A furious pet owner has said she felt fobbed off by staff at a pet store after her dog was injured in a grooming accident.
Kay Betson, aged 45, of White Lane, Gleadless, said her two-year-old dog Woody had his testicles burned after having his fur cut at a Pets at Home store in Sheffield.
The mum-of-three had no idea the shichon had been injured and was perplexed when he wasn’t his usual lively self.
The employee who carried out the cut, even made a point of telling Mrs Betson that they had to put earphones in because of Woody’s howling – not knowing they had accidentally hurt the dog.
Woody has made a full recovery, thanks in part to Springfield Veterinary Hospital in Rotherham, but Kay said Pets at Home had ‘ignored’ several letters of complaint since the incident last September.
The teaching assistant has demanded her £75 pet insurance excess be repaid and wants a full apology from the pet firm.
A Pets at Home spokes person said the dog suffered ‘clipper rash’ and not burns but added they were waiting for Mrs Betson to send vet bills and expenses for her to be reimbursed.
The pet owner said that she had already sent them last year and has now sent the bills again.
She said: “It’s been awful – we had no idea at the time what was wrong with him .
“He was fine before he went in and it was like he was a different dog by the time he came out. He was crying constantly and we then took him to a vet.”
Woody’s injury was not clear initially and he deteriorated after returning home.
He was taken to the animal hospital for an overnight stay and put on a drip.
“The real fight then started,” Kay said.
“I’ve complained and sent various letters to Pets at Home.
“They’ve only replied once and asked me to send vet bills to them.
“I did that and I haven’t heard anything from them – I’m so angry and I feel like I’ve been fobbed off.”
A Pets at Home spokesman said: “Our groomers are all highly trained and will always put the welfare of pets first. When Woody was brought in to be groomed we explained that, because his coat was so matted, particularly around the base of the tail, it would have to be clipped extremely close to the skin for the welfare of the dog. Mrs Betson understood what would be required and why it was necessary. Regrettably, being such a sensitive area, this caused clipper rash which subsequently required treatment. We received Mrs Betson’s letter of complaint in November 2015 and responded immediately, requesting details of the treatment and costs incurred, but we heard nothing more until we were contacted by the Sheffield Star on 26 July when we again followed up with Mrs Betson to try to resolve this matter for her. We look forward to receiving the information requested so that we can reimburse Mrs Betson accordingly.”