"Collection Fee" for stray dog

waaag

Oh and to those doubting thomases and brainwashed puppets who are having a little go at peteJC21....

if you want to see how corrupt councils are in every dealing they have a hand in, then take a look at www.rottencouncil.co.uk then you will see the facts.....then you will begin to understand as the penny slowly drops.

Councils are a law unto themselves. You will not get a solicitor who will help you fight them as they are all in the same nest, as are the local magistrates.

Optimist

PeteJC21 wrote: »

Hi,
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

Be thankful it wasn't your car that was stolen and recovered it would cost you a lot more.

PeteJC21

Optimist wrote: »

Be thankful it wasn't your car that was stolen and recovered it would cost you a lot more.

They wouldn't get it through the back gate, it's only a normal walk-in/out gate.

fluffnutter

PeteJC21 wrote: »

Wow.. there is intelligent life in this forum after all. Thankyou waaag.

Oh come on! Two (paranoid) incidents do not a policy make. Do you really think that dog wardens have got nothing better to do than hang around waiting for some random event that might possibly lead to a dog wandering so that they can charge you a paltry sum to get it back?? Trust me, that's not how councils work. And let's face it, waaag clearly has an axe to grind about councils.

Just because someone with an agenda backs up your story doesn't suddenly make it true. It doesn't make it not true either. But you can't create an entire conspiracy out of two separate incidents.

Optimist

PeteJC21 wrote: »

They wouldn't get it through the back gate, it's only a normal walk-in/out gate.

The point was that even if you were a victim of crime someone has to pay the costs of storage/care if the item is recovered. In your case it was a dog, recovery of a car is more expensive.

Try claiming it back from your insurance company

PeteJC21

Optimist wrote: »

The point was that even if you were a victim of crime someone has to pay the costs of storage/care if the item is recovered. In your case it was a dog, recovery of a car is more expensive.

Try claiming it back from your insurance company

Policy excess wouldn't make it worthwhile.

I appreciate that someone has to pay storage/recovery costs... but why should I pay up after they held the dog to ransom and stole her collar??

PeteJC21

fluffnutter wrote: »

Oh come on! Two (paranoid) incidents do not a policy make. Do you really think that dog wardens have got nothing better to do than hang around waiting for some random event that might possibly lead to a dog wandering so that they can charge you a paltry sum to get it back?? Trust me, that's not how councils work. And let's face it, waaag clearly has an axe to grind about councils.

Just because someone with an agenda backs up your story doesn't suddenly make it true. It doesn't make it not true either. But you can't create an entire conspiracy out of two separate incidents.

I'm not saying they were hiding in the bushes waiting for the dog to escape and then fine us. I'm saying it wasn't our fault she got out and even if it was, who do they think they are holding her to ransom for "boarding fees" when she nenver even made it to the kennels before my wife was ready to collect her. And taking her collar? Well?

Explain why we had to pay the boarding fee?

waaag

fluffnutter wrote: »

Oh come on! Two (paranoid) incidents do not a policy make. Do you really think that dog wardens have got nothing better to do than hang around waiting for some random event that might possibly lead to a dog wandering so that they can charge you a paltry sum to get it back?? Trust me, that's not how councils work. And let's face it, waaag clearly has an axe to grind about councils.

Just because someone with an agenda backs up your story doesn't suddenly make it true. It doesn't make it not true either. But you can't create an entire conspiracy out of two separate incidents.

I beg to differ! have you looked at the rotten council website? I suppose that is all conspiracy too or made up is it...councils do whatever they can to make money and if the victim is deemed not able to fight back then all the better, for instance they will happily fine a mother with a baby for the baby dropping a piece of sausage roll out of its pram, however are conspicuous by their absence when there are a group of intimidating alkies in the subway leading to the shopping area who are smashing bottles and littering with fags and beer cans every day of the week...

And damn right I have an axe to grind, it's because I aren't a nodding dog or a puppet with a feeble acceptance of councils who are run like just a !!!!!...and if you work for a council as I suspect then I wouldn't trust you with a tuppeny bus ticket...

waaag

peteJC21 i just PM'd you - take a look...

waaag

And damn right I have an axe to grind, it's because I aren't a nodding dog or a puppet with a feeble acceptance of councils who are run like just a M A F I A ...and if you work for a council as I suspect then I wouldn't trust you with a tuppeny bus ticket...