Rescue dog! Big let down!

MrsTinks

I have never heard of assessments having to be a registered doo da to be honest...
More likely than not the assessments will be a tick sheet based on the assessment criteria set down by the rescue. Now I am NOT siding with the rescue here but if someone came to one of the rescues I used to work with and asked for a copy of the report after the scenario of the dog having attacked another dog and you lodging a LOT of complaints... I'd not hand over the assessment either. They are under no obligation to do so and I'd certainly not want to hand over anything you might want to use to bash us with even further...
I'm not condoning the behaviour of the rescue in any way - I wasn't there, I didn't hear the conversations etc so I am not going to judge on that - but if you feel they are not acting in an appropriate manner then instead of starting a full out battle with them use the medium of the Charity Commission It takes MONTHS of scrutiny to get registered and the commission takes complaints very seriously...

dawnie1972

Thank you for your reply - as previously asked could you pm me the name of the rescue - this will not be taken any further but as someone that does a lot of voluntary work for rescues and also recommends rescues to people looking for dogs i would like to make sure this rescue is not on my list of ones that i receommend.

MissMoneypenny

jimmyjimsgin wrote: »

Hi thank you for that, i have contacted the insurance and unfortunately it wont cover that. i did hope as it would be a great help. thank you anyway, i may have to go it alone in court.

Did your insurers tell you that in writing? If it was just verbal and you have legal cover, why not just ask your insurers for a legal claim form, fill it in, send it back and wait for an answer?

Most insurers farm this legal cover side out to firms like DAS, so it may not be up to the insurers you pay, to make a decision on what Legal Cover covers, (unless it states it is an exception in small print in your booklet).

RacyRed

MrsTine wrote: »

I have never heard of assessments having to be a registered doo da to be honest...
More likely than not the assessments will be a tick sheet based on the assessment criteria set down by the rescue. Now I am NOT siding with the rescue here but if someone came to one of the rescues I used to work with and asked for a copy of the report after the scenario of the dog having attacked another dog and you lodging a LOT of complaints... I'd not hand over the assessment either. They are under no obligation to do so and I'd certainly not want to hand over anything you might want to use to bash us with even further...
I'm not condoning the behaviour of the rescue in any way - I wasn't there, I didn't hear the conversations etc so I am not going to judge on that - but if you feel they are not acting in an appropriate manner then instead of starting a full out battle with them use the medium of the Charity Commission It takes MONTHS of scrutiny to get registered and the commission takes complaints very seriously...

A vet asked for the assessment. And a 4 y/o child was exposed to possible risk.

I'm sorry, but I think that withholding an assessment, of whatever sort, in a situation where there has been injury on this level is totally irresponsible.

Perhaps it is time that potential rehomers were offered the assessment before taking the pet home. It might be the only way to ensure that rescues and rehomers take ALL of their responsibilities seriously.

foreign_correspondent

Lots of rescues have something on their contracts/assessments along the lines of 'this is based on the behaviour observed during the animals stay with us. We cannot predict the behaviour of an animal in the future' - I think, as the dog was fine in your home, and with your dog, for the four days before this incident it would be very hard to prove that he could reasonably have been expected to act in this way.

It is unlikely any assessment could have predicted this - if he was introduced to a few dogs and appeared happy and not aggressive, as he was when he met your dog, he would be seen as being 'dog friendly' - he may have lived with other dogs previously and been fine with them.

Legally, I doubt you have much hope of anything here, especially as you gave a non refundable deposit, not a purchase price, however, I am sorry the rescue have not been more helpful - have you tried asking to speak to a senior member of staff, or spoken to the national office if it is a large organisation?

my_gorgeous_ellie-belle

I know i am a bit late on this thread but what REALLY concerns me is the fact the charity re-homed the dog a week later knowing FULL-WELL IT ATTACKED ANOTHER DOG and caused severe harm.

That shows negligence in itself!

I agree though that there is no gauruntee a dog will not attack, that goes for any animal. But there should have been a thorough assessment done on the dog before it was re-homed the first time. I can not for the life of me understand why they re-homed the dog again so quickly.

my_gorgeous_ellie-belle

(Edit: sorry as you can see i am replying as i am reading through)

The dog had kennel cough and ear mites? So the medical assessment wasn't carried out before release either then by looks of things?

Also very concerned that you only took your dog in to meet this dog once, they should have scheduled numerous visits over a short period of time, with yourself, your family and your dog. At least i know this is what battersea dogs home do. That's why i am even more shocked that they re-homed him again within just a week. I am very certain that they didn't tell the new owners of this attack, so therefore they are misleading and witholding important information.

I hope it wasn't battersea as i used to visit them and donate regularly and they always seemed very strict on rehoming.

