When a Complaint Crosses the Line – Frivolous and Vexatious Complaints in Veterinary Practice

The Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) reforms of the veterinary sector seek to enhance the way veterinary complaints are handled.

One of the most important changes aims to strengthen the use of independent mediation in the complaint journey where a complaint cannot be resolved by the practice.

From March 2027, first opinion veterinary businesses will be required to mediate client complaints and to participate in good faith. The RCVS have funded the VCMS since 2016, and will be required to continue to do so going forward giving pet owners access to a free at the point of use, collaborative mechanism to resolve escalating complaints. At present 4 out of 5 veterinary business engage in the VCMS process, which handles 3.500 complaints last year. By introducing a requirement to mediate in good faith, pet owners are likely to be reassured that their practice will engage if the complaint cannot be resolved directly between the client and the practice team.

The CMA has recognised that not every complaint will be suitable for  mediation. The VCMS has some remit criteria (the complainant must be the owner of the pet and a client of the practice, and the complaint must have arisen or the final response given in the lay 12 months). These will remain in place. The CMA  also sets out in the final order, circumstances when a practice will not be required to engage. The CMA’s final report states that “vexatious or frivolous complaints will be screened out by the VCMS, or any other approved ADR provider offering mediation services”.

So, what exactly does “frivolous or vexatious” mean?

For both pet owners and veterinary businesses, this is a very relevant  and sensitive question. The starting point must be that all complaints should be taken seriously, and even in situations which may appear to a business to be vexatious or frivolous, can often be resolved if the underlying concerns are addressed by the business. It is also important to reflect on  what these terms do not mean. A complaint is not frivolous simply because the veterinary practice disagrees with it. Nor is a complaint vexatious simply because the client is angry, upset, persistent or difficult to deal with.

Veterinary treatment can involve difficult decisions, unexpected outcomes and costs and, ultimately, the death of a much loved animal. It is entirely understandable that emotions can run high and the way in which complaints are raised and responded to may be influenced by this. These reactions and responses do not mean that a client who strongly challenges a veterinary decision will not have a legitimate complaint. Similarly, a complaint which initially appears to have little merit may raise a genuine issue once the records and circumstances are reviewed.

The CMA’s approach seeks to support a proportionate process to help find a satisfactory and agreeable outcome for all involved. Alison Scull/Jennie Jones at VCMS explain: ‘while it may not be easy, it is important to approach each complaint with the mindset  that complaints are  capable of being raised and resolved. Alongside this, veterinary businesses are reassured that the VCMS (ad the RCVS funded ADR provider) retains the ability to review complaints and identify complaints which are genuinely unsuitable for mediation. The CMA’s final decision followed its earlier proposal that the requirement to engage in  mediation in good faith will not apply where the VCMS considers a complaint frivolous or vexatious. This assessment is made by the VCMS either before mediation begins or during mediation, if further information or the complainant’s behaviour changes the assessment.

What does “frivolous” mean

There is no simple veterinary-specific statutory definition which says “A frivolous veterinary complaint is…” However, the term has an established meaning in complaint and ADR systems. A useful way of understanding frivolous is:

A complaint which lacks sufficient seriousness, substance or purpose to justify the ADR process being used to deal with it.

A complaint may be frivolous where it has little merit, is trivial in nature, or where investigating it would be disproportionate to the seriousness of the issue. Other public-sector complaints guidance similarly identifies complaints which are trivial, have no serious purpose or value, or pursue unrealistic outcomes as potential indicators.

Veterinary example: potentially frivolous.

Imagine a client receives an invoice following a routine consultation. The client is unhappy because the practice has charged £2 more than they expected. The practice explains the charge, provides the relevant price information and confirms that the fee was correctly applied. The client nevertheless submits a mediation complaint demanding £10,000 because they believe the £2 difference demonstrates that the practice is “deliberately defrauding its clients”.

If there is no evidence of wrongdoing and the complaint is essentially about a trivial matter coupled with a wildly disproportionate remedy, an ADR provider might consider whether the complaint is frivolous.

The key point is proportionality. It is not the fact that the client has complained about a £2 charge which makes the complaint frivolous. A billing error can be a perfectly legitimate complaint. It is the combination of the circumstances, the lack of substantive issue and the disproportionate nature of what is being pursued which may potentially take the complaint into frivolous territory.

What does “vexatious” mean?

“Vexatious” is subtly different. The focus is less on whether the underlying issue is trivial and more on the purpose, manner or effect of pursuing the complaint. A vexatious complaint may involve conduct which is designed to cause annoyance, disruption or distress, or which uses the complaints process in an unreasonable or abusive way. The important point is that vexatiousness can involve the history and context of the complaint, not simply the wording of one letter.

For example, a complaint could be seen as Vexatious if there are factors such as:

• repeated complaints about substantially the same issue;
• continually changing the substance of a complaint;
• unreasonable demands;
• harassment or abusive behaviour;
• pursuing a complaint after the issues have already been properly considered;
• complaints apparently designed to cause disruption or annoyance; and
• pursuing a potentially legitimate complaint in an unreasonable manner.

