Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

I have been contacted by a Tony Coppock in response to my letter to Southwark Council regarding the traffic lights at junction of Forest Hill Road and Colyton Road. He informed me that:


a. No decision has yet been made


b. That the council has received views both for and against the plan to retain the traffic lights.


c. That the Chair of the Community Council will make the decision based upon views expressed by letter, at the forthcoming Community Council meeting and the results of a "consultation".


Tony Coppock was unable to tell me how the Chair will reach the decision, whether a majority vote at the CC would hold sway or whether the Council's own safety assessment would be paramount. Nor was he able to tell me where the 5th Oct CC meeting would be held, nor who the chair might be.


He did provide me the name and contact number of the chap "managing" the decision process. Philip Murphy - 020 7525 0814. I have called and left message asking for more details on process and the forthcoming CC meeting

Hi Marmora Man


I'm the Chair of the Nunhead and Peckham Rye Community Council and I can assure you that no decision has been made. The next meeting is at Rye Oak Primary school.


To date, the council officers have made a recommendation to all of the Community Council members (nine in total, not just me as) and together we need to agree whether we accept the recommendation or not.


I've been in touch with Philip Murphy and other officers to raise various queries I have with their recommendation. I'll also now see whether I can get hold of the for and against views that you mention have been received. Unlike James, I've only received a couple of emails about this to date. It may be that it's less of a concern for residents in the immediate vicinity (Peckham Rye ward) and more of concern for those further away as it's dispersing traffic on to other (East Dulwich ward) streets. This isn't something covered in detail in the report but it sounds like it should have been.


If there are further views out there I'm happy to hear them and to share them with the other community council members.


Cllr Victoria Mills

Labour Member for Peckham Rye Ward

T: 07535932318

E: [email protected]

www.peckhamryelabour.blogspot.com

www.twitter.com/victoria_mills

VikkiM,


Thank you for the response.


Good to hear that no decision has yet been reached. I look forward to following the discussion that the meeting on 5th Oct.


As my EDF name suggests I live on Marmora Road - which has certainly become busier as a direct result of the installation of the lights - and I know that other roads, Therapia, Mundania, Scutari and Colyton Roads have all seen an increase in "rat run" traffic.


The other points I have made in my note earlier in this thread stand - altho' I acknowledge that the recent opening of the Harris Academy may warrant a re-siting of the pedestrian controlled light crossing closer to the school if / when the traffic lights I object to are removed.

I think you?ll have a good chance of getting these signals out if anyone is brave enough that is at the council. One of my clients at Transport for London was telling me that as the Mayor has declared there will be no new traffic light installations in London (applies to the TLRN mainly) that there is a traffic light trading scheme at work now. It is already happening with bus shelters; bus shelters are disappearing from quiet locations and reappearing in other locations where they are needed more.

Hi all,


My kids use the traffic lights to get to school. I would like them to stay. Homestall is busy during the school run and traffic lights mean the cars and buses have to stop. We are having real problems with traffic at the Harris Girls end of the park. Cars come around the corner very fast, parents u-turn on the junction, or on the bend and traffic often backs up. In my mind, if cars have to stop, then it's better for pedestrians. Oh and I agree, getting onto Forest Hill road was easier before traffic lights - in a car - but as a parent with kids who would like to walk to school on their own - my vote would be to keep the lights.

In agreement with Whisteria, my family also cycle to school everyday and the area of road outside Harris Girls is a real mess at the moment. There is zebra crossing installed but unopen (barriers across the entrance) and a potentially disasterous combination of parents stopping on zig zag lines, u turning in the road and very fast traffic turning onto Homestall Road from Cheltenham Road. Fencing has been installed along the length of the area outside the school and in combination with the closed crossing its difficult and unsafe to gain entry to the park (the entrance also usually blocked up by a u turning driver). All this combined with dodging school girls its all a bit difficult!


The road has also become virtually single lane traffic due to double parking - not sure if this is all teachers/staff.


I know the stopping on zig zags has been a problem up at Goodrich School but I think has been mainly resolved by a letter to parents. Considering the Harris entrance is staffed every morning it would be useful if staff could wave parents on when attempting to pull in?

