternative. Will as many people find moving into our area or staying as attractive. No, not if they have work at Victoria or London Bridge. When life circumstances change they'll consider more favourably buying where they can get direct trains for the journeys they need to take to work. I personally don't take train journeys that involve train changes. Certainly never when with my kids.


Will the local teaching hospitals be as popular for students, patients. No, because if people have to ever move from one site to another they wont like changing trains for what is currently a 9 minute direct train journey. Areas not currently served by trains to Denmark Hill are unliekly to have local health contracts with Kings to perform medical treatments for their residents.


To me bigger issue. South London is blighted in many areas by massive railway viaducts and cuttings. For these to be used more intensively with all the affects on residents to run more long distance services while reducing the services locals find easy to currently use feels morally wrong.

I understand where you're coming from James. As a local politician your views, however misplaced, are likely to be very attractive to certain voters. I suspect you may have overlooked the benefits to your own ward.


It has never been claimed that the changes are solely with the objective of improving access to Denmark Hill from London Bridge. It's part of a radical overhaul of South London services that benefits everyone in the long run.


Specifically Denmark Hill (not 'the area' generically) might not be as attractive for people who work specifically at London Bridge or South Bermondsey - this goes without saying. That's also just about it.


It's also a completely lopsided way to look at it. You've missed just about every single positive.


East Dulwich (your own ward) will be more attractive - with an increased DIRECT service (up to 8 trains/hour) from ED to London Bridge at peak hours allowing commuters more pleasant and timely journeys. As ED councillor I'd expect you to be celebrating this rather than trying to prevent it in order to benefit people outside your ward.


More generously, 30,000 more people will be able to get to Kings within 30 minutes. That's a collosal number. An additional 125,000 jobs are now within commuting distance of Denmark Hill. That means salaries, wealth and regeneration for South Camberwell.


Nunhead is finally getting a quality service to the City, allowing it to flourish as a residential zone with consequent benefits to local ED businesses.


It will be far a more attractive area to people who work and live in Clapham, City, Blackfriars, Farringdon, Surrey Quays, Canada Water, Canary Wharf, Islington and huge regeneration areas in East London.


In short, presenting this relentlessly as a negative is pandering to the worst natures of a poorly informed electorate, when really politicians should be thinking about how to inform, inspire and generate the best for our area.


Support East Dulwich business and commuters - say yes to the South London Rail overhaul.

hi Hugenot,

Those increases in services to/from East Dulwich station are clearly hugely welcome as are services from PEckham Rye where many East Dulwich residetns access trains from.

BUT they could be increased without closed the South London Line which occus in 2012.

If we can have more trains now but SLL closes in 2012 then clearly the two are unrelated.


How can no direct trains from Denmark Hill make the city more attractive?

Many East Dulwich residents take the bus to Denmark Hill station and travel into Victoria station. Victoria trains back will not run late into the evening. It becomes a part-time service.

You've said people can walk from Blackfriars into the City. They can do that already but majority choose not to but travel into London Bridge. Most passengers going in the direction of Blackfriars get of at Elephant&Castle to catch the tube.


The best for our areas would be the increased services you've menitoned and SLL and ELL2 OR the tube line finally coming down to reach us.

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So the South London Line as the least used line

> into London Bridge station is beign sacrificed.

> Lesast used. No barriers at any of the station.

> Rarely opened ticket offices. No recording of the

> free train services some have used it as.

>

but there are barriers at LB and victoria?


and (although i do use the service occasionally so i'll miss it sometimes) 4 carriages an hour which generally aren't full does suggest to me that it isn't that well used

There's an increase in Thameslink trains to 4 per hour. It stops at City Thameslink. It also offers an improved service to Luton Airport.


I'm sure that the timing of increases in train services are linkeed to budgets as well as practicality.


I agree with your point about people currently choosing London Bridge, but in our minds eye we have the jammed trains at ED and PR, not the virtually empty trains at Denmark Hill. The ED and PR trains are still proposed to be running and with greater frequency.


The protesters are thriving in this confusion.


I commuted directly into Victoria from DH when I was at Yahoo! - I could still do that commute under the new service, and there was virtually no-one getting on that train to go to London Bridge. There were plenty at Peckham Rye - and that direct service is still running.

Hugenot, you are obsessed with demeaning the validity of any views other than your own. James is not misguided in his views on this, so give the insults a rest. He is absolutely right on the point regarding the lack of reliable data that Network Rail could have used to determine the no. of passengers using London Bridge, esp in reagrds to it being used to change for other services to for example Charing X. You are not the ultimate authority on anything - really you aren't. And sometimes you are just plain wrong.


