Unreasonable Fine

ThumbRemote

hollydays wrote: »

No but it makes a difference as what's the point in complaint about a cost , and calling it unreasonable if avoidance of it was in your reach in the first place.

No, it makes no difference at all. You're just looking to apportion blame to the OP, not to contribute to their actual consumer rights question.

OlliesDad

ThumbRemote wrote: »

No, it makes no difference at all. You're just looking to apportion blame to the OP, not to contribute to their actual consumer rights question.

While this is the consumer rights forum, it is a Money Saving site, so pointing out how to avoid the fine in the future is valid (although the advice is fairly obvious). If somebody had let the dog out deliberately their may be a case for them to pay the fine for the OP (or rather the OP reclaims the money from them).

hollydays

OlliesDad wrote: »

While this is the consumer rights forum, it is a Money Saving site, so pointing out how to avoid the fine in the future is valid (although the advice is fairly obvious). If somebody had let the dog out deliberately their may be a case against them to pay the fine.

Yes, and that's what I was trying to establish , as it's glaringly obvious about omitting to say how the dog got out. I once had the council leave my back gate open when they came to collect some waste I'd paid them to collect( my dog got out through a cat flap) note to self don't trust others to secure your property, and I should have locked the cat flap that day, my dog was blind and had an instinct to do a runner . Council naturally denied it.

ThumbRemote

OlliesDad wrote: »

While this is the consumer rights forum, it is a Money Saving site, so pointing out how to avoid the fine in the future is valid (although the advice is fairly obvious). If somebody had let the dog out deliberately their may be a case for them to pay the fine for the OP (or rather the OP reclaims the money from them).

Anyone whose advice boils down to "you should have done things differently in the first place to avoid getting into this situation", without actually offering assistance or advice on the situation, is a waste of space.

hollydays is clearly itching to tell the OP that if they hadn't left the gate open, they wouldn't have the fine. It's true, but it's also unhelpful and unnecessary as the OP already knows that. If they'd actually wanted to help, hollydays could have said that if the dog escape was due to someone else, OP could pursue them for the cost. Instead they post an irrelevant question (twice), hoping to get a response to jump on. It's basically a pathetic attempt to belittle someone else for their mistake.

OlliesDad

ThumbRemote wrote: »

hollydays is clearly itching to tell the OP that if they hadn't left the gate open, they wouldn't have the fine. It's true, but it's also unhelpful and unnecessary as the OP already knows that. If they'd actually wanted to help, hollydays could have said that if the dog escape was due to someone else, OP could pursue them for the cost. Instead they post an irrelevant question (twice), hoping to get a response to jump on. It's basically a pathetic attempt to belittle someone else for their mistake.

I didn't necessarily jump to the assumption that was what Hollydays was suggesting. Maybe they didn't word it correctly or they could have said what they meant from the start, however there is no point in you belittling them for their mistake

hollydays

I try to refrain from personal attacks and using the word pathetic, it says more about you than me.