Can you help me my sisters dog bit her neighbour

cheepskate_2

Alpha47 wrote: »

Hello



she is somewhat stunned because they are telling quite a story of the dog jumping onto the wall ( 5 inches and 5/8th wide). Saying the postman would not deliver letters
Alpha

These facts may acctually be on the side of your sister.

Easy enough to see if the dog can jump up this high , this should be tested out and used as evidence if the dog at all attemps, cannot jump there,or get its teeth to there.

Does the postie deliver mail, has the postie had any reasson not to deliver it(other than when asked) If the postie is quite happy to enter your property , mabye a little word to him via solisitor may help the case.

Alpha47

Hi
Really grateful for the replies, you have thought of questions that I hadn't. Especially Orlao as your case is very similar indeed. even down to the reaction of the neigbours. I will check on the bite and pictures and also mention about possibly moving the dog for now.,although she is going to fence the garden with a six foot fence now.

They did actually arrest her, fingerprints the works, I have read the act now and do not think it should apply.

I will ask her about the opinion of the vet. Also I told her to ask the postman if he was in actual fact scared of the dog. Because if he says he is not then you can see they are telling lies, that's a bit of a long shot.

Many Thanks

Paradigm

OK,
Done a little rersearch &.....
"The second part (Section 3) affects every dog owner in the country. This section states that you can be prosecuted if you are reported to have a dog ‘dangerously out of control in a public place’. For the purposes of this law ‘dangerously out of control’ only has to mean that ‘a reasonable person would have grounds for apprehension’. As for ‘a public place’, that is equally vague – certainly anywhere the public has access counts as a public place, but also, for example, so does inside your car if it is parked in public, or on your own property between your gate and your front door. The law states that anyone with lawful business (delivery men, postmen, milkmen etc.) must have free access to your front door unless you have made other arrangements. You can also be prosecuted if the offence took place in a private place where your dog shouldn’t have been ie in your neighbour’s garden."

The sentence in bold has got to be the reason for charging your sister as nothing else applies. They must be saying that the dog either got onto the wall, a boundary & not your sisters garden, or managed to get it's head over the wall.

She must get a solicitor (if she hasn't already) as from what I have read the onus is on her to prove a) the dog isn't dangerous b) it couldn't have happened as alleged.

Interesting reading here http://caninefilmacademy.com/CFACDManual/Data/Part%20A/DangerousDogsAct.html

I must admit I wasn't aware of the full implications of this act until I did the little bit of reading this am. As the owner of 3 dogue de bordeaux's it's pretty scary to think that I could be charged because "a reasonable person would have grounds for apprehension". Serious stuff for all dog owners!

Alpha47

Many thanks, I am making notes of all the comments and thanks for research paradigm. It is scary to think your dog could be in your own garden and if the neighbour sticks their arm over the wall and goads the dog, you can then be charged under this act.

Paradigm

Alpha47 wrote: »

Many thanks, I am making notes of all the comments and thanks for research paradigm.

No problem at all To be honest the more I read about this act the more I realise how badly put together it is!

"Unlike any other law in this country which assumes you are innocent until proven guilty, the DDA puts the burden of proof on the defence. In other words, if the prosecution say your dog is dangerous the court will agree unless you can prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt."

This is an interpretation of the act taken from a website &, if accurate, puts all dog owners at risk. The prosecution doesn't have to prove anything & it could cost a small fortune to prove innocence.

Paradigm

It gets worse......
"
This part of the Dangerous Dogs Act applies to every single dog in England & Wales, no matter whether it is a pure bred dog, cross or a mongrel and regardless of its size.


This is a criminal offence which can be brought against the owner of a dog (and if different the person in charge of a dog) if a dog is:

1. dangerously out of control
2. in a public place

'Dangerously out of control' is defined as being 'on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person'. Generally, if a dog bites someone then it will be presumed to have been dangerously out of control.

There doesn't seem to be any reference to whether the dog was on/in it's own property at the time. In theory if a dog bites a burgler/intruder you could be charged.

Mutter_2

I wonder if Peggy's age will prove to be of advantage here, after all, if she hasn't bitten in her nine years, she can't be that bad and your sister couldn't have anticipated her biting to have had such a low wall.

It must have been very frightening to have been arrested and fingerprinted and now poor Peggy is muzzled too. Had the dog been roaming or bitten whilst out with its owner, I'd have no sympathy. To put your hand over a wall where there's a dog is just plain asking for it.
There is such a song and dance about everything today it seems. Advise your sister to reduce the price of her house and get away from the nasty neighbours.

I hope there is a fair outcome for Peggy and your sister. I dare say the neighbour will be after compensation.

Paradigm

Mutter wrote: »

I wonder if Peggy's age will prove to be of advantage here, after all, if she hasn't bitten in her nine years, she can't be that bad and your sister couldn't have anticipated her biting to have had such a low wall.

It must have been very frightening to have been arrested and fingerprinted and now poor Peggy is muzzled too. Had the dog been roaming or bitten whilst out with its owner, I'd have no sympathy.
I hope there is a fair outcome for Peggy and your sister. I dare say the neighbour will be after compensation.

Totally agree with everything said but the law is loaded against the dog/owner. Thankfully the cumpulsory destruction order has been revoked & the court has the option to order other controls!

The whole act is absolute nonsense.

orlao

Paradigm wrote: »

It gets worse......
"


There doesn't seem to be any reference to whether the dog was on/in it's own property at the time. In theory if a dog bites a burgler/intruder you could be charged.

I have heard of exactly that happening!

There was a case a few years ago of a man who had his 2 American Bull Dogs PTS as they had attacked a teenager that had climbed over his fence to retrieve a ball.....now these dogs were known to be aggressive and were usually penned in the garden to avoid this kind of incident but this time they were loose (in a very secure private garden!) and before he could get out of the house and call them off they did inflict a few serious bites...he was told by the police that if he didn't have them PTS they would definetly prosecute. I had seen these dogs out locally, they were always on a lead and muzzled and TBH under very close control and while I feel sorry for anyone who gets attacked by any dog the kid shouldn't have been in someone elses garden therefore the responsibility was hisnot the dogs owner IMHO?

I am also aware of the element of the DDA that says "reasonable apprehension" as there are a lot of people who are terrified of any dog, for whatever reason....does that mean that I could be prosecuted because my dogs are sharing a public space with a dog phobic person? You do begin to wonder!

I'm probably more paranoid then most because I have a Rott who comes most places with me who while he is better mannered than most dogs (if I do say so myself:o)is always going to be looked on with suspision(Sp) by many people......the truth is that my old JRT is much more likely to nip someone than him...she's always been one to bite first, ask questions later if she thinks that either the house or me is in danger but you just know which dog will be blamed if there is an incident. Can I just add that she hasn't actually bitten anyone in about 15 years as she is always watched carefully and is very responsive to a leave command!

I was advised that if someone came over my gate the fact that there is an advisory notice on it protects my dogs....to a point. It would certainly help in court if I was unfortunate enough to end up there!My dopey neighbours have also been warned (in the nicest possible way:p) that I would fight any false reports of dog attacks all the way and of course, they *could* end up liable for my costs if proven to be lying/causing trouble.......

Best wishes to your sister Alpha47, she must be worried sick....

Sagz_2

This site might be useful.

Good Luck Alpha47's sister xx