South London has always had a raw deal from the rail and tube networks (esp the SE), at the expense of other areas of London (notably the North). Plannned extensions and projects like the tram link have never come to anything - priority always being given elsewhere. South Londoners deserve better.

I'm not demeaning anyone's point of view DJKQ, I'm just disagreeing. This is an opinion forum, I'm expressing an opinion.


Saying James' views are misplaced hardly qualifies as an 'insult'. You're attempting to bully me by making false acccusations: you trying to smear me? Plus ca change etc.


I consider James views misplaced because he is favouring South Camberwell to the disadvantage of East Dulwich. He explained that he thought ED advantages could be obtained irrespective of the DH issue, I consider this to be unlikely when budget is clearly tight.


If there's not enough data about London Bridge then there's also not enough data to prove me wrong - so you're heading down a blind alley with that accusation too. Since it's so easy to get the data by doing passenger interviews at DH, I suspect you don't have the data because it won't support your case.


The rest of your post about South London's raw deal demonstrates what I've suspected all along: that this protest isn't about this train service at all. You've decided to use this issue as a vehicle to fight another battle. In this case some ill-supported suggestions of a conspiracy to defraud South London!!!


I'm afraid I just don't think they're all out to get us.


I hope you'll forgive me for saying that sounds like a paranoia-fuelled harangue - the kind of greedy rhetoric naughty kids use to get an extra pack of sweets out of mummy.


That's why the protesters are deliberately keeping the public misinformed. They don't want a better train service, they want to bring down the government etc. etc. ;-)

I'm not demeaning anyone's point of view DJKQ, I'm just disagreeing. This is an opinion forum, I'm expressing an opinion.


Expressing an opionion is one thing, doing so and thowing a dig in at the poster every time you disagree with someone is another and that's what you are incapable of - expressing a view without throwing in a dig.


Saying James' views are misplaced hardly qualifies as an 'insult'. You're attempting to bully me by making false acccusations: you trying to smear me? Plus ca change etc.


Pot calling kettle black.


I consider James views misplaced because he is favouring South Camberwell to the disadvantage of East Dulwich. He explained that he thought ED advantages could be obtained irrespective of the DH issue, I consider this to be unlikely when budget is clearly tight.


Fair point.



If there's not enough data about London Bridge then there's also not enough data to prove me wrong - so you're heading down a blind alley with that accusation too. Since it's so easy to get the data by doing passenger interviews at DH, I suspect you don't have the data because it won't support your case.


You totally miss the point of both James and myself on that one (because you look for underhand motive all the time instead of just reading what's written). The point was that Network Rail couldn't possibly declare London Bridge as the least used station without any data. Any commuter at peak time would however tell you that London Bridge is as busy as any central London station. You will struggle to get onto most trains for Charing X as they are completely full including standing room. It's a station where most commuters change platform to connect for other services as the thousands of commuters that use it know.


The rest of your post about South London's raw deal demonstrates what I've suspected all along: that this protest isn't about this train service at all. You've decided to use this issue as a vehicle to fight another battle. In this case some ill-supported suggestions of a conspiracy to defraud South London!!!


There you go again with your absurd nonsense. LB is a crucial part of that South London service. You are insane if you think that someone can not defend a route and also make the point that South London is poorly served by rail as part of the defense of that route. You are just looking for any excuse to debunk anyone defending that route with whatever nonsense that la la brain of yours can dream up. You don't even live in London so who cares what you think anyway.


That's why the protesters are deliberately keeping the public misinformed. They don't want a better train service, they want to bring down the government etc. etc.


Completely insane and untrue. How uninformed and arrogant you really are is shown right there.


And yes I just lowered myself to you level, but to be honest I think you set out to wind people up.

Sorry DJKQ, I think you may have got your facts wrong again. I can I assure you I really can't be bothered to wind you up, I am bothered however, that the fair citizens of ED should have at least some access to the facts of the case, and not be decieved by incorrect arguments such as the one you've just used.


Network Rail didn't declare London Bridge the least used station, they declared the South London spur through Denmark Hill as the least used line through London Bridge.


Anyone who's used the line as regularly as I did would know absolutely that this was the case - as a consultant I used it and various other south London services at all times of the day. From 10am until 4pm you'd be lucky if there were five people on the two carriage chugger.


You're quite right about the CX trains. These trains are full all the time, and at rush hour dangersously so.


London Bridge needed to free up platform space to allow more trains on these frighteningly busy routes, and The DH spur of the South London line was the obvious opportunity.