I do know that when you take on a new dog, i have rehomed two (not from dogs homes but people i knew who were neglecting them) it requires patience and attention to get the situation to work well. My westie (now 6) has dominance issues (likes to be pack leader which tends to be a westie trait unfortunately), but she had never 'attacked' another dog. Anyway to be sure my two (the other a spitz 3yrs) were gradually put together. We didn't have the luxury of pairing them over numerous occasions, they only met once prior to me taking on the spitz. They were never left alone in the house together, seperated at night ALWAYS etc etc. They were gradually allowed to 'live' together and even though my westie still sees him as lower in the pecking order she has never done more that try to headbut him out of the way as if to say i'm your boss, he sometimes growls at her to go away if she is pestering him to play by biting his ears and his feet but that is extremely rare. They cannot be seperated now and they are great together. They cuddle up, sleep together etc etc. She still tries to eat before he does but thats the most control she gets (or tries to get as i don't let her). If i seperate them i have been told he will howl for her and i know she hunts the house down and wont stop pacing until he is back.

What i am basically saying is yes it is possible to introduce a rescue dog into your dogs home, just it takes alot of work. I am not saying you are wrong in anyway, just the Rescue place should have made you fully aware of this and helped you on your way.

And if you instil yourself as pack leader you would not end up with a dog attempting to kill another dog, which is essentially what sounds like happened. Dogs can try to overpower simply with body language or pinning down another dog without any need for bloodshed, this is normal pack behaviour.

From what you are saying, yes i do think the dog rescue are terribly negligent. Not because the dog attacked yours but becuase of the reasons i origionally outlined.

I think a written complaint to the Charity Ombudsmen or whoever they be is in order (a previous poster gave details). Also if poss get some assistance from your vet, if your vet feels as strong as you have implied he should be willing to help.

RacyRed

foreign_correspondent wrote: »

Lots of rescues have something on their contracts/assessments along the lines of 'this is based on the behaviour observed during the animals stay with us. We cannot predict the behaviour of an animal in the future' - I think, as the dog was fine in your home, and with your dog, for the four days before this incident it would be very hard to prove that he could reasonably have been expected to act in this way.

It is unlikely any assessment could have predicted this - if he was introduced to a few dogs and appeared happy and not aggressive, as he was when he met your dog, he would be seen as being 'dog friendly' - he may have lived with other dogs previously and been fine with them.

Legally, I doubt you have much hope of anything here, especially as you gave a non refundable deposit, not a purchase price, however, I am sorry the rescue have not been more helpful - have you tried asking to speak to a senior member of staff, or spoken to the national office if it is a large organisation?

I completely agree that any sort of assessment has its limits and can often only be based on observation within a kennel environment.

But for a rescue to fail to provide the assessment when asked by a vet does make me wonder why not? It makes it look as if there possibly WAS some sort of indication in the assessment that this particular dog had problems. Whatever it was, the rescue's unwillingness to co-operate just makes an already bad situation worse.

I wonder which seemed more important at the time, finding the right dog for jimmyjimsgin's family or getting that particular dog (plus kennel cough and ear mites) out of kennels and into a home?

Anyone involved in rescue knows just how overwhelmingly important it can become to get a specific animal into a home, and how "economical with the truth" some rescues can become in their well meaning, but sometimes misguided, attempts to place a specific animal.

To me, this is an example of the sort of thing that can happen when priorities get out of balance.

Humphrey10

my_gorgeous_ellie-belle wrote: »

I know i am a bit late on this thread but what REALLY concerns me is the fact the charity re-homed the dog a week later knowing FULL-WELL IT ATTACKED ANOTHER DOG and caused severe harm.

What's wrong with that, if it hasn't shown aggression towards humans and goes to a house without dogs?
I often see aggressive dogs when walking my dog, it doesn't cause any problems as the owners keep them muzzled and on leads. I'm sure the dogs don't like being muzzled, but I'm also sure they prefer that to being killed by the rescue shelter...

my_gorgeous_ellie-belle

Woah please don't be so quick to assume what i meant when i didn't say anything like that, i'm not saying have it put down at all, absolutely not - just surely it needs more rehabilitation after an attack. Do you reckon they told the new owners it attacked a dog with nasty consequence, i mean this wasn't just a little lunge? i doubt it very much - so therefore the new owner may end up having a bad experience too, which would be very bad for the dogs wellbeing to have to be rehomed YET AGAIN...surely if the charity had the dog's best interest as they probably claim then they wouldn't be so quick to palm it off into another home without the neccessary work being done first?

It's a sad situation, maybe they are just crowded and need to make space for new dogs but i still think that was far far too quick considering the circumstances. I bet they didn't tell the new owner!