stolen pet cat

yelowee

OK not sure where to post this so I'll try here! A friends daughter sold their family pet cat to someone for money, the mum is happy for her to be charged with theft so the cat could not be legally sold. The person who brought the cat though has taken it to the vet which There was no reason for prior to it going missing they want the money spent at the vet or won't return the cat, just wondering where they stand, if a car were stolen and sold on the new owner would have to give the car up regardless of money spent on it I believe, so what is the score here? Any advice very much appreciated as there's a little girl very upset about this and just wants her cat back!

marliepanda

Your friends daughter should be made to pay the vet bill.

You say there was 'no reason' what if the cat took ill? What if the buyer wanted it checked up? I'm sure if they hadn't and it became very ill/died your friend wouldn't be happy.

Your friends daughter is the thief. She should bear the losses.

Mockingjays

Hello, I really don't know the answer (and obviously don't know the full situation - there's usually more than side to a story). If the cat was sold to the lady and she bought it in good faith, it's not really her fault. Maybe she took it to the vets for a check up? That wouldn't be unreasonable for a responsible person taking on a new animal.

If anyone is at fault, it's probably the daughter who sold the cat, sorry to say - she sold it, the lady didn't steal it if she bought it. If I bought something in good faith and then people wanted it back, I'd want the money I'd spend on it, if I'm honest, so I don't think the lady is being unreasonable in this. Equally it's sad there's a little girl missing her cat. As Marliepanda has said, the daughter who sold the cat should pay the vets fees. She's the one to blame in the all this, not the lady who bought the cat.

If it can't be easily resolved, I'd suggest the family speaks to someone at CAB and gets proper advice. The best/quickest way might just to be to make the daughter who stole the cat pay to get it back for her sister.

cattie

With so many dreadful stories of domestic pets being bought & then are found to be suffering with dreadful illnesses or diseases, it was very wise for the person who 'bought' the cat to have it checked over at the vet's. She is obviously a very responsible pet owner.

I have to agree that the daughter who sold the cat is the culprit here & should be made to compensate the person who is now out of pocket having paid vet fees for an cat she thought was going to be her family pet.

dacouch

I feel sorry for the buyer, she's spent money on a vet to have a check up and I assume become emotionally attached to the cat and now has to part with the cat and is also expected by the sellers parents to be out of pocket.

yelowee

No one is suggesting that the daughter is not at fault, the police are already dealing with the theft side of the matter on request of the mother.

I pointed out that there was no need for the vet as an indication the the cat was in good health rather than needing treatment when it was sold which would otherwise have been everyone's first question. However the buyer is asking a lot of money and seems unwilling or able to provide proof of the bills or even specify which vet it was taken to, even to the police. Yes it makes sense for it to be given a check up I would have done so myself too. However if you unwittingly brought a stolen car and took it for an MOT before it was recovered back to the rightful owner would you expect to keep the car unless the owner paid you for the MOT, no of course not.

It has transpired that the buyer knew that the cat was a family pet, knew that the daughter probably didn't have permission to sell it as it is one of the daughters friends mothers that has brought the cat.

While I appreciate this is a bizzare situation and appreciate any real advice that can be given if all you have the intention of doing is making snide comments that are of no help to the situation please don't bother replying, thanks.

marliepanda

If I got the MOT, which meant I did not have to pay for a MOT of my own, yes I would pay the unwitting owner for it. Your friend has the benefit of KNOWING the cat is okay, as a vet has checked it. Not just looking and going 'yup looks healthy to me'

Put it the other way.

If my child stole something of mine and sold it, and caused someone else to pay money, I would be reimbursing them (and getting the money of my child) Why should someone else suffer because my child is a horror

Whether the cat 'needed' the vet or not is irrelevant. The girl should have thought about that before selling the family pet. No one can say whether or not it needed it or not. I took my cat to the emergency vet because it would not stop throwing up one night. There was nothing wrong with my cat.

I also love how you are only NOW bringing up the fact she 'knew' it was stolen 'and 'probably' knew the girl shouldnt have sold it.
You are lucky she bought it and your friends daughter didnt sell it to someone unknown, or someone who would use it for baiting, or someone who would starve it to death.

Why don't you ask the police to deal with it. Why are they not getting the cat back?

At the end of the day morally your friend should pay for the cats vet bills (and yes I would ask for those bills), and the food the lady fed the cat whilst she had possession of it. If you want the legal side, send the police round to collect it.

You're friend should be flipping relieved to get her cat back, a vet fee is nothing in comparison to the joy on that little girls face to be reunited with the cat, no? If she is missing it so much, why is it being stalled?

trollopscarletwoman

As I understand it if you buy something that is stolen or something that has outstanding credit owed on it then it doesn't belong to you.

Ignorance of this is no defence.

marliepanda

trollopscarletwoman wrote: »

As I understand it if you buy something that is stolen or something that has outstanding credit owed on it then it doesn't belong to you.

Ignorance of this is no defence.

There is clearly more to the story as the police have apparently left the cat where it is.

MothballsWallet

marliepanda wrote: »

If I got the MOT, which meant I did not have to pay for a MOT of my own, yes I would pay the unwitting owner for it. Your friend has the benefit of KNOWING the cat is okay, as a vet has checked it. Not just looking and going 'yup looks healthy to me'

Put it the other way.

If my child stole something of mine and sold it, and caused someone else to pay money, I would be reimbursing them (and getting the money of my child) Why should someone else suffer because my child is a horror

Whether the cat 'needed' the vet or not is irrelevant. The girl should have thought about that before selling the family pet. No one can say whether or not it needed it or not. I took my cat to the emergency vet because it would not stop throwing up one night. There was nothing wrong with my cat.

I also love how you are only NOW bringing up the fact she 'knew' it was stolen 'and 'probably' knew the girl shouldnt have sold it.
You are lucky she bought it and your friends daughter didnt sell it to someone unknown, or someone who would use it for baiting, or someone who would starve it to death.

Why don't you ask the police to deal with it. Why are they not getting the cat back?

At the end of the day morally your friend should pay for the cats vet bills (and yes I would ask for those bills), and the food the lady fed the cat whilst she had possession of it. If you want the legal side, send the police round to collect it.

You're friend should be flipping relieved to get her cat back, a vet fee is nothing in comparison to the joy on that little girls face to be reunited with the cat, no? If she is missing it so much, why is it being stalled?

Also, a MOT certificate is (technically) only saying that the car passes the requirements on the date the test is done.

The same could be said for any previous health certificates from a doctor or vet.

MothballsWallet

I've reported post #8 (at the time I wrote from the OP) for the use of abusive and insulting language.