A plan was drawn up with increased Thameslink, the ELL and Dartford services that more than adequately served Denmark Hill and the route, albeit with a minor inconvenience that passengers travelling from DH to LB would have to change at Peckham Rye. All other stations in the area, like ED itself, stood to benefit from increased services.


The solution was a fantastic compromise that benefits hundreds of thousands of people. It increases the ease for people to access Kings Colleg Hospital, and gives access to 125,000+ new jobs for people living in the area.


What Network Rail didn't expect was a crowd of irrational protesters with scant regard for the facts trying to mess things up because they've got a bee in their bonnet about a mass conspiracy to short change south London.


Noses, faces, spite etc.

ED's service to London Bridge is scheduled to be uprated from the current 6/4 peak/offpeak to 8/6 service in 2015.


So far as I know the beginning and end times of the service remain unchanged, and peak is only Mon-Fri.


Until that date it will remain unchanged. As James B points out, this is largely due to the timing of infrastructure changes at London Bridge.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ED's service to London Bridge is scheduled to be uprated from the current 6/4 peak/offpeak to 8/6 service in 2015.

> Until that date it will remain unchanged.


The latter part of this is not entirely correct - there are changes due at the end of this month that, whilst only introducing a couple of extra trains in the peak, will smooth out the gaps in service that were often greater than those in the off peak. The changes should really help with unacceptable levels of overcrowding on certain trains. I gave some detail of this in my contribution to the EDF election debates. It is something I have been arguing for over a considerable period:


Current:

7.03; 7.14; 7.29; 7.51; 8.05; 8.14; 8.35; 8.41; 8.56; 9.16

will become:

7.05; 7.15; 7.29; 7.34; 7.46; 7.57; 8.04; 8.14; 8.27; 8.33; 8.45; 8.59; 9.04


The March 2008 South London Rail Utilisation Strategy document does indeed have an 'indicative morning peak frequency' of 8tph from ED (Figure 9.1) from 2015.


Tessa

I've just been listening to radio four interviewing a spokesman about the rail cuts


They said that the 'Thameslink upgrade' has been scrapped


Does anyone know more about this?


Regarding the new network rail cuts....


Is that linked to what's going on at London Bridge?


Apprently anything that 'doesn't have a signature' will be scrapped.


Does the East London Line extension have a signature yet?


Would the South London Line be kept if the last two are scrapped?


Would this mean we could we keep our direct to london trains?


According to the program there's a report being released in a few days

just reading around more...


http://www.building.co.uk/crossrail-budget-may-be-slashed-by-a-third/5000374.article


quote from this article


Meanwhile, it is understood that Network Rail is examining the implications of dropping plans for the ?3bn remodelling of London Bridge station, the next phase of the ?5.5bn Thameslink programme. This is in addition to ?100m of cuts that Network Rail was asked to make this week.


enough platforms for The South London line now??????

  • 6 months later...
Shame South London Line from Denmark Hill & Peckham Rye is under threat. It provides direct train services to Battersea and a huge regeneration scheme has been launched "Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea Opportunity Area". It's believed 25,000 new jobs and 16,000 new homes will be created.

but the ELL extension will serve DH and Peckham to Battersea! - then on to clapham junction!


the only service lost will be direct london bridge-victoria, the ELL will cover most of that route and all stations along the route will benefit from greater frequency


for example at the moment honor oak park has a train north every 5 mins - used to be every 10. quicker change onto the tube than going into london bridge platform 16 then walking into the underground as well


I can say 99.9% the south london line is gone, and with the same certainty that the ELLX is coming in. the only haggling is over construction of surrey canal road station. london bridge will be too busy during the thameslink upgrade, and major redevelopment of the station during building of the shard to accommodate a barely used 2 car train - most passengers only use small sections of the line, that will be well served by ELLX

Anna27 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> but the ELL extension will serve DH and Peckham to

> Battersea! - then on to Clapham Junction!


I don't think so. The new ELLX will go from Denmark Hill to Clapham High St then Wandsworth Road and then Clapham Junction and not via Battersea Park. So there will be no rail link from this area to Battersea Park.

>

> the only service lost will be direct London

> bridge-Victoria, the ELL will cover most of that

> route and all stations along the route will

> benefit from greater frequency


South Bermondsey and Queens Rd Peckham will also lose their direct link to Victoria

>

> for example at the moment honor oak park has a

> train north every 5 mins - used to be every 10.

> quicker change onto the tube than going into

> london bridge platform 16 then walking into the

> underground as well


The ELLX to Clapham Junction will be at most every 15 minutes not the same frequency as the Honor Oak Park line.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...