Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I went to see my physio last night and whilst having treatment, discussed the new arrival of yet another physio clinic in ED.


He was aware of ES Physical Health moving into the area but NOT into 116 Lordship Lane. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this a fairly big space? There have been previous threads on this forum speculating as to the location.


He found out that this was their new site because he actually rang up one of their clinics in Camberwell, and was told by the receptionist that the company were looking for 10 new graduate physios, that the clinic would actually be a 'training and fitness centre' and that it would be open August 07. It pretty much says this on their website.


I; like he, was quite shocked at this. To be looking for such a high number of people just at graduate level means they must be thinking big. Not to mention you've then got all the other staff to make a 'training and fitness centre' work.


I want to make it clear that his is not an attack on the company at all. What I'm concerned about is what happened to the small 'one-man-band' brigade of businesses that made ED special. People striking out on their own to bring us a very personal service? Healthy competition is one thing, but total market saturation?


What do the rest of you think? Having a big shiny physio/training/fitness centre bang on LL?


My physio looked at me last night and said in no uncertain terms "I'm going to be out of business".....and I really, really felt awful for him.


If Books etc pitched up next to Chener Books, I think we'd all be very sad and a little miffed.


Where is Ed going with the influx of bigger businesses?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/682-116-lordship-lane-is-to-become/
Share on other sites

ES Physical isn't really a big business though. They currently have 2 sites - Camberwell and Harley St. And I believe the Camberwell branch will close when the LL one opens. So they're not exactly the Starbucks (or Books etc) of the physiotherapy world!


It is perhaps a little out of character for LL though. The other businesses are there to serve the local community, presumably a site of this size will be aiming to draw customers from a wider area.

That's what I think Jeremy.


We all know from threads on this forum how much money it takes to be a successful and lasting business in LL and ED in general. Bringing in people from a further flung area than ED is good for a business but good for the locals? I don't know. I feel a little nervous about the building work and money obviously pouring into the area. It's good on many counts, but it could also tear away our 'community' feeling. (I know they're not the Statbucks of this world, that's not the point. The point is other small physical health businesses could/may/will suffer?)

TT I'm glad you do.


I hope it doen't change the 'feel' of the place when they move in. I work in the City and see dozens of shiny upmarket physio/gym type places. In the City they fit in (well kind of) but in a small South East London high street? Dunno....

Jeremy put yourself int he shoes of the other health professionals in the area who are terrfied by this move in. It will be big. They have every right to not want them there. A Harley street company in ED?


Well, the world goes on. We just wait to see who else sets their sites on LL in the months to come.

You're right, of course. But generally I believe that smaller businesses can survive if they offer a good service at competitive prices. Especially someone like a physio, who will get a lot of business from word of mouth, recommendation from doctors, etc - it shouldn't be hard to provide a better service than a place packed with fresh graduate physios. I suppose time will tell.

Madworld


I think people* are disinclined to comment because the big v smal business debate has happened on here many a time - with predictably mixed results


personally, I think that small and big businesses can co-exist. In non-commodified markets such as speci-a-list** health (for the most part)I think that the more businesses in an area offering the service then the more likely that people will be drawn to the area increasing the market (see also bars and restaurants in ED)


I think it's when uber brands and big supermarkets compete with the smaller operations that the competition becomes unfair. To take your Chener v Books etc example, the vastly superior buying power of Books etc would give them a huge advantage over Chener and there would be little (price wise) chener could do about it (althought it MIGHT tempt them to fix the leaky ceiling)


At least in ED I think there is a market which isn't totally price-led and people do seem to prefer a local business so in this case we shall have to wait and see


* of course this SOUNDS like I'm speaking for everybody but I don't mean to - its just my opinion

** Anyone on here who has tried to spell this word correctly will know why I've hyphenated

Thanks SeanMacGabhann, yes it is predictable I suppose that there will always be this big v small debate. I'm glad the forum allows us 'mere mortals' to have a say. I would hate to be in, or thinking about openeing up a business in ED. The stress. Probably the same all over London.

yes MW74, i also would hate to be in a small business in the current climate, which is why i work for a big organisation with all the downsides that are attached to that state of affairs.


the reason i do that is that those downsides are less damaging to me than the stress of working independently / freelance. but i don't complain about those downsides because i choose to do it.

Few businesses in ED feel the same but there is not a lot you can do about other businesses opening up.Existing businesses reinvent themselves constantly.Unfortunately people do not do their research properly when they open up a business in a area,people presume we need more gifts,toys and nappies and physio.On the other hand again this is my opinion so please do not make too much of it.

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...