Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I wanted to take a temperature test on this thorny topic, as I have several neighbours who feed my cat and it is driving me bonkers!


He was catnapped last summer, missing for six weeks, and only surfaced when a neighbour (on my road) took him to the RSPCA in Camberwell to have him checked up. Then the microchip scan meant her game was up, and we got him back. She had made him her house cat, which struck me as mean and selfish. Despite a poster campaign, door knocking, distraught toddler, etc.


Cats, being the "slappers" of the pet kingdom, will go where they are pampered. You can't blame them. I probably would, too.


I have to confess to installing a GPS collar on him, and I tracked his movements like a suspicious lover. Call me sad, but if he went missing again, I wanted to know where he was shacked up. Of course, the collar stayed on for three days before it was lost, but it did give me enough time to draw up a list of flop houses he frequents.


Things came to a head last week when a fella in the garden behind started shouting our cat's name and rattling a box of biscuits. I felt like fronting him out, but, being British and ostensibly a coward, I went and made a cuppa and moaned to the wife about it, instead.


On the one hand, maybe I should relax: the moggy seems happy, and I am saving money on cat food. On the other hand, nobody would feed somebody else's dog, would they? And I think feeders need to understand that when the cat stays out overnight, or even for several days, as has happened since, it causes great distress to others, especially young children, who don't understand.


Any other experiences of this out there? Advice?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/34578-feeding-other-peoples-cats/
Share on other sites

If it bothers you why don't you speak to the people who you think are feeding your cat, ask them to stop and explain why?


Is your cat just greedy, or is it possible that you are underfeeding him? Or are people forcing food on him?


Surely the person who catnapped him can't have realised he was your cat? That would be theft! Surely she must have thought he was a stray?


I've twice "rescued" cats who turned out not to be strays at all, much to my embarrassment. In the first case I saw a poster and immediately went to tell the owner that I had her cat, upon which she accused me of stealing him!!! If I was a thief I would hardly have let her know about it!!!.


I feed/look after a few cats in this area when their owners are on holiday, and recently fed a couple of beautiful Burmese cats for a week (in their own home).


They live a few doors down from me, and now they have taken to coming into my house (if the back door is open) and mewing loudly at the back door (if it is closed).


I have only ever fed them in their own home, so I'm unsure whether they are after food or attention - I do chuck them out of the house each time, but I then give them a cuddle in the garden :)


I think it's nice that so many people like cats :)

edcam Wrote:

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

> To avoid awkwardness just tell them that the vet

> wants you to control their diet so would they mind

> not feeding your cat?


This is a good idea. There was a cat-nabber in the the street where I lived years ago - she only stopped when I attached a little luggage label to my cat's collar (falsly) saying she had an infectious skin disease and kidney problems that needed a controlled diet and medication several times daily so please not feed her or take her in.

you wouldnt feed someones dog so why feed their cat ? if people want a cat they should get one, anyone that has a pet should be responsible enough to look after it and feed it, so other people feeding it could make the animal sick, im all for feeding an animal if you see it stick thin and roaming (and then call the rspca) but the rest of the time you should leave alone, like people have said before you dont know dietary requirements so feeding could have a bad effect

For the past couple of years we have been visited by a male unneutered tabby who we have nick named Bill. Very timid.

he started to come through our cat flat and over time our cats have grown accustomed to him. He eats their food and during the winter we find him curled up in various parts of our house, we shoo him out but eventually he creeps back in.

We do not go out of our way to feed him- he helps himself to our cats food - he is either a stray, he is very slim or his owners keep him out all day and night. If he is a stray - at least he is getting some food and shelter.

He does not let you pick him up ( I managed to do this once that how I found he was still 'intact') so he is either wary of people or selective.

A few years ago my cat took to scroungng food next door, eventually he was round there almost exclusively at feeding times, they didn't have any pets at all. The cat, Gungerdin, would still hang-out at my place, especially when friends were round, he'd still sleep at mine and doss in the garden. After a few months I said to the neighbour look can we settle this and go back to me feeding him. The lady said no, it's her cat now !!

When she went away for 2 weeks, she asked me to feed the cat (!), upon her return he dined exclusively at Kid mansions from there on.

This all displays the inherently selfish nature of cats.

Although my wife is convinced that our two cats love us, there was an interesting documentary on BBC 2 a few weeks ago which showed an experiment that proved this is not the case. They just want shelter, warmth, food, drink and entertainment and don't really care who is providing it.

But then again that's not too different from humans.

It strikes me there would just be no issue if people didn't feed other people's cats! The prevailing attitude seems to be "tough luck, that's what cats are like" but if they weren't getting fed by strangers there would be no issue.


Not one person has said, "yeah, good point, I will stop feeding somebody else's moggy". A pal of mine out a collar on her cat with a tag that did "do not feed me" but it carried on. She went and knocked on the door of the feeders, who became indignant and told him to bugger off. They basically thought that because they fed the cat, they had some kind of ownership. It ended in a punch up.


Yet that "ownership" conveniently doesn't extend to vet bills, surgery, cattery bills, microchipping, spaying, etc, etc, does it?


I love cats and have at least six that come through my garden every day, yet I don't feed any of them. It strikes me as a basic courtesy to respect other pet owners. Basically, feeding other people's cats naffs off their owners, so if you are doing it, you are doing it for entirely selfish reasons. The cat won't go hungry, as it will just go home and eat.

The documentary was a case study, not a true controlled experiment. Therefore we cannot extrapolate to the general behaviour of cats from the cases presented in the documentary, although it was very interesting.


Feeding someone else's cat and enjoying its company is a very selfish thing to do. (Also, all those people feeding other people's cats, are they paying their share of the vets' bills too???)


If this were happening to me, I would stump up the courage to speak to the neighbours about it... well maybe courage bolstered with a little fib, as others suggested. Tell your neighbours the cat has a health problem. Keep trying with the Do Not Feed collar. And remind your neighbours that many nice cats are available on the Forum and at Celia Hammond.


If it helps, take your child around with you to the neighbours. Say to your LO, 'Remember when you wanted to feed Kitty but she wouldn't come home for her dinner? This is the neighbour who was feeding her, so let's ask her together not to feed Kitty?' Cue big-eyed, sweet-faced child telling your naughty neighbours not to feed your cat.


And if that doesn't work, I suggest a kipper through the letter box after midnight. ;-)

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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