A VET that was convicted of mistreating her own dogs now faces a lengthy investigation before learning whether she will be struck off, it has been confirmed.

As reported in the Daily Echo, Kerstin Vockert, 56, of Ringwood Road, Sopley, appeared at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court last Thursday, having already admitted failing to meet the dogs’ needs and failing to protect them from suffering by not adequately grooming them, contrary to the Animal Welfare Act.

Vockert, a vet of 19 years, is a director of Ark Aid Veterinary Centre in Irving Road, Bournemouth – which is not linked to Ark Aid in Poole – but could now be removed from the register, although it could take up to a year for a decision to be made.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is now investigating her following the court case and she could be struck off.

At the court case, Vockert was handed a £620 fine, along with costs of £300 and a victim surcharge of £62.

The court heard that cocker spaniel Millie and 11-year-old rescue shih tzu Happy were found after a tip-off in September 2014 with severely matted fur that was also caked in mud and faeces. They had not been groomed for at least six months.

The RSPCA was alerted and inspectors visited Vockert’s home; when they returned the next day, she had put Millie to sleep.

Ian Holloway, communications manager at the RCVS, said: “We consider all concerns that are raised with us about veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses and can confirm that we have received a complaint about Ms Kerstin Vockert MRCVS, which we are investigating.”

The RCVS has a three-stage investigation process. If the complaint gets to the final stage, a disciplinary committee, a court-style hearing will take place.

It can take up to 12 months from an initial complaint for this to take place and options open to the committee include suspension or removal from the register.

Following the court case last week, Inspector Patrick Bailey from the RSPCA said: “I have dealt with numerous matted dogs in my career with the RSPCA, but I have never seen any as horrifically matted as Millie was.”

In mitigation, Stephen Barnfield said the neglect was not wilful nor careless, but was a “misjudgement” and that the decision not to groom the dogs was made with the best intentions because the dogs did not like it.

Vockert was allowed to continue keeping animals after she told the court a ban would mean ‘professional ruin’.

The court heard she has six other rescue dogs at her home, all in good condition.