"Collection Fee" for stray dog

PeteJC21

967stuart wrote: »

Im sorry, but this is utter garbage.

Good counter-argument.

PeteJC21

Raksha wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up. You'd be surprised what is classed as a public place, under the DDA, a dog barking in a car in a supermarket car park can be classed as a public place I am told......

Okay, well yes, we had a spare collar for her, and now the original one was beamed up by Scotty from the wardens van/kennel we have bought a new replacement.

We've had the dog 2 months now and ive never heard her bark ,she just wimpers instead, which is good for the neighbours

fluffnutter

PeteJC21 wrote: »

Well the £31 has already been paid, my wife had to pay that in order to get the kennels to release the dog, this is the "ransom" part of it. Yes I asked the question today why the dog had to be taken to the kennel, the council envromental officer said because the contractor doesnt have it in the contract to deliver the dog to owners address and they couldnt meet my wife at the vet because they may have "had other things to do". Bull !!!!. The warden just wanted to take the dog to his kennel so he could charge us the ransom.

All this i will re-ask in my complaint letter. The £60 i will pay as i dont want it turning into a debt collection issue harming my good credit rating.

Yes i appreciate we will likely never get the collar back, and it wasnt necessarily stolen, but either way it was lost. But why? Why take a perfectly good collar and tag off a dog when the law states she should be wearing one? Why remove it in the first place that would allow it to be lost? Thats why im convinced it was stolen. This has been reported to the police, i very much doubt anything will happen, but hopefully it'll remind whoever is responsible to be either a little more careful or a little less light fingered.

Are the £60 charge and the £31 charge payable to the same organisation? If so, you could try paying £29 and argue you've already given them £31

PeteJC21

fluffnutter wrote: »

Are the £60 charge and the £31 charge payable to the same organisation? If so, you could try paying £29 and argue you've already given them £31

Haha yes, another poster suggested this yesterday. But no, the £60 is payable to the council (as they pay the contractor directly and we pay them back) and the £31 is paid to the kennels.

To be honest i might try it anyway, i'll put a payment slip detailing this, a cheque for £9 and a complaint letter into the council manager. They'll ask for the rest m sure though.

hcb42

sounds a b it like common sense went out of the window here.

I could write a long thread about the practices of the PDSA in Nottingham - whose practices truely appalled me, but I wont, as it would be a digression

Oliver14

PeteJC21 wrote: »

Hi,
About 6 weeks ago our dog "escaped" from our back garden while we were both at work. We had had her only 2 weeks (got her from a rescue centre) and had been leaving her in the conservatory with the door open so she can go into the garden to use the toilet. We always keep the back gate shut and bolted, but when my wife got home from work the dog was gone and the gate was undone. My wife called he police as she thought someone had broken into the garden and taken the dog. However 10 mins later she had a call from a dog warden saying they had picked the dog up following a call from a local resident (dog was only 50 yeards from our house).

We think someone had walked down the alley, saw that the conservatory was open and got over the fence to have a look, (nothing was taken as we had moved pretty much everything into the house for this very reason), they just took the dog and left the gate open.

Anyway the warden had only had the dog for about 20 mins when my wife arrived to pick her up, however he refused to hand the dog over and she had to stay the night, my wife then had to pay £31 to get her back. During her time with the warden her collar (which we paid £20 for) had gone missing! The warden blamed it on the vet, the vet blamed it on the warden!

Now 6 weeks later we recieve an invoice from maidstone council for a £60 Out of Hours Collection Fee, basically a charge for "letting the dog stray" and for them picking the dog up and taking her to the kennels! Can anyone advise where we stand with regards to paying/not paying this!

The dog did not "stray", we believe she was stolen and then left by whoever took her. Does this not make us the victim of a crime? If so is it right that we have had to pay £31 intially anf now another £60? AND someone at either the vets or wardens (probably wardens) have blatantly stolen her collar?! Because nothing was taken and we got the dog back quite quickly she didn't bother pursuing the break in with the police, we just stopped leaving the conservatory door open and started using indoor puppy pads.

She is phonng the council today but I wanted to get some advice from anyone who knows a little about these issues.

Thanks,
Pete

I really dont see the problem. The dog was straying why or how it was straying they are not going to know. The dogcwarden picked the dogvup so you have to pay for the service. You can argue your theories of this imaginary break in but the basic fact is your dog was straying and you have to pay for the work involved.

bowdengr37

I would suggest that the reason that the warden/council might insist that any dog picked up as a stray, whether the owner suddenly appears or not, be taken overnight to a kennel is to give the police time to check that there have been no incidents reported involving stray dogs eg. car accidents, people being bitten etc.
It might also give them a chance to check their records for previous incidents involving the dog. After all, if it keeps 'mysteriously getting loose', surely the owner SHOULD be fined.

As for the missing collar, I can't really see that there would be a particularly strong black market in such things. But for the fact that the dog got out, the collar would not have disappearred and unless a specific person can definitively be identified as the thief, nothing can be done.

The OP should be glad to get his/her dog back and be grateful that they didn't get burgled as their insurance would have been null and void.

All that being said, the charges do seem high, although I do feel that charges are justified.

waaag

bowdengr37 - what a load of old tommy rot your posting is:-

bowdengr37 wrote: »

I would suggest that the reason that the warden/council might insist that any dog picked up as a stray, whether the owner suddenly appears or not, be taken overnight to a kennel is to give the police time to check that there have been no incidents reported involving stray dogs eg. car accidents, people being bitten etc.
It might also give them a chance to check their records for previous incidents involving the dog. After all, if it keeps 'mysteriously getting loose', surely the owner SHOULD be fined.but why would the dog need to be 'held' even if the owner turned up while they 'investigated' whether or not there had been problems before, other than to be able to extort 'kennelling fees' of course...they couldn't of course 'investigate' while the dog was at its home could they....no because no money would be made, also if the owner turned up quickly to hand it back which is the right thing to do but again no money to be made in that either is there...oh and the dog didn't KEEP getting loose did it, a burglar let it out...

As for the missing collar, I can't really see that there would be a particularly strong black market in such things. But for the fact that the dog got out, the collar would not have disappeared and unless a specific person can definitively be identified as the thief, nothing can be done.

no you half-wit, not a black market for collars stolen, no, just collar mysteriously disappeared = "we can charge for not having a collar then.....and no one can prove who took it as we lie like hell and back eachother up...after all we are doing a 'service' and people should be grateful"

The OP should be glad to get his/her dog back and be grateful that they didn't get burgled as their insurance would have been null and void. And presumably ignore the fact that he's been scammed....and just pay up like a nodding dog eh?

All that being said, the charges do seem high, although I do feel that charges are justified.

you obviously support those who exploit then..

waaag

Oliver14 wrote: »

I really dont see the problem. The dog was straying why or how it was straying they are not going to know. The dogcwarden picked the dogvup so you have to pay for the service. You can argue your theories of this imaginary break in but the basic fact is your dog was straying and you have to pay for the work involved.

'Imaginary' break in? do explain further....I'm intrigued....

waaag

fluffnutter wrote: »

YES I DID. I FOUND THIS AND A RATHER DULL LOCAL NEWS STORY FROM SOME DINNY BIRD IN BRIGHTON.

HOLD THE FRONT PAGE. WE HAVE A NATIONAL CRISIS HERE!!!!

I URGE EVERYONE TO GOOGLE 'COUNCIL HOLD DOG TO RANSOM' JUST TO APPRECIATE THE SCALE OF THIS PROBLEM. IT'S OUT OF CONTROL!!!!!

Ah yes, when you're proved wrong, rubbish the facts.....