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

Pollycat

sheramber said:

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.

But the vet didn't give the person registered on the microchip database any chance of disputing ownership of the cat - despite arranging for the the person registered on the microchip database to call up and collect the cat.
Here's a different question...
why did the vet arrange for the OP to collect the cat?

ItsMyCat said:

Scenario: cat gets taken to a vet by someone who "found the cat" for vaccines and a microchip. Ooooo whaddya know, its already chipped so vet (V) emails registered owner of the cat, do you want it back? Registered owner (RO) says "yes, I shall have her back thank you. What time etc". V: She's got kittens too, do you want those? "Yes, no problem I have plenty of space to care for them".

It was clear - at least it was to me - from the OP's original post ^^^^ that the vet intended that the cat (and kittens) be given back the person registered on the microchip database rather than the person who took it in. 

I think what happened is that there was a mix-up in the vets and someone by mistake gave the cat and kittens to the person who took it in rather than the person registered on the microchip database as previously arranged by email.

Bradden said:

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.

It does to me too.
It appears that we are in the minority.

Find a cat.
Take it to the vets.
Vet checks for a micro-chip.
Contacts the original owner to ask if they want their cat back.
Make arrangements for collection by the original owner.
Give it back to the person who found it.

I hope the OP recovers this cat.
There's clearly some legal stuff going on.
Once resolved (hopefully in the OP's favour), I would explain to anyone interested how this "busy (cosy little corner shop type vets)" deals with cats that are found (with microchip).

Undervalued

Pollycat said:

sheramber said:

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.

But the vet didn't give the person registered on the microchip database any chance of disputing ownership of the cat - despite arranging for the the person registered on the microchip database to call up and collect the cat.
Here's a different question...
why did the vet arrange for the OP to collect the cat?

ItsMyCat said:

Scenario: cat gets taken to a vet by someone who "found the cat" for vaccines and a microchip. Ooooo whaddya know, its already chipped so vet (V) emails registered owner of the cat, do you want it back? Registered owner (RO) says "yes, I shall have her back thank you. What time etc". V: She's got kittens too, do you want those? "Yes, no problem I have plenty of space to care for them".

It was clear - at least it was to me - from the OP's original post ^^^^ that the vet intended that the cat (and kittens) be given back the person registered on the microchip database rather than the person who took it in. 

I think what happened is that there was a mix-up in the vets and someone by mistake gave the cat and kittens to the person who took it in rather than the person registered on the microchip database as previously arranged by email.

Bradden said:

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.

It does to me too.
It appears that we are in the minority.

Find a cat.
Take it to the vets.
Vet checks for a micro-chip.
Contacts the original owner to ask if they want their cat back.
Make arrangements for collection by the original owner.
Give it back to the person who found it.

I hope the OP recovers this cat.
There's clearly some legal stuff going on.
Once resolved (hopefully in the OP's favour), I would explain to anyone interested how this "busy (cosy little corner shop type vets)" deals with cats that are found (with microchip).

Possibly...

To make sure they got paid for any chargeable treatment they had provided.

and / or

Because they are not obliged to provide free board and lodging for pets that might or might not be collected by the person on the database.

As has been said the vet is not able to ascertain who is the legal owner. That is not necessarily the person who was the owner / keeper last time the database was updated.

Had the supposed "finder" in this saga not contacted the vet they wouldn't even have been involved in all of this. As far as I know the vet's only legal obligation is to provide emergency first aid even if there is nobody to pay the bill.

Sadly, I am sure it must have happened that an owner has deliberately "lost" an unwanted pet (or at the very least been quite happy when a cat strayed) only to get a phone call saying "XXX Vets here good news we have found Tiddles. The former owner is embarrassed to say "I don't want Tiddles back" so they make some vague arrangement then block the number. The vet is then lumbered.

Bradden

Surely ayment could have been taken over the phone for treatment if that was a concern .. whilst legally you may be correct it all seems a bit odd. I've collected cats handed in to vets on 3 or 4 occasions, at no point did the vet discuss handing the cat back to the person who handed it in. Considering the FTC was looking to vaccinate and chip the cat it should have alarmed the vet that they were not intending to return the cat. The OP doesn't say why they were taken to the vet. it may be that the FTC didn't want to return the cat but when it was scanned they fund a chip.  If that is what happened, then it should have been obvious that the FTC had in fact "stolen" the cat and they should not have handed them back. To me that's pretty close to assisting the theft.

I can just imagine it...

FTC: Hi - Could you vaccinate and chip my cat please 
VET:  It's already chipped.. and registered to another person.
FTC: I didn't know that please give me the cat back and I'll return it to the rightful owner.
VET: Of course

Does anyone really think that would be ok? Legal? Possibly.but that doesn't make it right.




 

Undervalued

Bradden said:

Surely ayment could have been taken over the phone for treatment if that was a concern .. whilst legally you may be correct it all seems a bit odd. I've collected cats handed in to vets on 3 or 4 occasions, at no point did the vet discuss handing the cat back to the person who handed it in. Considering the FTC was looking to vaccinate and chip the cat it should have alarmed the vet that they were not intending to return the cat. The OP doesn't say why they were taken to the vet. it may be that the FTC didn't want to return the cat but when it was scanned they fund a chip.  If that is what happened, then it should have been obvious that the FTC had in fact "stolen" the cat and they should not have handed them back. To me that's pretty close to assisting the theft.

I can just imagine it...

FTC: Hi - Could you vaccinate and chip my cat please 
VET:  It's already chipped.. and registered to another person.
FTC: I didn't know that please give me the cat back and I'll return it to the rightful owner.
VET: Of course

Does anyone really think that would be ok? Legal? Possibly.but that doesn't make it right.




 

Yes.

