Helly Posted August 2, 2007 Report Share Posted August 2, 2007 sorry ian, i should have pointed out, on my pc last night i too couldnt open the link and went of the general run down you had given. dont know where i got 4 fromths from sorry. I have done kenneling for half a dozen rescues round here, RDR, WAW cocker rescue, GRWE, Staffy X and neither I nor they never once asked for anything in writing. With each i have said how long i have space for, any cut off dates the dogs must be out for, how much it will be and had the dogs delivered. Perhaps im not stringent enough but each of those rescues has never let me down or failed to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maria Posted August 2, 2007 Report Share Posted August 2, 2007 IMHO, there are different issues here. One relates to how poor Sonny was dealt with, ownership, rehoming etc, and the other an issue concerning someone agreeing to pay for something (regardless of what it was), and then defaulting. I assume the rescue was sued for breaching an agreement to pay the fees, in which case I can't see how the judge could have given any other decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snow Posted August 2, 2007 Report Share Posted August 2, 2007 I agree with Maria - it's 2 different issues tbh I am actually surprised that no one was charged with deception especially since the rescue have openly admitted they had no intention of honouring the cheque my guess is that they got "lucky" because the ownership of the dog was in question. The judge had no choice but to find them guilty - they were guilty they'd made an agreement to pay the bill regardless of the fact they didn't feel it was "their bill", once they agreed to pay it to secure the dog then it became their debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSDFan Posted August 2, 2007 Report Share Posted August 2, 2007 I think there is wrong on all sides here really. The original owner should really have been more careful what she did with her dog and checked out where he was going and what was going to happen to him. The kennel owner should have contacted the rescue much sooner. The rescue should not have issued a cheque which they then cancelled. As for the biting incident, I'm not actually surprised that a dog which runs and hides from a strange police officer might bite in a kennel situation. In my experience the GSD's which run and hide are exactly the ones which bite when they can't run away. I know it is quite difficult to see on a photograph just how thin a dog is but he doesn't look that thin on those pictures. Just a gangly 12 month old. All my comments are based on what I've read, but I have to say that I have a fairly open mind as to whether I'm reading the whole truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted August 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2007 I have done kenneling for half a dozen rescues round here, RDR, WAW cocker rescue, GRWE, Staffy X and neither I nor they never once asked for anything in writing. With each i have said how long i have space for, any cut off dates the dogs must be out for, how much it will be and had the dogs delivered. Perhaps im not stringent enough but each of those rescues has never let me down or failed to pay. Not for me to tell you how to run your business but personally with a rescue I knew I'd also probably take it on trust if I knew they owned the dog. With relative strangers or where it wasn't clear who owned the dog my motto would probably be "trust noone, suspect everyone" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa73 Posted August 2, 2007 Report Share Posted August 2, 2007 Sorry and it may not make me popular but they deliberatly set out to defraud the owners of the kennels. If they knowingly wrote a cheque to allow a dog to pass into their care then they should have stood it OR made it perfectly clear they would take the dog but NOT cover the costs. We have taken dogs from vets before and the costs of necessary surgery has run into thousands literally one dog cost us £2500 we were aware of the costs when we agreed to take it. Had we not she would have been euthanised although the money had already been spent. Had I collected the dog then cancelled the cheque too right I would have been expecting to find my backside hauled into court. Its dishonest no matter how unscrupulous the owner of the kennels are or how morally wrong its felt the kenneling charges being made were. It all sounds very dodgy on every level to me. Rescues occasionally have to tell little white lies to get dogs out of danger but to me they should always be above board and honorable where money is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted August 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2007 IMHO, there are different issues here. One relates to how poor Sonny was dealt with, ownership, rehoming etc, and the other an issue concerning someone agreeing to pay for something (regardless of what it was), and then defaulting.I assume the rescue was sued for breaching an agreement to pay the fees, in which case I can't see how the judge could have given any other decision I can understand that point of view too. Where I perhaps struggle with this is I would have expected the dogs legal owner to pay any kennel fees if there was evidence to suggest that any were indeed due. If he was taken to be rehomed then I would have expected there should have been a transfer of ownership form. If he was being kennelled for someone you didn't know from Adam I would have expected there should have been some sort of contract (I have never personally put my dogs in any kennels so don't know thats usually what happens) but it is what I would have expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted August 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2007 I agree with Maria - it's 2 different issues tbh I am actually surprised that no one was charged with deception especially since the rescue have openly admitted they had no intention of honouring the cheque my guess is that they got "lucky" because the ownership of the dog was in question. The judge had no choice but to find them guilty - they were guilty they'd made an agreement to pay the bill regardless of the fact they didn't feel it was "their bill", once they agreed to pay it to secure the dog then it became their debt. As I said above I would think the issuing of the cheque was indeed the crux of this decision & the only way the Rescue could have been found liable given that there was no evidence of them owning or even registering the dog. Jayne also recognises that the issuing of the cheque was her downfall - but felt she had to save the dogs life! Where I personally don't think it's fair is that a dog can be put to death through a dispute between humans. If the kennels had been saying no money no release or we'll sell this dog in order to recoup some of the money they say was owed then I'd have perhaps at least had more understanding for that line of argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted August 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2007 As for the biting