New dog - poorly & prev owners knew -what are my rights?

epatolles

Proc wrote: »

Another Pug sold to another trend-follower with no interest in the dog's well-being. I feel sorry for the dog already.

You say the most important thing is getting the money? It's not. The most important thing is getting the dog into good health, and giving him a loving & caring family that aren't going to turn their back on it the moment it starts costing money.

This got me thinking about when I first got my Springer Spaniel. He was about 8-12 weeks old. Took him to the vet and he was actually in quite poor health. Had terrible skin rash, some kind of lice, plus a few other small problems. It only cost about £350 to fix, but the last thing on my mind was "Oh yeh this is faulty goods I'm going to pursue the seller". It was more "Well I thank god he's healthy and happy again".

You wouldn't act this way with an adopted child, so why do it with a dog?

And if you can't afford the £800 fees? Well maybe you shouldn't be getting a dog in the first place.

Legally, I'm not sure where you stand. However, I do get the impression that the money is more important than the dog's welfare.

no idea what your on about... they said they wanted the money for the dog?

bexyboo1312 wrote: »

thank you for your help, i also think that would be fair but at this moment the most important thing is getting the money to cover what he needs. I'll post on the pet section. thanks
Will trading standards be able to help me if it is a consumer issue?

just because its a popular breed at the minute doesn't mean people can sell ill animals! i bought a kitten years ago now and her mother was pedigree and the house was clean and they seemed genuine people - kitten got sick and died! vet said all the litter wouldve died too! the couple didn't want to know and ignored all our calls etc... in fairness i wasnt too bothered at the time because i was upset over the cat not the money but thought i'd warn them for future litters!

bexyboo1312

Proc wrote: »

Another Pug sold to another trend-follower with no interest in the dog's well-being. I feel sorry for the dog already.

You say the most important thing is getting the money? It's not. The most important thing is getting the dog into good health, and giving him a loving & caring family that aren't going to turn their back on it the moment it starts costing money.

This got me thinking about when I first got my Springer Spaniel. He was about 8-12 weeks old. Took him to the vet and he was actually in quite poor health. Had terrible skin rash, some kind of lice, plus a few other small problems. It only cost about £350 to fix, but the last thing on my mind was "Oh yeh this is faulty goods I'm going to pursue the seller". It was more "Well I thank god he's healthy and happy again".

You wouldn't act this way with an adopted child, so why do it with a dog?

And if you can't afford the £800 fees? Well maybe you shouldn't be getting a dog in the first place.

Legally, I'm not sure where you stand. However, I do get the impression that the money is more important than the dog's welfare.

I am actually disgusted by your post, if you read through I have never mentioned the most important thing was getting the money at all, or that the £800 for him was unaffordable!!
I have stated I dont want him to go back at all as he is our pet, which we researched the breed thoroughly before buying, not because it was a "trendy dog" - that trendy I have not seen another one in the area :T
We bought him based on their character, the way they are renouned to get on with children and that they like being part of the family - he was the dog that best suited our wants and we didn't want a puppy! I don;t know why I am explaining myself to you, as your arrogance is purely obvious due to the way you can quickly comment on my thread without reading my posts.

I have at no time stated that money is important, he is our pet now and we will pay whatever for him to be in good health (unlike the previous owners who have left him suffering) he is booked in next week to have all his operations.

Like I say, I don't see the point in explaining myself to people like you that lack basic knowledge to be able to read properly! However I feel that baring in mind his problems go right back from a year ago, the previous owner should take some liability.

Equaliser123

The difficulty is in situations like this 'bare' contract law doesn't really assist. The reason for this is that the law sees things in economic terms rather than the totally understandable feelings you have for your pet.

For example: contract law requires you to mitigate loss. This may actually mean 'rejecting' the dog and asking for your money back or even having him put down if the vet's bills are too high.

Not saying you should do either, but this is the difficulty you have with the law which, perhaps understandably, didn't quite contemplate the sale of pets when considering what "goods" are.

pinkshoes

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Not saying you should do either, but this is the difficulty you have with the law which, perhaps understandably, didn't quite contemplate the sale of pets when considering what "goods" are.

