can the police do this ?

dmg24

Sausage_Roll wrote: »

Taking this OT a bit, but it is necessary;

This post bears absolutely no correlation whatsoever to your original post, and in fact the irony is that you've dismissed my point by proposing a new criticism of the OP.

Telling the OP that they shouldn't have done this or should have done that does not help, and in fact is just treating the OP like a child - he/she is an adult, and mistakes can be made - the OP is not posting here looking for someone to judge them, they're posting for advice on what to do going forward, so let's try and focus on that rather than berating the OP for no other apparent reason than to increase your post count.

And before any smart alec points out I'm criticising you - I'm giving you advice going forward which if taken on board should improve the experience of people such as the OP whilst using this forum.:)

It is not judgment, it is good common sense. It may not be what the OP wants to hear, but it has a material bearing on their complaint. They want to know why the bill is so high, and before going forward they need to understand that is nobodies fault but their own.

Sausage_Roll

lucylucky wrote: »

What makes you say that?

The only question the OP has asked is "Is this really legal" I thought the were merely seeking clarification, as they have not asked what should now be done.

So if that was the case, are you suggesting that the ideal response to this thread would have been one person posting "yes" or "no"?

What makes me say that? The vague nature of the thread; look at the title, it is a question, and then look at what the OP has posted in the thread. Do you still deduce that all the OP wants to hear is "Yes the police can do that" (clarification as you put it) - of course not, they're posting here to get any sort of helpful suggestions people are willing to contribute.

Sausage_Roll

dmg24 wrote: »

It is not judgment, it is good common sense. It may not be what the OP wants to hear, but it has a material bearing on their complaint. They want to know why the bill is so high, and before going forward they need to understand that is nobodies fault but their own.

It absolutely is judging; (and let's not forget that actually, the OP is posting on behalf of a relative) you're telling the OP he/she shouldn't have done something. The OP can work that out for themselves, they've just been told about an £800 charge they're liable for, do you really think they are posting here to be told "tough !!!!, you shouldn't have done that"?

No. They're posting to see if anyone can help them. Like I said, if people can't help them, then posting judgemental comments merely makes them thing "well I'll not be asking anything here again!", which is in the larger picture against one of the forum etiquettes;

Pls be nice to all MoneySavers. There's no such thing as a stupid question, and even if you disagree courtesy helps.

lucylucky

Sausage_Roll wrote: »

So if that was the case, are you suggesting that the ideal response to this thread would have been one person posting "yes" or "no"?

What makes me say that? The vague nature of the thread; look at the title, it is a question, and then look at what the OP has posted in the thread. Do you still deduce that all the OP wants to hear is "Yes the police can do that" (clarification as you put it) - of course not, they're posting here to get any sort of helpful suggestions people are willing to contribute.

Well rather than second guess what the OP wants it would be preferable to be able to answer questions that they may wish to put.

Rather than you, or I, making suppositions as to what questions they might ask and what answers might be suitable.

lucylucky

How did the grandson get on at the pound today?

hethmar

Just to add my pennysworth. A dog picked up as a stray does go to a council pound - usually a boarding kennels - the dogs are given 7 days to be reclaimed or are put down. However, groups like I belong to will use their own resources to find rescue places in rescue kennels for such dogs. Unfortunately groups do not cover all parts of the country/all pounds and thousands of dogs are put down.

Point being, this dog clearly wasnt grabbed as a stray - it sounds like he was placed in a boarding kennels and the £800 is the cost of boarding him since Christmas Eve.

Im afraid it doesnt make sense at all. I cant understand why the police would take away the dog when he clearly wasnt a stray. If they had thought he was a dangerous dog that would have been a whole different ball game and your grandson would have had to go to court about the dog. This hasnt happened, so I think may be (like a lot of kids) you arent being given the full facts of the situation.

Id have been down the police station the same day asking what the hell was going on.

I hope it all gets sorted out. Please keep us up to date.

nexus2011

Its all !!!!!!!! from her grandson in my opinion.No way on earth would they ask for £800.Just a way of the grandson extorting £800 from his naive granny.

Forwandert

nexus2011 wrote: »

Its all !!!!!!!! from her grandson in my opinion.No way on earth would they ask for £800.Just a way of the grandson extorting £800 from his naive granny.

