rightvet.

AREA REPORT

Vets in Solihull

Prices, reviews and ownership for 8 practices in Birmingham

LOCAL OVERVIEW

Solihull has 8 vet practices. Only 2 are independently owned and most are part of larger veterinary groups. Consultation fees range from £29 at Colebrook Veterinary Surgery to around £58 at typical high street vets. Most practices here publish their prices online. The highest-rated practice is The Vet Clinic @ Birmingham Dogs Home at 5.0 on Google.

8 practices6 in a group2 independent£52 avg consultation
25%
independent
£52
avg consultation
7
publish prices

Find vets near you

Enter your postcode for personalised results with distances and local pricing

Or browse all 8 Solihull practices

What vets charge in Solihull

7 cheapest consultations from 7 practices that publish prices

1
Colebrook Veterinary Surgery
Large group: IVC Evidensia (905 practices)
£29
2
Amicus Veterinary Centre
Independent practice
£50
3
Medivet Solihull / Damson House Vets
Large group: Medivet & Partners (361 practices)
£55
4
Solihull Vets4Pets Ltd
Joint venture: Pets at Home (474 practices)
£56
5
Solihull Vets4Pets
Joint venture: Pets at Home (474 practices)
£56
6
608 Vet Practice
Large group: Linnaeus (208 practices)
£58
7
608 Vet Practice
Large group: Linnaeus (208 practices)
£58

1 practice in Solihull do not publish their consultation prices online. Pricing transparency is one of the issues the CMA veterinary market investigation is addressing.

Who owns vets in Solihull

Ownership breakdown across 8 practices

Independent 2
Pets at Home 2
Linnaeus 2
Medivet 1
IVC Evidensia 1
Most practices in Solihull are part of larger veterinary groups. Nationally, around half of all practices are part of larger groups. Here, 6 of 8 are part of larger groups.

Larger groups

Pets at Home
2 practices
Pets at Home plc
Linnaeus
2 practices
Mars, Inc.
Medivet
1 practice
CVC Capital Partners
IVC Evidensia
1 practice
Nestlé / EQT / Silver Lake

Solihull vet rankings

8 practices in your area

Other areas in Birmingham

See something wrong? Suggest a correction