Rescue dog! Big let down!

cavework

Ok not to harp but..
you have a dog male 6 years old.. enter new dog 1 year old male
New dog is there 4 days.
New dog has still not got used to who is the leader of the pack .. dogs are pack animals.
New dog hasn't even had time to learn you are the pack leader.
Old dog knows who is the boss and new dog challenges older dog.. fight
This is not a dog with behavioural problems.

BonandDom

Based on MY PERSONAL EXPERIENECE and not saying this is the case all the time some charities are seen as cash cows for the people who run them..

Example 1.

SIL wanted to take on a rescue horse to hack about, have a bit of fun on and do some local competitions. Found a lovely mare, very friendly, lovely and calm, resue centre wanted £1,500 'donation' for her, Bear in mind (for those horsey people out there) she was out of condition, 18 years old and had a 'tendon'. SIL asked if she could get a vet to look at her. "No problem, but would you mind paying us £200 so I can pay someone to be there at the time" Turns out the horse had a fractured spine and broken pelvis and blood tests showed she was on bute (a painkiller for horses)

Example 2.

I lived next door to an animal rescue centre for some time and spent a lot of time helping out with the equines and dogs (both of which I have a bit of experience with). I constantly queried the logic behind letting all the dogs run together (neuteured/unneteured dogs/!!!!!es), was told "it's natural and people are prepared to donate more if they see the dog can survive with others". Gave up in the end and three months later found my beloved terrier ripped to bits as one of the "staff" had thought he was an escapee and put him in the run with the other dogs/!!!!!es.

I personally feel that such charities should be bought to account, however when one of the board of the charity is also connected to the RSPCA (who you are told to contact in the case of animal cruelty) is this going to do any good whatsover?

OK - over to all you guys/gals who disagree with me............

cavework

I worked for CDLK .. we never let male dogs run together.. EVER..

Kim-DogsBlog

ariba10 wrote: »

The one thing that stops me getting a rescue dog (As much as we would like to) is that the majority that we have seen with other people are ruined as pups and then abandoned.

There is a lot in the saying. "You can not teach old dogs new tricks"

As we have children in the house on a regular basis, it will have to be a pup that we can train.

And its that misinformed generalisation that keeps thousands and thousands of dogs in rescues each year.

Many dogs in rescues across the UK find themselves in care through no fault of their own - at this point, in my experience, mostly down to owners who don't know enough or due to the credit crunch (i.e. moving into rented accommodation etc) - very little is actually down to the dog.

jimmyjimsgin

Absolutely not, I have no intention whatsoever to gain anything more than the £175 paid for the dog in question. I have returned the dog with a new lead, collar, bowl, bed and toys and have no regrets with that expense, or the £36 I paid for the dogs initial check up and ear mite medication on day 2, or the vet bills incurred for my dogs injuries. Absolutely not. Just the original £175 that is all.
I am only asking for advice, I have been in touch with the charities commision as my vet also advised me and i told them i would give the charity the opportunity to respond to my two letters requesting the refund. they have not responded in the given time and i am now considering other options. I gladly recieve advice, i have corrected some information where needed and i am grateful for the advice. I do not intend making money at all out of this horrible experience, however i do feel that even a suggested refund (taking out reasonable costs for instance on the charity's behalf) could have resolved this, or offering us one of the 10 puppies advertised by th e charity a week after my experience could also have resolved the problem. the way it has been handled is the major concern, even if i didnt get the £175 but the charity had to correct their assessment procedure when rehoming dogs into family homes then that would be wonderful news for me. I am still out of pocket £175 after 4 days.

Mistymaid wrote: »

Others may well disagree with me (they usually do) but I'm starting to get really uncomfortable about your desire to progress with the suing option.

You started the thread off in consumers and went with that. Others told you you were unlikely to succeed. We gave you advice regarding getting your money back and in contacting the Charities Commission in particular who, as I explained in the other thread, have a lot of pull over charities such as this one.

