Urgent help required - all is shut at the w/e

George_Michael

Flyboy152 wrote: »

OP
At the moment their only option is to apply to the courts for an injunction, to release the cats to the care of their owners.

Why would they want to apply to the courts as the bill has already been paid and the cats are back with their owner.

Flyboy152

alistair.long wrote: »

I have read some posts so appologies if Im repeating myself.

The cat company can keep the cats and charge, its called tresspass to chattels, and this is perfectly legal.

My advise would be to get a managable loan, for the payment, otherwise your cats will age and then when you get them they will be angry or have forgotten you.

What?????????????

Flyboy152

George_Michael wrote: »

Why would they want to apply to the courts as the bill has already been paid and the cats are back with their owner.

Oops!!!!!!! Should have read on.

brightideer

Wow, this post carried on.

Yes the cats are back with the owners. The choice was either pay up, and all the pain goes away or fight for what I felt was unreasonable treatment. The owners just wanted "everything to get back to normal" so they elected to use my cash!!!

Now is it possible for this thread to continue? In a "Deal, no deal" sort of way.

ie DiD the Cattery have the right to keep charging the "clients" money in such an escalating way....... considering everything said in the post sofar?

Personally, it seemed a little "rough" to me, and I think we all can be quick to slam down a debtor (which was punishable by death a couple of centuries ago). Maybe we should look at each case? a little flexibility? One day it may be YOU!!

So which camp?


BRIGHTiDEER

arcon5

Flyboy152 wrote: »

The cattery is attempting to levy a financial penalty upon them. They cannot do that, only a court can.

How do you figure this one ?

They are still providing for a service and charging for it. They haven't attempted to penalise for late payment.

I image in the contract it also says something like 'payment required in full upon collection' which she hasn't done.

However I do find it ridiculous they wouldn't reasonably come to an agreement in light of the situation.