Thats the only explanation that makes any sense in this thread, his dog was taken on christmas eve and he was so devastated by this its taken him nearly a month to bother sorting this out, doesnt sound believable in the slightest, I dont own a dog but I'm guessing anybody else in this situation would of gone to the dog pound and done whatever they needed to do to get the dog back straight away not sat there like a plank ringing a phone number for the next month.

PhylPho

aloise wrote: »

Thanks for that. I was just trying to help my grandson but after some of the comments here i will not be asking for any advice about any thing again. He is going to the pound tomorrow (didn't have the address till today only a phone no and as I have already stated he couldn't get through ) He was not drunk or on drugs, if he had been he would have been arrested. Why do people think all young lads are thugs?
We will try some of the other helpful suggestions.

Aloise: please don't get upset. I don't think anyone here was trying to be negative or obstructive. It's just that it's the Net, and what's written in a forum will always be devoid of the nuances of speech.

It is clear, however, that your original post has attracted not only sympathy, but curiosity -- and rightly so. Because if the situation as you understand it to be, based on the information provided to you, is exactly as represented in that post, then there are very serious issues here. Just to backtrack a bit:

aloise wrote: »

On Christmas eve, my grandson was thrown out of their flat by his girlfriend. . . He took his dog with him and while he was walking to his mothers house the police stopped and searched him. . . The police took the dog off him and said it would be sent to the dog pound and he could collect it later. However in spite of phoning continuously he has been unable to speak to anybody at the pound, and still hasn't got his dog back.

So. Your grandson was given a phone number for "the pound" but not the name and address (the dog will have been sent for temporary care at an animal rescue centre or similar.)

Not only that. From the information you've provided, your grandson seems not to have received any paperwork from the police as to why his dog was removed from his possession. Yet his dog is as much an item of personal property as his watch or his wallet. Police seizure of personal property is unlawful without a clear and documented reason being provided at the time of seizure.

I appreciate, that's not a question you raise in your OP. But it's a pretty fundamental issue where this story is concerned and one of the reasons why it's caused furrowed brows on here.

aloise wrote: »

He has now been informed by them that he has to pay £800 to get the dog back or it will be put down. It will be impossible for him or his mother to find this kind of money and we ,his grandparents can't help. Is this really legal?

Your post doesn't make clear if the police or the folks running the "dog pound" (He has now been informed by them) gave him that information. In my experience, it would be highly unlikely for the police to quote any figure re kennelling and admin costs, so I'm assuming that he was speaking to the "dog pound".

In which case, they are quoting £800 for looking after a dog for a 26-day period from December 25th to January 29th.

An £800 fee for 26 days' care equates to an annual charge of £11,232.

There is no animal rescue / animal welfare centre anywhere in the UK of which I'm aware (and I know of many) which operates a scale of charges anywhere remotely near that figure.

Nor is the £800 charge sustainable even were it to include a "release fee" to reflect the administration costs involved in having to temporarily house a stray animal.

But then: that's another of the worms in the can opened by your opening post, viz: first the police apparently seize an item of personal property without cause, and then the police transfer that unlawfully seized property to a third party.

But the third party in this case is likely an animal rescue / animal welfare centre, one which will automatically fill in a form to record the acquisition of a stray animal. . . But only if they are told that the animal is indeed a stray.

On the basis of the £800 charge then, and its complete unreality for kennelling fees alone, it would seem a "release fee" is being incorporated because the police lied andsaid the animal was a stray when it wasn't.

Perhaps you can now see why your OP involves a lot more than your query indicated.

It's a question of the police standing accused of seizing personal property without lawful reason and then, having done so, lying to the operators of a "dog pound" as to how that property came to be in the temporary possession of the police rather than its owner.

That's a very, very serious charge. Theft. Deception. And harassment as part and parcel of it all. In 20 years experience (my wife and myself) of animal welfare / animal rescue, I have never heard of any instance where any police officers have behaved in any such fashion. Because, well, why should they? What do they get out of it? Certainly, not a conviction. Rather, a very high risk of being thrown out of the force themselves, and substantial civil damages being awarded to the victim of such conduct.

So: does that mean you're being spun a really nasty fiction by your grandson for reasons I can't begin to imagine? No. What it means is that this situation is currently so inexplicable and so potentially serious that you yourself need to check and re-check every element of it, just as I recommended earlier in this thread.

And then, having done so -- and after today's visit to "the pound" -- please come back to this thread as soon as is convenient.

RadoJo

OP - if you can get some more information about why the dog was seized and what has happened subsequently then it will be easier for people to give relevant and helpful advice.