I'm quite sure the sale of goods act covers pets, particularly when the seller is a breeder!

Equaliser123

pinkshoes wrote: »

I'm quite sure the sale of goods act covers pets, particularly when the seller is a breeder!

Read above. It does. So seller is entitled to choose a "repair", "refund" or "replacement". Where does this take the OP if the Court requires the seller to give a refund and the dog to be put back with the seller????

Think it through...

Requiem

If they are actively breeding animals without taking their health into consideration then I would be straight onto the phone to the RSPCA (and maybe the police? animal cruelty/neglect?). They have a responsibility to keep the animals in good health and to treat any ailments where possible.

I have no idea what the consumer rights are regarding this issue, but FWIW, we're thinking of getting a pedigree Bengal kitten (or two) and have been looking up breeders recently. We've found that most reputable breeders often offer guarantees regarding the health of their kittens along with "after-sales" service.

Whilst pets often become loved members of the family, they are still a (high-priced!) consumer purchase - if I paid out £500-£600 per kitten, I'd want their health and well-being guaranteed too! I certainly wouldn't want to be lumped with extra vets bills because of the neglect of the breeders, so I completely understand where you are coming from. Whilst the health of your pet is paramount and you will do what it takes to make him well, I completely agree that you are within your (moral) rights to receive enough of your money back to cover the cost of the treatment, and you should ignore the troll posts - it's obvious that the most important thing to you is the wellbeing of your pet.

bexyboo1312

Thankis for your replies everyone. I have had a bad week. We contacted them and they did reply, stating they didn't know he had any health problems and the vet report was incorrect - they have not stated what part is incorrect or what part the vet supposedly didn't tell them. They are now only bothered about how I obtained the vet record , as it breaches data protection act - and they seem stuck on getting the person responsible - even though the vet report only contains information about our dog, not her.
She has offered to refund us for the dog, and will have his medical needs paid for free of charge nby the old vet - if they admit liability. However, she will not let us keep the dog and take him their to have the treatment free under our ownership.
She won't meet me anywhere with the medical costs and insists on only refunding us.....despite me saying this is a dog not a washing machine, we cannot just get rid of him - he is attached to us and vice versa- she seems to have no care about this. After she has got him back to health she will sell him again (thats if she gets him back to health).
I can push for a "repair" but if she wont offer that, then I have to go through small claims. argh.
She is only bothered about how i obtained the report, obviously because it had information on it she didnt want us to see. She doesn't seem to understand that the main concern here is the poorly dog.

We have incurred loads of other costs since having the dog, which we would not have otherwise had and she won't take those in to consideration. I dont want to return him, but i also dont want to back down on this....
if the vet is at fault and he never told the previous owners about the eye condition, then i dont see why they can't deal directly with us in getting his treatment sorted.

I cannot believe the stress this has caused and am boiling up in anger bvy the millisecond.

Surely most reasonable people woudl feel for the dog and want him to remain where he is happy and looked after and meet the vet bill? I have not asked for it all, i have asked what they will offer towards it.

maninthestreet

I don't think you can demand they pay your vet's costs. They've offered a full refund, which means they are complying with the SOGA.

RadoJo

Unfortunately I think that is the problem with applying SOGA to the purchase of an animal - your rights are a refund, repair or replacement at the retailers discretion and as they have offered that, it seems unlikely that you will have a legal case against them for refusing to pay the vet's bills.
I suppose you've answered the question yourself - as you say he is now your pet and part of the family and in that sense the vet's bills are a part of your responsibility towards him if you choose to waive your right to a refund and keep him. I can understand your frustration, but unfortunately it's the position that you're left in if you don't want to give him up.

Equaliser123

There is possibly an argument under contract law that whilst the 'goods' are not rejected, the OP wants to claim damages for breach.

I think it would be possible to run given that a dog is clearly not ordinary 'goods' and that in the circumstances it is not appropriate to simply get a refund and give the mutt back. I think the seller should have been offered the opportunity of arranging the vets direct though.