Vets, the law & microchips - help! (cats)

Brie

As I understand it there is no legal requirement to have cats microchipped.  It's been discussed and Cat's Protection etc think it's a great idea but not been legislated.

ItsMyCat

Brie said:

As I understand it there is no legal requirement to have cats microchipped.  It's been discussed and Cat's Protection etc think it's a great idea but not been legislated.

Yeah, I know its not yet mandatory (its a little harder with cats as they are roamers) but people usually have their animal chipped as a way of identification and ownership, should it go missing etc. In the same way as cattle.... if someone stole your cow, the ear thingy would aid its return.

Pollycat

ItsMyCat said:

Brie said:

As I understand it there is no legal requirement to have cats microchipped.  It's been discussed and Cat's Protection etc think it's a great idea but not been legislated.

Yeah, I know its not yet mandatory (its a little harder with cats as they are roamers) but people usually have their animal chipped as a way of identification and ownership, should it go missing etc. In the same way as cattle.... if someone stole your cow, the ear thingy would aid its return.

I don't see why it's harder because cats are roamers.

Have it done the first time you take your kitten to the vets.

It might not be mandatory but I can't think of one good reason why anyone wouldn't have their cats micro-chipped.

Brie

ItsMyCat said:

In the same way as cattle.... if someone stole your cow, the ear thingy would aid its return.

Horrifying - I'm having visions of having to deal with my cow's litter tray....my cat is well messy enough!!!  (& i've seen a cow shed that didn't get cleared for about 5 years....)

Lavendyr

Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like the finders have intentionally bred the found cat, not once but twice? In a very short space of time?

This is horrible. OP @ItsMyCat - the police should get involved at this stage as they have taken your cat (your property) and essentially abused it for profit. 

What has the vet to say about all this? They were notified that the RO was coming to collect. They could be seen as negligent for not holding onto the cat until the RO arrived. 

I'm so sorry the cat is going through all of this. 

ItsMyCat

Lavendyr said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like the finders have intentionally bred the found cat, not once but twice? In a very short space of time?

This is horrible. OP @ItsMyCat - the police should get involved at this stage as they have taken your cat (your property) and essentially abused it for profit. 

What has the vet to say about all this? They were notified that the RO was coming to collect. They could be seen as negligent for not holding onto the cat until the RO arrived. 

I'm so sorry the cat is going through all of this. 

You don't need correcting - you are right. The person is repeatedly breeding from the cat without time for recovery. Unable to comment further at this point.

Undervalued

Pollycat said:

sheramber said:

But, does the vet have the legal power to seize an animal in such a case.

I do not think they do.



The RCVS advise that unless the client with the animal agrees to release their details to the RO then they cannot release them and should advise the RO to make request the details through a lawyer or the police. They give no advice that the vet can keep the animal.

I also cannot find anything to confirm that the microchip is proof of ownership.  It can be a valuable part of evidence of ownership but is not proof in its own right.

 Handing something into the police as found is very different to bringing an animal to a vet for treatment. 

Are we talking about seizing though?

The cat is at the vets.

The owner is - possibly - on the way up to collect the cat.

I'm talking about delaying tactics until the RO arrives and RO and FTC can argue the toss between themselves whilst the vet steps back.

If the police are called, they may say it's a civil issue or they may say FTC takes the cat or RO takes the cat.

If I was a vet or vet's assistant I really don't think I could let a cat go to someone who isn't the owner even if that person had brought the cat in for treatment.

Especially when the RO has been contacted and has said they want the cat back.

In my opinion yes.

Microchip databases are frequently out of date so the vet has no proof that the person listed on the database is still the legal owner. They may have given the animal away or sold it. Pets are property in the eye of the law.

As far as I know a vet has no power to seize a health animal. They are however legally obliged to provide first aid (or if appropriate put down a sick or injured animal) even if there is nobody to pay the bill. 

Pollycat

Undervalued said:

Pollycat said:

sheramber said:

But, does the vet have the legal power to seize an animal in such a case.

I do not think they do.



The RCVS advise that unless the client with the animal agrees to release their details to the RO then they cannot release them and should advise the RO to make request the details through a lawyer or the police. They give no advice that the vet can keep the animal.

I also cannot find anything to confirm that the microchip is proof of ownership.  It can be a valuable part of evidence of ownership but is not proof in its own right.

 Handing something into the police as found is very different to bringing an animal to a vet for treatment. 

Are we talking about seizing though?

The cat is at the vets.

The owner is - possibly - on the way up to collect the cat.

I'm talking about delaying tactics until the RO arrives and RO and FTC can argue the toss between themselves whilst the vet steps back.

If the police are called, they may say it's a civil issue or they may say FTC takes the cat or RO takes the cat.

If I was a vet or vet's assistant I really don't think I could let a cat go to someone who isn't the owner even if that person had brought the cat in for treatment.

Especially when the RO has been contacted and has said they want the cat back.

In my opinion yes.

Microchip databases are frequently out of date so the vet has no proof that the person listed on the database is still the legal owner. They may have given the animal away or sold it. Pets are property in the eye of the law.

As far as I know a vet has no power to seize a health animal. They are however legally obliged to provide first aid (or if appropriate put down a sick or injured animal) even if there is nobody to pay the bill. 

In that case why did they even bother ringing the original owner?

sheramber

Because it is not up to the vet to determine who is the legal owner

They notified the person registered on the microchip database.

It is then up to the two parties concerned to sort out ownership.

Bradden

It does seem odd tome that the vet would hand the cat back to the finder. I've had to collect cats and always gone to the vet. The only time I that didn't happen was when we were abroad and unable to collect immediately. In that case we arranged for a friend to help. At no point was handing the cat over to the FTC even considered.
Did the vet not offer to keep the cat at all? Surely it seemed suspicious. FTC found a cat and wanted it vaccinated and chipped. Normal people find a cat and want to return it to its owner.