incident, I'm not actually surprised that a dog which runs and hides from a strange police officer might bite in a kennel situation. In my experience the GSD's which run and hide are exactly the ones which bite when they can't run away. I know it is quite difficult to see on a photograph just how thin a dog is but he doesn't look that thin on those pictures. Just a gangly 12 month old. All my comments are based on what I've read, but I have to say that I have a fairly open mind as to whether I'm reading the whole truth. I'd tend to take each dog on what I could see. One of mine would far from run or hide from strangers but if not introduced with care could bite. Each to their own on the picture I guess - I can't see from that the owners suggestion of ribs sticking out but I would want mine to carry more a bit more weight than that shows. As for the truth I can only base my views on what I've seen. I adopted one of my own dogs after first seeing her on German Shepherd Rescue, have regularly visited the site since & seen a lot of dogs helped to new homes there. I can't see what they could possibly have to gain by publicising this story on their website, admitting they were found guilty and naming courts, solicitors etc etc if there was no truth in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted August 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2007 Sorry and it may not make me popular but they deliberatly set out to defraud the owners of the kennels. If they knowingly wrote a cheque to allow a dog to pass into their care then they should have stood it OR made it perfectly clear they would take the dog but NOT cover the costs. We have taken dogs from vets before and the costs of necessary surgery has run into thousands literally one dog cost us £2500 we were aware of the costs when we agreed to take it. Had we not she would have been euthanised although the money had already been spent. Had I collected the dog then cancelled the cheque too right I would have been expecting to find my backside hauled into court. Its dishonest no matter how unscrupulous the owner of the kennels are or how morally wrong its felt the kenneling charges being made were. It all sounds very dodgy on every level to me. Rescues occasionally have to tell little white lies to get dogs out of danger but to me they should always be above board and honorable where money is concerned. You are as entitled to your opinion as anyone else Lisa and, as I said above I have no problem with people having different opinions to me on any topic. I think I've covered my own views on the cheque and why I feel it's unfair on the poor dog above. In answer to earlier points on assessment and the media I'm told today that "the media wouldn’t help us, we tried that." and "Sonny was assessed by experienced people and he went to very experienced rural home without kids. He was just a typical young male GSD" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard (The Sane) Posted August 2, 2007 Report Share Posted August 2, 2007 Having read through the statement on the website nothing is clear apart from the fact that both parties handled the situation incredibly badly. I don't feel I can comment on the response from the kennel owner without first seeing the content of the letter that was sent recorded delivery to her. Or indeed any details of the communications between rescue and kennels that lead to a recorded delivery letter being sent. For a situation to get this far there has to have been some communication. However by arranging to collect the dog, despite no written agreement, that implies ownership. As soon as that agreement was made the GSD rescue didn't have a leg to stand on and the law did exactly what it was supposed to do. GSD rescue should have obtained good legal advice before arranging to collect the dog and definitly before writing a cheque out and stopping it. I am not defending the kennel owners actions, indeed the fact they billed GSD rescue for a dog that did not belong to GSD rescue was very wrong. However everything else that they did they were well within their rights to do the moment GSR rescue took responsibility for the dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merledogs Posted August 3, 2007 Report Share Posted August 3, 2007 (edited) If they knowingly wrote a cheque to allow a dog to pass into their care then they should have stood it OR made it perfectly clear they would take the dog but NOT cover the costs. Its dishonest no matter how unscrupulous the owner of the kennels are or how morally wrong its felt the kenneling charges being made were. It all sounds very dodgy on every level to me. I agree with Lisa on this. Quoted from that link : At that point we had to agree to pay the kennel fees in order to secure Sonny's safety, even though Karen Jones had already stated herself "we have no writen agreement". They have admitted that they agreed to pay the kennel fees, so they had a legally binding contract. The crux of their defence seems to be that they didn't have a written agreement, but in fact a verbal contract is just as legally binding as a written one. As for the behaviour of the original owner and the kennel owner, that's a separate issue entirely. We have only seen one side of the argument here and one excerpt from one email. There may be a whole load of other emails/telephone conversations that we have not been party to, so I would like to know the whole story before passing judgement based on one side's argument. As others have said, it appears that this situation was handled badly all round and for the kennel owner to place a destruction order on a healthy dog which had a rescue space is despicable IMO. Edited August 3, 2007 by madmerle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greys mum Posted August 3, 2007 Report Share Posted August 3, 2007 Having read through the statement on the website nothing is clear apart from the fact that both parties handled the situation incredibly badly. I don't feel I can comment on the response from the kennel owner without first seeing the content of the letter that was sent recorded delivery to her. Or indeed any details of the communications between rescue and kennels that lead to a recorded delivery letter being sent. For a situation to get this far there has to have been some communication. However by arranging to collect the dog, despite no written agreement, that implies ownership. As soon as that agreement was made the GSD rescue didn't have a leg to stand on and the law did exactly what it was supposed to do. GSD rescue should have obtained good legal advice before arranging to collect the dog and definitly before writing a cheque out and stopping it. I am not defending the kennel owners actions, indeed the fact they billed GSD rescue for a dog that did not belong to GSD rescue was very wrong. However everything else that they did they were well within their rights to do the moment GSR rescue took responsibility for the dog. Hope you don't mind me quoting you Richard. But you have said what I have struggling to type, far better than I could ever do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts