German Shepherd Rescue Uk Sued

[Ian]

Posted with the permission of German Shepherd Rescue UK

 

 

German Shepherd Rescue UK would like rescues and dog lovers everywhere to know of a recent experience with an Ayreshire based kennels / pet transporter and the Scottish courts. Sonny, a young dog, less than a year old, was suddenly faced with the threat of imminent destruction when a 28 days destruction notice was placed on his head in a tawdry dispute over responsibility and a claim for £507 in kennel fees.

 

It has been stated in court that Sonny was never owned by, or even registered with, German Shepherd Rescue and that the kennels / transport company themselves admitted in court that Sonny's original owners had remained his legal owner throughout.

 

The original owner states within their affidavit that the kennel owner collected Sonny in early October with the intention of rehoming but had then said in Mid October she had decided that she intended keeping Sonny as their own pet. It is said that she changed her mind again only after suggesting that he had bitten someone in December.

 

In a desperate bid to save Sonny's life German Shepherd Rescue decided that they would issue a cheque to cover the kennel fees. Once Sonny was moved to safety that cheque was then stopped before it could be cashed.

 

Sonny was then re-homed within a week of being handed over to German Shepherd Rescue UK.

 

The kennels then sued German Shepherd Rescue. Legally the matter has recently been decided, (although if there is a solicitor out there who could suggest valid grounds for appeal Jayne, who runs the rescue, would no doubt be pleased to hear from you). Even though they did not own Sonny, German Shepherd Rescue have been ordered to repay that sum, leaving the Rescue feeling betrayed by the legal system.

 

Whatever the legal situation the Rescue is asking, morally, despite not being the dogs owner,

 

Would it really have been right to do nothing and simply allow this young dog to die (as the magistrate would appear to have felt)?

 

Should Sonny have been saved, but the disputed bill paid and funds available for other needy cases reduced?

 

Should the kennels have been more compassionate towards poor Sonny, or were they right to threaten to destroy him through no fault of his own?

 

Do you believe that a Rescue with limited resources would simply leave a dog in a strange kennels for four months, failing to make any effort to find him a home?

 

You are invited to read the full story via the link below and from there the link to the sworn affadavit from the dogs owner at the time, form your own conclusions and, having read the story, tell me, what do you think?

 

http://www.germanshepherdrescue.co.uk/index.html The full story can then be found in the second box down on the Home Page

.

[Melp]

Would it really have been right to do nothing and simply allow this young dog to die (as the magistrate would appear to have felt)?

No t would not have been right, not at all.

Should Sonny have been saved, but the disputed bill paid and funds available for other needy cases reduced?

I think the rescue were wrong to stop the cheque personally BUT I think they should have publicised the events afterward, maybe drawing in some funds for other dogs via the media

Should the kennels have been more compassionate towards poor Sonny, or were they right to threaten to destroy him through no fault of his own?

The kennels behaved appallingly. Threatening to destroy a dog over a bill is shocking.

Do you believe that a Rescue with limited resources would simply leave a dog in a strange kennels for four months, failing to make any effort to find him a home?

No I would think any rescue worth its salt would do whatever they could find a home. Having sad that, lots of dogs spend far longer in kennels than 4 months because homes aren't readily available. I would certainly hope they'd try though.

[EGAR]

The dog was rehomed within a week, yet it was claimed he had bitten someone whilst in kennels? Doesn't wash with me, sorry and pretty irresponsible if true. A dog cannot be properly assessed in one week, no way.

Edited August 2, 2007 by EGAR

[tracey.s]

The owner of the kennels is a tw@t and wrong on so many levels. The rescue have agreed to pay, and then cancelled the cheque. I do IMVHO think this was wrong. They would take a dog back if an adopter did this. I know we all run on limited funds but, at the end of the day they did agree to pay.

I also agree with sarah, getting in a dog and rehoming it in a week is rather quick.

 

Just my opinion though.

[Helly]

the 28 day notice of destruction is the standard suggested for kennel owners for non payment and non collection of pets. in my terms and conditions its 21 days although obviously id not destroy any dog.

 

I did notice that 507 quid over 4 months is roughly £4 a day which is well below going rates so the rescue could have been hit for far more.

 

I was having sympathy for the rescue till i got to the bit where they issued a cheque and then stopped it. Its illegal to write a cheque you have no intention of honouring for starters and at that point they shot themselves in both feet big time. They would have gained a lot more support getting the press to do a story over the dogs story than do that.

 

for all those who think the kennel owner is a tw@t. If you had booked in a kennels months ago, had everything planned and then they rang you and said sorry cant honour your booking, i have a dog here thats not been collected but im sure you wont mind coz its a rescue thats not been collected would that be ok?

 

I do think things were done wrong, but i do think there is more to the story and it also concerns me that the dog was rehomed within a week of leaving the kennels.

[tracey.s]

The kennel owner stated he wasn't in the kennels, but living in her house, The kennel owner also took him from the owner as she could no longer keep him. so she knew he was going to be there until she herself rehomed him

Edited August 2, 2007 by tracey.s

[EGAR]

I can fully understand that a boarding kennel amongst other things IS a place in which a business takes place. And the service provider as much as the customer must adhere to the rules given/signed. As Helly I do think there is more to it than meets the eye.

 

To sign a cheque and then cancel it is IMHO fraud.

 

However, I am far more concerned about what has been done to track down the previous owner of this dog and what legal consequences are awaiting her if she should be found - if any?

 

A fundraiser to help this dog/rescue with the kennel fees would have been more appropriate, me thinks, but what do I know .