I don't think there are any plans to remove the traffic lights and not replace them with anything. Prior to the lights bring installed there was a well used and functional zebra crossing in their place which enabled safe crossing of Forest Hill Road whilst not interfering with the flow of traffic. Plently of others school journeys involve zebra crossings rather than traffic lights and children and parents seem to be satisfied with this.



whisteria Wrote:

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

> Hi all,

>

> My kids use the traffic lights to get to school. I

> would like them to stay. Homestall is busy during

> the school run and traffic lights mean the cars

> and buses have to stop. We are having real

> problems with traffic at the Harris Girls end of

> the park. Cars come around the corner very fast,

> parents u-turn on the junction, or on the bend and

> traffic often backs up. In my mind, if cars have

> to stop, then it's better for pedestrians. Oh and

> I agree, getting onto Forest Hill road was easier

> before traffic lights - in a car - but as a parent

> with kids who would like to walk to school on

> their own - my vote would be to keep the lights.

Hi all


I'd like to agree with whisteria. My kid cycles to school and the traffic lights make this much safer. There's also a lot of pedestrian traffic, often children, going to and from the park entrance, so to me it makes sense. I use the jucntion many times each week (I live on Scutari Road) by car, bike and foot. I vote to keep them.


Johnie

I have just read with interest the thread that was started when the traffic light were installed (referred to above). It seems that the overwhelming majority of the people who contributed were against the installation of the lights. I wonder how many of them are aware of the possibility that they might stay?


Would it be bad form to resurrect the original thread and post a reference to this thread on it, as this would alert those who had originally ticked the box "send replies to this thread to me by e-mail". I realise this would mean there were two live threads on this issue, hence why I have asked. Presumably the original thread could then be locked though?

I love Tuffie's insinuation that the bad parking is down to staff, and that parents are driving irresponsibly because the staff aren't doing their job!


At some point grown adults have to take responsibility for their own actions,not blame teacher.


I also detect a thinly veiled ambition in this thread to ignore the many posters who want the traffic lights to stay. Lots of nimbyism on show here!

Not really Huguenot, everyone has a right to make their views known to the council, for or against. I doubt the council will be ignoring those in favour of the lights remaining. Resurrecting thre old thread would equally alert those who were in favour of the lightd, so don't really see your point.

To resurrect a thread, you need merely post on it, and add a link to your thread here if you wish.


What you're proposing is to make it a sticky - which means elevating your own interests above every other thread on this forum - and then locking it - which means forcing people to take the route you want them to take.


I think that's a wee bit presumptive.


Incidentally, your headcount on the number of people complaining on the thread is an inappropriate way of judging the strength of your argument. In democratic debates you need to consider the silent majority, who are very happy with the status quo - so they don't need to comment.


It's the nature of bulletin boards that they attract complainers, if people are happy they just relax and put their feet up ;-)

I think if you read my posts back more carefully, you will see that I was not proposing a sticky, as I agree that would be an inappropriate thing to do. The suggestion of locking the thread was to avoid having two threads running on the same issue. Please do not try to insinuate that my right to put my view on a proposed cause of action across is anything more sinster than that. I and others have come on here to give our views on an issue that affects our daily lives, whether we are for or against the lights. Yes, affecting our daily lives, not yours.


I will post a link to this thread on the original one, as you have suggested. This will then bring it to the attention of those that had a view on the issue back in 2007, both for and against, who may be unaware of the council's pending decision.


Also, I don't recall giving a headcount, so please don't put words into my mouth. I don't agree that a democratic process necessarily has a silent majority, particularly in this case where the proposal was to remove the lights, so the silent majority may well believe that is exactly what is going to happen. In any event, the council will make its decision based on a number of factors, but not by the results of a vote, so hardly a democratic process anyway.


[Edited to correct crap spelling]

To concur with Marmora Man, the planning authority must take into consideration that main roads must maintain traffic flow ata reasonable rate or very quickly people turn off into side roads to try to cut through. This is demonstrated by the sizeable rise in traffic cutting through the Wood Vale, Forest Hill, Lordship lane triangle during the recent street works, sewer collapse, water works etc etc. Lets by all means make sure pedestrians (including me) can access the park easily, but not at the constant detriment of the thousands of people travelling by public and private means up Forest Hill road.

Lets keep London moving, not bog it down due to well meaning but misguided political masturbation (a possible deliberate use of the word to irritate the politicos).

Vickster you crazy cat - this is a head count: "It seems that the overwhelming majority of the people who contributed were against the installation of the lights". There you go, you counted heads. QED.


