Rescue dog let down

Tozer

redfraggle wrote: »

if you had adopted a child that didn;t get on with your family, would you pursure the council in the same way?

With respect, I think that adopting a child is a bit more involved than getting a pet dog.

Mistymaid

I just think the whole thing is very sad. What started off as being a potentially life enhancing experience for both the family and the dog, has turned into a stressful battle.
The rescue risk losing their charitable status (and fund pulling abilities) by pursuing this course and their reputation.
Neither situation helps the dogs they are supposed to be placing in a position of priority.

I had a brush with the rescues last year, not in the sense of the OP, but in the sense that I couldn't get a rescue dog. This, despite having over 30 years experience of working with all animals, because my location was a little too troublesome for them.
I ended up getting a pedigree dog that the breeder had 'held behind' because he wanted a specific type of home for her. She's been brilliant (apart from eating the sofa, cutlery, and lots and lots of tea bags!)

cavework

Please OP don't be put off. I am amazed at how much you 'donated'!
There are lot's of fantastic rehoming centres out there for Cats and Dogs.
Try the CDLK, Blue Cross or the RSPCA.

viktory

jimmyjimsgin wrote: »

We did ask for a puppy as we were dubious with the way that they assess their dogs but they refused.

So why on earth did you go ahead? There are other rescues - plenty of them. Why take such a risk?

jimmyjimsgin

no I asked for a puppy after the dog attack as I did not trust the charitys assesment system as i felt it clearly failed witht he first dog. I asked for a puppy free of charge instead of the refund and they refused that too, saying if we wanted a puppy we would have to pay £175 again. I would never have taken the risk initially had I known what type of charity organisation they were. hind sight is a wonderful thing afterall.

viktory wrote: »

So why on earth did you go ahead? There are other rescues - plenty of them. Why take such a risk?

SallyForth_2

A mandatory payment, of a mandatory £175 doesn't sound like a donation to me.

surfprof

SallyForth wrote: »

A mandatory payment, of a mandatory £175 doesn't sound like a donation to me.

I agree, and I think warning bells would have sounded at hearing such a high figure.

It's unfortunate that you have found yourself in this situation and I would agree, that the way the charity has responded should be questioned.

Having said that, it does amaze me that people do continue to think that the normal rules of selling, buying, refunds, etc always applies to animals.

I know that under certain laws they may be seen as " goods", but at the end of the day they are living animals. They are not programmed for purpose, they are instinctive beings.

It's not unreasonable to want or prefer to get a dog with a "good temperament", but how far can anyone go in order to assess or accomodate this? Animals are not manufactured items with a single purpose in mind. Quality assurance and "fit for purpose" can't be established in the same way.

To that end, to what extent is the charity responsible for ensuring that the dog is well behaved when it cannot predict the circumstances and environment that it will be in?

I had the same situation with a Lab that I got as a rescue dog from the RSPCA kennels. After 5 days it bit my 6 year old son with no provocation. I took it back to the kennels and didn't even contemplate getting my money back. My only concern was that there be no further risk to my children. I was lucky that the RSPCA refunded me without my even asking. I didn't blame them or the dog. Clearly there were issues with him that nobody could have been aware of.

Again, I think it's right to question how this charity has respoded, especially when they have reneged on a promise made by one representative.

I would encourage people however, to be more mindful of what is involved when buying animals as pets and to consider in advance, how best to meet their own requirements. Even then, there will always be the possibility for things to go wrong. There are no behavioural guarantees possible with animals.

jimmyjimsgin

I know , I asked why it was called a "donation" & the lady told me that I could pay more if I liked and therefore it would be a donation because I could choose how much more I wanted to pay! The minimum donation acceptable was £175 becasue the dog was under 18 months of age. It is set on a sliding scale according to age of dog!

SallyForth wrote: »

A mandatory payment, of a mandatory £175 doesn't sound like a donation to me.

Wicked_witch

lol, am wondering if I know this charity as you say you are in the SE! FWIW just to give you an idea of a sensible amount, I gave Battersea a £70 donation for my lovely, thoroughly assessed, 13 month old dog 2 years ago.

Anihilator

Firstly it is a donation. You didnt buy the dog. You agreed to make the donation and its non refundable.

Secondly nothing you write shows any neglience on the charities behalf. The dog could have been perfectly fine until it got into your house. Maybe the dog didnt like being treated like second best or locked in a crate whilst you fed the other one and showed a genuine animal tendency.

Put it down to a lesson because your getting nowhere.