Ryslip Group LTD

Open Statement Regarding the Injury of My Cats During Relocation via Ryslip Group Ltd In November, I relocated my two cats from the UK to Hong Kong via Ryslip. While the logistical and documentation process was handled competently, I harbour serious concerns regarding the conduct of Ryslip’s veterinary staff and their overall handling of my pets. 1. Upon arrival home, both cats were severely distressed—refusing food and water, and displaying unusual fearfulness toward me. While air travel can be unsettling, the injuries they sustained far exceed mere stress: one cat suffered torn digits with exposed flesh, four broken claws, and lacerated paw pads; the other had two claws completely torn out, leaving deep, open wounds that were already showing signs of infection. 2. I immediately took them to a veterinary clinic. One required sedation merely to allow wound cleaning and the removal of embedded claw fragments. Both are now on daily antibiotics and topical anti-inflammatory treatment. The vet explicitly stated these injuries are consistent with forceful restraint or violent pulling, not self-inflicted trauma from mild struggling. 3. Ryslip initially informed me that only one cat was injured “due to excessive struggling,” dismissing it as “not a serious injury but something to be aware of.” This is demonstrably false: both cats were injured, and the wounds were actively infected and suppurating. Their minimisation of the situation was not only inaccurate but dangerously negligent. Had I accepted their reassurance at face value and delayed veterinary care, the consequences could have been severe. 4. My cats are exceptionally calm animals. They have undergone neutering, dental surgery (at The Guildford Vet), international flights, and routine check-ups—always without distress or resistance. Indeed, one allowed wound cleaning without sedation this time. Thus, Ryslip’s claim that the injuries resulted from “fear-induced struggling” is highly implausible. Worse, their staff responded with dismissive justifications—“I own three cats,” “The vet has 40 years of experience,” “I got hurt too”—which came across as arrogant and unprofessional. Does 40 years of experience excuse failing to recognise or prevent such injuries? Their complete lack of accountability was deeply offensive. 5. I am profoundly disturbed that my trust in Ryslip’s “professionalism” resulted in my cats enduring excruciating pain—and nearly missing the critical window for treatment. Nail avulsion is agonising; torn claws with exposed tissue cause both intense physical and psychological trauma. I am sharing this account publicly to ensure Ryslip recognises the gravity of their failures and undertakes genuine reflection and reform. 6. I am closely monitoring my cats’ recovery. All correspondence with Ryslip has been archived, photographic evidence of injuries has been secured. Should their condition deteriorate, I will immediately seek guidance from UK animal welfare authorities, including the RSPCA and relevant regulatory bodies.