As with most agitators, you create statements like that because you're trying to create a hypothetical mob that supports you. It's not based in reality, you're just mentally excluding dissenting views.


I appreciate that it affects your daily life, probably to the extent that you've lost a bit of perspective. That's what nimbyism is ;-)


Councils need to take into account a huge range of things TJ, and I have no doubt that traffic flow is one of them. There may be others, including pedestrians, who do not share your particular prioritisiation.


The question is whose priority is the most important one, and to what degree their opinion is honest (as opposed to prejudice).


Is it egocentric drivers, is it socially averse homeowners, is it old people trying to reach the shops, or families with small children, or schoolkids playing tag?


To what extent should we acccommodate drivers anyway? The freedom of the road is a fifties aspirational advertising concept that appeals to selfish people (see Tuffies comments on driving skills outside schools).


Traffic is bad because there's too many people with cars. There's 3 million cars in London, if ten of them go down your street because they're going somewhere else it's because there's 3 million cars in London, not because someone's out to get you.


Motorists are on the way out anyway, and not because the council are meanies. Why spend public cash on supporting them when in ten years time they won't be able to afford petrol because there isn't any?


TJ, you call it political masturbation, I call it vision, sociability and radiant commonsense. There are plenty of people who don't have any. If that's what you feel about their views, I'd say yours is widdling in the wind!

Hugenot - you miss the main point. This is not about nimbyism but common sense. You are also arguing about the process of Vickster's campaign and not the substance.


Originally there were no traffic lights at this junction. There was an effective system of traffic islands and zebra crossings that seemed to suit everyone. The traffic islands and zebra crossings were removed and temporary (I stress temporary) lights were installed to facilitate the turning of large vehicles associated with the works on the Thames Water reservoir.


Now there is a possibility that these temporary lights will become permanent. Many object to this - and the additional rat run traffic is one part of the objection. This is not nimbyism - it is about practicality. Why not revert to the status quo ante - which was safe, effective and had no, reported, side effects. Some support their retention and have made their case too - but a casual reading of the associated threads would indicate that the ratio for removal to retention is about 5 : 1.


Some people are implying that removing a set of traffic lights must, inarguably, increase danger of traffic accidents - taking that argument to its extreme then every junction should have traffic lights.


The junction at Forest Hill Road / Colyton Road is not a major junction, cross traffic flow is not sufficient to justify traffic lights, the previous non traffic light system was safe and effective and allowed good traffic flow - lets get back to that is my argument. I intend to be at the meeting to make my point - no doubt others support their retention will be there too and we;ll see what the decision is. I hope logic and common sense will prevail over what I see as council bureaucracy and muddled thinking.

Okay, being a pisstaker, here's a letter worth sending:


ee text should others wish to use as a template.


Transport & Streets Department

Southwark Council


PO BOX 64529

London

SE1P 5LX


Traffic Lights ? Junction Forest Hill Road / Colyton Road


Dear Sir,


I understand that Southwark Council are considering whether to retain the traffic lights at the junction of Forest Hill Road and Colyton Junction. We recognise that Southwark Council indicated, when the lights were installed in September 2007, that this would be a temporary measure.


As I am sure the Council is aware there were many local motorists that objected to the initial installation of the traffic lights; however, we celebrate that there was a need to improve access and the environment for the entire local residential population rather than just high speed commuters and smug guys in gas guzzling SUVs.


To decide now to retain the lights seems the only reasonable approach. Apart from the wasteful logic of investing heavily to reverse a recent succesful project which worked to everyone's satisfaction, there are 5 following rebuttals to consider:


1. The personal experience on road use of local libertarians who despise any concept of social management is not only distorted by their overall politics, but motivated by the ridiculous conviction that if we let anyone do whatever they want whenever they want, the world would be a better place. This clearly doesn't apply to anyone who isn't a rich tory.


2. Difficulties with 'traffic flow' cannot be attributed to a single set of lights, but more to the fact that there are 3 million cars in London. The flow of buses such as the 363 and the 63 are much more negatively influenced by lazy people driving to the local shop to get a newspaper than they are by pedestrian facilities.


3. Perceptions of the numbers and speed of cars employing diversion tactics would be better identified by research rather than the off the cuff opinions of empty nester local people intent on maximising their own house value at the expense of people who want to safely cross the road.


