How Three Companies Came to Own Half of Britain's Vet Practices

In 2010, most people's local vet was a local vet. An individual owner, maybe a partnership of two or three, who had trained, worked for a few years, and then taken on a practice of their own. The economics made sense: vet practices are profitable, relatively recession-proof, and tied to an emotional relationship that makes customers loyal.

That structure has been dismantled at extraordinary speed.

How the acquisitions happened

CVS Group went public in 2013 and used the capital markets to fund an aggressive acquisition strategy. IVC Evidensia, backed by EQT, a Swedish private equity firm, did the same. VetPartners, set up by a former CVS executive, followed the same model.

The pitch to independent practice owners was simple: sell now, get a good price, stay on as a salaried vet. Hundreds of owners took it. The practice kept its name, its staff, its local reputation. But the financial decisions moved to a boardroom.

By 2024, CVS alone operated over 500 practices. IVC had more than 1,500 across Europe, with the UK as its largest market. Together with VetPartners, these three groups had consolidated a market that had been fragmented for generations.

What private equity looks for in a sector

Vet practices tick several boxes that acquisition-focused investors find attractive. Demand is inelastic (sick pets get treated regardless of the economic climate). Customer switching rates are low (most people stay with their vet for years). And the market was, until recently, highly fragmented, meaning there were thousands of targets to acquire at modest prices before competition for acquisitions drove valuations up.

The playbook once you own a practice: reduce costs through centralised procurement, shared back-office functions, and standardised supplier contracts. Then, in markets where you face limited local competition, raise prices.

The local monopoly problem

The CMA paid close attention to what happened in areas where one group ended up owning most of the local practices. The answer, in a significant number of cases, was that prices went up. Not because of a grand conspiracy, but because competition had been removed.

For a pet owner without a car, or with an animal too unwell to travel, the nearest practice is the only practice. If it is owned by a group that also owns the two practices on the other side of town, there is no meaningful competition keeping prices in check.

The reaction from the groups

CVS, IVC Evidensia, and VetPartners all cooperated with the CMA investigation and disputed parts of its analysis. They argue that consolidation has improved clinical standards, enabled investment in equipment that small independent practices cannot afford, and allowed vets to work better hours and conditions.

These points are not entirely without merit. But they do not explain why prices rose so much faster than inflation, or why prescription drug markups reached the levels the CMA documented.