Dog owners- urgent- get that 3rd party insurance

Katiehound

If you don't have insurance now is the time to be thinking long and hard. Why? New dog laws are coming in shortly. Apparently they have already received the royal assent. I'm told it has all been reported in the doggy newspapers and magazines but not filtered through, yet, to the daily papers.

Some committee members from local dog training club attended a seminar last weekend about the implications.
Dog attacks can incur fines and prison sentences after trial at Crown Court. Interpretation of the word "attack" can mean nip, scratch and bruise! For example think puppy and sharp teeth. Unfortunately we are living in a culture which likes to apportion blame and claim damages.

Public places now include your garden and your car! The only exception is inside your house if a person is uninvited.

Advice from my trainers is to have 3rd party insurance. This might be included in your house insurance, from a broker or by being a supporter of Dogs Trust.
Some aspects of new bill become law in May, I think. I can't find the specifics (maybe you can??)
Fact sheet here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/269155/Factsheet_dangerous_dogs_provisions_updated_for_Lords_Report.pdf

Herongull

Can't see how 3rd party insurance relates to the new law - it is all about criminal offences, whereas the insurance covers civil.

Personally I have no sympathy with anyone who allows a dog to be dangerously out of control. We are not talking about responsible pet owners here.

Dangerously out of control dogs attack children, adults and other pets. There are been several posts on this thread where people have been walking their dog only for it to be attacked and seriously injured or even killed by a dangerously out of control dog.

Good news that these people can be prosecuted even if their dangerous dog injures or kills even on private property!

Katiehound

No, obviously I don't agree with dogs being out of control and allowed to attack people or other dogs , but this is going over the top the other way.
I can see the scenario where an unsupervised child runs up to a dog ,does something stupid , perhaps the dog knocks them over and it will be the owners fault. The over reactive anti- dog parent could then say "Your dog attacked my child"
Or someone breaks into a car with the dog inside , the dog attacks the thief and the owner is liable.

Herongull

We are talking about dangerous dogs here. Criminals use dangerous dogs as a weapon. Morons own dangerous dogs and don't supervise or train them. The act is not about normal family pets owned by responsible people.

"The Bill makes it clear that the character of the owner and any other relevant circumstances should be taken into account"

"Matters of interest to the court in making an assessment of the owner may include past convictions for animal cruelty or perhaps carrying an offensive weapon, as well as the owner’s ability to provide suitable accommodation for the dog, to keep it and abide by the restrictions required by the court."

Tygermoth

My worry is interpretation of law.

Yesterday we were up on the moor (local lead off known dog walking site)

My dude happily playing off lead, lady coming the other way with an off the lead terrier.

My fella and hers start playing and all is well and good gentle respectful play. Lady and I stand by chatting.

The terrier gets over excited and then turns and goes for my lad. Wade in and separate. there is no major damage.

The woman was hysterical absolutely blinking hysterical as her dog had never behaved that way before, I just shrugged my shoulders. Its a dog thing and these things happen.

Its could easily been the other way round.

Under the new law could i sue her or her me if the matter had been reversed?

both were off lead... would that be 'out of control?' being there was a lady with a doog on lead here a while ago where her dog attacked another on lead and managed to serious damage.

Katiehound

Tygermoth wrote: »

My worry is interpretation of law.


The woman was hysterical absolutely blinking hysterical as her dog had never behaved that way before, I just shrugged my shoulders. Its a dog thing and these things happen.

Its could easily been the other way round.

Under the new law could i sue her or her me if the matter had been reversed?

both were off lead... would that be 'out of control?' being there was a lady with a doog on lead here a while ago where her dog attacked another on lead and managed to serious damage.

I think the answer to your question may well be a yes. In separating the dogs one of you could have been "attacked" and in this instance it is your word against another, unless of course there are witnesses who are willing to make a statement. You were in a public space and it could be said that the dogs were out of control.

My point exactly- it's the interpretation of the law that is a worry. My dog trainers came back with that worrying message ...
Look how the dangerous dog act has removed much loved pets which may look like one of the banned breeds. That has happened more than once

I started this post as a warning. I have been a supporter of Dogs Trust for many years and I used their 3rd party public liability insurance when I took my dog into school...(and there was no risk.....but it was one of the conditions)

We know that the bill is aimed at criminals with dogs, those with status dogs etc but equally some quite legitimate careful pet owner may get caught up in it.

Hillbilly2

This is law as it currently stands - your dog cannot cause harm to others.


I would advise everyone to get the Dogs Trust policy.


If your dog runs away and causes a car accident - you are liable for all the costs!