The CMA’s own complaints policy provides a useful illustration of the distinction. It says that the CMA may regard complaints as vexatious where they have an improper purpose or effect, such as harassment of the team, or where a complainant repeatedly submits a complaint after a final response has been given.

Veterinary example: potentially vexatious

Consider a client who has complained that their dog received inappropriate treatment. The practice investigates the complaint, reviews the clinical records and provides a detailed written response. The client remains dissatisfied. That, by itself, is not vexatious as the client is entitled to disagree.

However, suppose that over the following six months the client:

• submits the same complaint to several different members of the team;
• repeatedly demands that the practice dismiss the veterinary surgeon involved;
• makes the same allegations despite receiving detailed explanations;
• sends dozens of emails each week;
• introduces new allegations each time the practice responds;
• threatens individual employees unless the practice pays a substantial sum;
• continues to demand that the matter be reconsidered after the complaints process has been exhausted.

The underlying complaint might originally have had substance, however the way in which the process is being used may become relevant to whether the complaint is vexatious. That distinction is crucial. A complaint does not become vexatious merely because it is repeatedly pursued. Three practical examples for veterinary practices

Example 1: A complaint which is difficult — but legitimate

A cat dies following surgery. The owner believes the veterinary surgeon should have recognised a complication earlier. They are angry and send an emotional complaint containing several statements which the practice believes are unfair. The client wants:

• an explanation;
• access to the clinical records;
• an apology if something went wrong; and
• reimbursement of some costs.

The complaint may be emotionally charged, but it has a clear subject matter and a potentially legitimate purpose. This would not ordinarily be something a practice should label vexatious simply because the client is angry. Indeed, this is precisely the sort of dispute for which mediation can be useful.

Example 2: A complaint which may be frivolous

A client complains that the practice’s waiting-room television was showing a programme they disliked. The practice explains that the television is provided as a general amenity and offers to turn it off during the client’s future visits. The client demands £25,000 compensation and threatens to commence multiple complaints unless the practice pays. There is no allegation of clinical harm, financial loss or breach of a meaningful contractual obligation.

Depending on the circumstances, an ADR provider could potentially regard the complaint as frivolous because it lacks sufficient seriousness or value to justify mediation and the remedy sought is wholly disproportionate.

Example 3: A complaint which may become vexatious

A client raises a genuine complaint about the treatment of their rabbit. The practice investigates it properly. The client then asks for the matter to be reconsidered by another member of the team, and the practice conducts a further review and provides a final response.

The client subsequently sends 80 emails, each requiring the practice to respond to essentially the same allegations. When one allegation is answered, another is introduced. When that is answered, the original allegation is repeated. The client contacts individual members of staff at home and on social media and threatens them personally.

The complaint may have started as a legitimate complaint, however the way it is being pursued could potentially become vexatious.

What about an unreasonable situation?

This is where veterinary practices need to exercise particular care. There is a temptation, particularly when a complaint has become stressful, to describe a client as “vexatious”.  This can be unhelpful if it subtly influences how the business responds and handles the complaint.

The focus should be on the complaint and de-escalating the behaviours associated with it, rather than labelling the person.

A client can be:

• upset;
• persistent;
• demanding;
• suspicious;
• distrustful;
• unfamiliar with veterinary medicine; or
• strongly convinced that the practice is wrong

without being vexatious. Even repeated contact does not automatically make a complaint vexatious.

The importance of proportionality

One of the strongest themes running through approaches to frivolous and vexatious complaints is proportionality.

Consider two clients. Both have received the same invoice, and both believe that they have been overcharged by £20. Client A asks the practice to explain the charge and, when dissatisfied, submits a formal complaint. Client B sends 150 emails, threatens staff, demands £10,000 and repeatedly submits the same complaint after receiving a detailed response.

The financial issue is the same. The difference is the purpose, seriousness, proportionality and way the complaint is pursued. This is why veterinary businesses should avoid simplistic policies such as “If a client complains more than three times, the complaint is vexatious.

What the CMA changes

The CMA’s reforms are intended to make the complaints journey clearer.

The final remedies require veterinary businesses operating first-opinion practices to have an appropriate in-house complaints process and, where a complaint remains unresolved and the pet owner wants mediation, to participate in mediation in good faith. The CMA expects the new mediation arrangements to be available from March 2027. The veterinary business will be expected to participate proactively and genuinely, with an appropriately authorised representative able to explain the business’s position and agree an appropriate remedy where the complaint has merit. However, this obligation is not intended to turn mediation into an automatic second-stage investigation of every complaint.

The CMA specifically states that frivolous and vexatious complaints should be screened out by VCMS or another approved ADR provider. That distinction is important because mediation is not the same thing as adjudication.

The VCMS explains that it does not investigate or decide who is right or wrong. Its purpose is to help the veterinary client and practice find an outcome which both can accept.