4. I understand a recent ?safety assessment? has been carried out. This is a reflection of the desire of the council to serve the interests of the public, and whatever the context we welcome the findings. It is particularly satisfying that decisions at a council level are made on the basis of informed knowledge, rather than the gut feel of Nimbys.


5. We are particularly pleased that the council makes the decision based on the benefits to all, rather than being swayed by wierdy emotional concepts like 'going against the grain'. We pay the council to make informed decisions, not to pansy about at the beck and call of the current 'in thing'.


I recommend most strongly that these lights are retained.


Yours sincerely etc. etc.



... oh, and ;-)

Besides, Marmora Man, your 5:1 ratio is not only unsubstantiated but entirely useless as a reflection of local opinion.


The pedestrians wanting to cross the road safely are very likely to be local - perhaps 500 to 1,000 people in the directly affected area.


They're also likely to be OAPs, schoolchildren, busy families etc. They're disproportionately underrepresented on internet forum debates like this one.


The motorists wanting to use this stretch of road as a commuter high speed transit road are less likely to be locals, so they number the entire residential community of a large swathe of south London who really don't give a shite about local people. Perhaps 20,000+.


On this basis a 5:1 vote is a failure: it should be closer to 20:1 if it was to be representative.


Come on - all of you in favour of removing of the lights, how many of you live within half a mile of the location and have children under the age of thirteen or elderly relatives over the age of 65 that you care for?


I'm betting not very many at all.


It reminds me of the Parking Zone debate - where everyone who didn't want one on the grounds of bureaucarcy and limited parking spaces didn't actually live in the area that would be affected. In fact those in the CPZ area voted in a large majority to have one.


So really those who voted against it were actually voting to continue to rip off, oppress and make misery of the lives of local people.


Same thing here.

Whilst I cannot be bothered to respond to the majority of your inane drivel from across the other side of the world, I would like to point out that I live within 200 metres of this junction, and have done for 6 years. I therefore have experience of the position both pre and post the lights so certainly have a valid opinion as to the effect they have had. Oh, and I have a child under 13 and one on the way. Your logic would dictate that I should therefore be in favour of retaining the lights, but for all the reasons set out by many above I think they should go.


Wanting to avoid the road outside my house (and others) being turned into a rat run has nothing to do with house prices (and that insinuation is quite frankly insulting), but the safety of residents on these minor roads where traffic speeds and volumes have been noticed to have increased since the installation of the lights (and yes many residents have asked the council for a safety review) on roads not designed to cope with it, unlike Forest Hill Road.


Not sure why you are turning this into your own personal crusade on behalf of those in favour of retaining the lights, but I am sure Vikki Mills and others would be more interested to hear the views of those for whom this actually matters, who I am sure can speak for themselves, despite the fact you seem to think them incapable of doing so. Young families under represented on this forum? Have you seem the Family Room?


Edited to say p.s. "It seems that the overwhelming majority of the people who contributed were against the installation of the lights".. Point being my statement was in repsect of people who contributed and was taken from the post of someone on the other thread who had totted them all up. They were the ones counting heads though....

Hugenot, our man in Singapore... Even my four year old can see how ridiculous the lights are - certainly on the crossings which are parallel with FHR.


The one (ones? I forget) that runs across FHR is only necessary because of the environment that putting all the crossings in has created: a disconcerting mixture of interminable waits and amber-gambling - for both motorists and pedestrians.

Oh gosh, being told I'm talking inane drivel by Vickster, oh the shame. ;-)


You'll notice that what drew my attention to this thread was the demand that other threads should be shut down and pinned to the 'top' of the page.


It's the forum equivalent of saying "me me look at me, my issue is the most important one and my opinion is the most important one, and noone else is allowed to say anything on other threads that I don't control".


You then fell into the trap of ignoring everyone else's point of view, claimed a mob support and generally became an overbearing self-righteous motorist.


Most of your arguments are opinions masquerading as facts, and your desire to ridicule the councils efforts to establish the strengths and weaknesses of the current solution is almost as impressive as sticking your fingers in your ears saying 'la la la not listening'.


In the face of exposure your bring up my residence in Singapore as if it means I'm not entitled to an opinion? That's not debate, just another example of smug bullying.


Come on Vickster, you only want your own way, and you're willing to ignore facts, ignore other people's views, tell porkies and bully people until you get it.


The best of British eh?


But mainly, I have a thing about self-righteous selfish motorists.

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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