Now you are still saying you want to pursue the matter in court. May I ask, are you looking for your money returning or are you looking for damages? i.e. related to the potential problems that could have occurred and the costs already incured via your vets bill?

jimmyjimsgin

I agree and this is why we went down the rescue route, I am sure that there are lots and lots of poor unfortunate dogs who would have been ideal for our family. It is just a shame that they rehomed a dog that they clearly knew quite little about. I believe many rescue dogs are fantastic dogs as many of my family and friends indeed own rescue dogs. The charity could have handled this alot better for every body concerned.

Kim-DogsBlog wrote: »

And its that misinformed generalisation that keeps thousands and thousands of dogs in rescues each year.

Many dogs in rescues across the UK find themselves in care through no fault of their own - at this point, in my experience, mostly down to owners who don't know enough or due to the credit crunch (i.e. moving into rented accommodation etc) - very little is actually down to the dog.

jimmyjimsgin

thank you for that, i wouldnt go to a local newspaper as I feel that this back stabbing is not the answere. It is more of a knee jerk reaction but really i know that a lot of charities are fantastic, indeed I work in the charity sector for people with special needs and i am forever volunteering, fund raising etc. I do feel that the principal is the issue, the way it was handled and my loss o f £175 without a blink of their eye!

SailorSam wrote: »

A poster said earlier it may be an idea to give the story to your local newspaper, if this is a local rescue centre the publicity wouldn't be welcomed , the people they depend upon may look to a different charity to support.
We're all very grateful to charities, they do a lot of good but, i'd have no qualms taking legal action against them if they hadn't given a service i felt i'd paid for.
It's similar to the National Health or Education systems, also there to do good but, if a doctor makes a mistake making our illness worse or a teachers negligence results in one of our children being injured, they accept they are going to have to pay.

jimmyjimsgin

I actually questioned the home visit lady and the trustee who placed the dog with me, I asked if there was a preferred sex to place with my 6 year old male neutered. They were adamant that they didnt think it made a difference. We didnt mind if we had a !!!!! or a dog, we were not fussy about colour we just wanted a dog with a good record/history. We were surprised how quickly they found a dog (2 days) but were pleased and trusted them. My dog is very very submissive, backed up by my vet, however the other dog was clearly not.

cavework wrote: »

I worked for CDLK .. we never let male dogs run together.. EVER..

Mistymaid

So why, if you are going the Charities Commission route, are you still talking about suing?

Look, lets get all this in perspective:

As others have mentioned, two dogs in the same house, castrated or not is pretty much a bit of a recipe for disaster. It may not have been a major disaster, and the odds are that the dog in question may have gone on to be an only dog or put with a girly and everything is fine and dandy, but potentially it could have led to problems in your situation.
The rescue should have at least had some idea this was a likely scenario.

I myself currently have one uncastrated rescue dog. He's a big lad but daft as a brush, however no way, when I was looking for another dog would I have considered anything other than a !!!!!. Just playing as safe as I could.

Thing is, you weren't to know this, so the rescue should have made sure in their assessment of him and also forwarned you that they would, most likely, sort out a pecking order.

They've also handled the returns thing badly and as such need a huge kick up the backside - the Charities Commission have the power to do such a thing and I hope they do. BUT if you go to court or give this situation a lot of publicity, who really suffers in the long run? The rescue dogs.

People will start screaming about them being not safe with kids etc etc returning re-homed dogs - nightmare, and I don't think you really want that?

Yet if the Charities Commission do threaten to lift the charitable status of the rescue unless they improve their assessment, advice and returns policy, they are more likely to actually do it and everyone benefits in the long run (including you being given your money back)

Hope this makes sense.

Mistymaid

jimmyjimsgin wrote: »

I actually questioned the home visit lady and the trustee who placed the dog with me, I asked if there was a preferred sex to place with my 6 year old male neutered. They were adamant that they didnt think it made a difference. We didnt mind if we had a !!!!! or a dog, we were not fussy about colour we just wanted a dog with a good record/history. We were surprised how quickly they found a dog (2 days) but were pleased and trusted them. My dog is very very submissive, backed up by my vet, however the other dog was clearly not.

That's really poor advice and I do sympathise with you. My dog is also very submissive and would get hammered in any fight - but I know not to put him with another dog and you needed to be given better guidance.