[Ian]

the 28 day notice of destruction is the standard suggested for kennel owners for non payment and non collection of pets. in my terms and conditions its 21 days although obviously id not destroy any dog.

 

I did notice that 507 quid over 4 months is roughly £4 a day which is well below going rates so the rescue could have been hit for far more.

 

I was having sympathy for the rescue till i got to the bit where they issued a cheque and then stopped it. Its illegal to write a cheque you have no intention of honouring for starters and at that point they shot themselves in both feet big time. They would have gained a lot more support getting the press to do a story over the dogs story than do that.

 

for all those who think the kennel owner is a tw@t. If you had booked in a kennels months ago, had everything planned and then they rang you and said sorry cant honour your booking, i have a dog here thats not been collected but im sure you wont mind coz its a rescue thats not been collected would that be ok?

 

I do think things were done wrong, but i do think there is more to the story and it also concerns me that the dog was rehomed within a week of leaving the kennels.

 

I only know what is on the site - the same info you each have the opportunity to read - but I think you've misread something here as it is stated Sonny was taken into the kennels sometime in early October (doesnt say exactly when) & the bill was received 29th December so I got that to more like £6 per day at best.

 

As a kennels would you not also, if you believed you were kenneling a rescue dog want to be clear who owned the dog and expect to have some form of clear written agreement as to who was paying the bills?

 

Considering he's been in the kennels care for months, does he not also look to thin to you?

 

According to owners affidavit the kennel owner never expected the dog to be collected - she had decided to keep her herself. Even if you accept the kennel owners claim that this affidavit is untrue it appears that no one has disputed that the dog was collected by her for rehoming.

 

I agree that the issuing of the cheque was probably the reason they lost the case. My own comment was "I presume he's ruled on the basis of the cheque having constituted an agreement but to say that she never discussed fees with any client seems utterly unbelievable. I'm afraid the courts are sometimes anything but fair / reasoned here, sounds like Scotland is no better". However, faced with the fact the owner couldn't / wouldn't pay and the kennels were threatening to put the dog to sleep I can understand why saving his life was their first / only concern.

Edited August 2, 2007 by Ian

[EGAR]

I have boarded rescues on numerous occasions when EGAR was full and never had a written agreement or suchlike. But I work with one particular boarding kennel and my dogs are never there for longer than max 3 weeks. I usually pay afterwards and was never asked for any money upfront but I have always paid on time.

[Ian]

The dog was rehomed within a week, yet it was claimed he had bitten someone whilst in kennels? Doesn't wash with me, sorry and pretty irresponsible if true. A dog cannot be properly assessed in one week, no way.

 

I don't know to whom he was rehomed, what level of experience they may have had or what assessments had been made but as you have raised it will ask. In the meantime, as you will see in the affidavit from the original owner there seems to be some question as to whether any bite ever actually took place.

 

Sunny is said by his original owner to have been 'too nice & sweet' and to have hidden when the Police arrived to assess him (as a possible donation as a police dog) It is suggested that it was the Police officer who then suggested trying this kennels instead.

 

However, I am far more concerned about what has been done to track down the previous owner of this dog and what legal consequences are awaiting her if she should be found - if any?

 

I can only assume on this one you havent actually read the full story as the original owner is there in it - she swore the affidavit which you will find in a link in the main story.

[EGAR]

No, I havent as the link wont open for me

[Ian]

I have boarded rescues on numerous occasions when EGAR was full and never had a written agreement or suchlike. But I work with one particular boarding kennel and my dogs are never there for longer than max 3 weeks. I usually pay afterwards and was never asked for any money upfront but I have always paid on time.

 

 

I can understand that where you are known to the kennels and you legally own the dog. I can't understand how anyone would board a dog that they admit in court they knew was still owned by someone else if they were then expecting a rescue that they didn't know well at all to pay their bill. Nor would I expect any business with any sense to wait from early October to the end of December before issuing a bill to anyone?

[EGAR]

Ian, you asked for opinions and I gave mine based on what I read here. And every peep who works in rescue know to take a description of a dog by the person who surrenders it with a pinch of salt. An experienced peep still does not know this particular dog and IMHO the rescue took a huge risk to rehome this dog so fast, especially considering that it had spent so much time in kennels.

 

I have not seen a pic of this dog as the link wont open for me but some dogs do suffer when kennelled and lose condition. I think the lesson to be learnt from all this is to have your paperwork in proper order and to try and do things the proper way.

 

I am off to bed now....

[Ian]

No, I havent as the link wont open for me

 

 

Oh, I'll see if I can PM it to you instead.

[Ian]

Ian, you asked for opinions and I gave mine based on what I read here. And every peep who works in rescue know to take a description of a dog by the person who surrenders it with a pinch of salt. An experienced peep still does not know this particular dog and IMHO the rescue took a huge risk to rehome this dog so fast, especially considering that it had spent so much time in kennels.

 

I have not seen a pic of this dog as the link wont open for me but some dogs do suffer when kennelled and lose condition. I think the lesson to be learnt from all this is to have your paperwork in proper order and to try and do things the proper way.

 

I am off to bed now....

 

 

Indeed I did I have no problem with people having different opinions to me on any topic.

 

I've neither agreed nor disagreed on the assessment point, merely said I would ask. I'd probably form my own view on having net the dog and the potential owner. If it were me homing the dog, would I give an unassessed dog to a novice? No. Would I give a dog with a weeks assessment by an experienced person to an experienced dog handler? Yes, quite possibly.

 

I also think it reasonable to ask that you read all of the available story before reaching a conclusion

 

This is Sonny

 

Thanks all for your input

 

With that I too am off to bed - just realised it's getting on for 3am

Edited August 2, 2007 by Ian