Unless a vet has any legal powers I am not aware of, it is not for them to arbitrate in a dispute over ownership. Still less is it up to them to take charge of the property (which is what an animal is legally), against the finder's wishes. Had the finder not contacted the vet they (the vet) wouldn't have been involved. The fact that the microchip database shows some other owner / keeper as of a particular date in the past doesn't prove the current ownership.

If the vet thinks it has been stolen then they should report the matter to the police.

As I understand it, the finder of an item of lost property has more right to it than anybody else except the legal owner.

Bradden

Are you sure of this though? 

I think it could be argued that this would fall under handling stolen goods under the theft act 1969. 

The database lists the current legal owner according to their records.. I don't think you should just assume it's out of date. 

Ther vet spoke to the owner thereby establising who the propery belonged to. They then "assisted" in  the theft by assisitng the FTC by handing the property back to them without the agreement of the owner.


 22Handling stolen goods.

(1)A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.

Pollycat

Undervalued said:

Pollycat said:

sheramber said:

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.

But the vet didn't give the person registered on the microchip database any chance of disputing ownership of the cat - despite arranging for the the person registered on the microchip database to call up and collect the cat.
Here's a different question...
why did the vet arrange for the OP to collect the cat?

ItsMyCat said:

Scenario: cat gets taken to a vet by someone who "found the cat" for vaccines and a microchip. Ooooo whaddya know, its already chipped so vet (V) emails registered owner of the cat, do you want it back? Registered owner (RO) says "yes, I shall have her back thank you. What time etc". V: She's got kittens too, do you want those? "Yes, no problem I have plenty of space to care for them".

It was clear - at least it was to me - from the OP's original post ^^^^ that the vet intended that the cat (and kittens) be given back the person registered on the microchip database rather than the person who took it in. 

I think what happened is that there was a mix-up in the vets and someone by mistake gave the cat and kittens to the person who took it in rather than the person registered on the microchip database as previously arranged by email.

Bradden said:

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.

It does to me too.
It appears that we are in the minority.

Find a cat.
Take it to the vets.
Vet checks for a micro-chip.
Contacts the original owner to ask if they want their cat back.
Make arrangements for collection by the original owner.
Give it back to the person who found it.

I hope the OP recovers this cat.
There's clearly some legal stuff going on.
Once resolved (hopefully in the OP's favour), I would explain to anyone interested how this "busy (cosy little corner shop type vets)" deals with cats that are found (with microchip).

Possibly...

To make sure they got paid for any chargeable treatment they had provided.

and / or

Because they are not obliged to provide free board and lodging for pets that might or might not be collected by the person on the database.

As has been said the vet is not able to ascertain who is the legal owner. That is not necessarily the person who was the owner / keeper last time the database was updated.

Had the supposed "finder" in this saga not contacted the vet they wouldn't even have been involved in all of this. As far as I know the vet's only legal obligation is to provide emergency first aid even if there is nobody to pay the bill.

Sadly, I am sure it must have happened that an owner has deliberately "lost" an unwanted pet (or at the very least been quite happy when a cat strayed) only to get a phone call saying "XXX Vets here good news we have found Tiddles. The former owner is embarrassed to say "I don't want Tiddles back" so they make some vague arrangement then block the number. The vet is then lumbered.

Wouldn't this have been sorted out over the phone or by email though?

"we have the cat that is registered to you on its microchip. Do you want it back? (this is what the OP says happened). If you do, there will be the charge for the treatment we have provided. And we expect ypu to call and collect the cat by 5pm (or whatever time they close) because we are not in the business of providing free board and lodgings for pets".
Re ownership:
if a pet is registered to someone and that person says they want the cat back, surely they are the legal owner.

Undervalued

Bradden said:

Are you sure of this though? 

I think it could be argued that this would fall under handling stolen goods under the theft act 1969. 

The database lists the current legal owner according to their records.. I don't think you should just assume it's out of date. 

Ther vet spoke to the owner thereby establising who the propery belonged to. They then "assisted" in  the theft by assisitng the FTC by handing the property back to them without the agreement of the owner.


 22Handling stolen goods.

(1)A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.

No the vet spoke to somebody who, probably, was the owner on whatever date the microchip was inserted. Anything could have happened since then including selling or giving away the cat (multiple times) or the poor animal being caught in the middle of a matrimonial dispute!

Forget it is a cat for the moment and imagine this.

Somebody finds a very expensive watch. They go to a jewellers who are agents for that make and they check who originally bought that serial number. Data protection laws may (or may not) prevent the jeweller telling the finder who that was and in any case they don't know for certain if they are still the legal owner. The jeweller certainly doesn't have the right to seize the watch against the finders wishes. If they have reasonable suspicion that the finder is intending to act dishonestly they should call the police or I suppose if they are brave they could even make a citizen's arrest!

Bradden

I think analogy is misleading. 

The whole point of the microchip database is to reunite owners.. it;'s not a simple record of purchase.

https://www.petlog.org.uk

Discover more about the work we do

• We are the largest database in the UK; supporting the reunification of lost and found microchipped pets
• Over 13 million pet owners trust us to keep their details safe and assist in reuniting them with their pet should they go missing
• The UK’s only independent database; we do not supply microchips and our sole purpose is reuniting pets with their owners

Our team work around the clock to support vets, pets and their keepers, helping to reunite them back together as quickly as possible.

The vet spoke to the owner according to the database and they confirmed the property was theirs. 

Handing the property after ownership was established could be seen to be assisting. If the FTC asked for the property retuned to them then they should have refused.

Undervalued

Two interesting quotes from their website.......

6. Keepership not ownership

Petlog is a register of the keeper of an animal – it does not necessarily denote the legal ownership of an animal. The microchip is implanted in order to comply with the legislation and does not equate to proof of legal ownership and does not give/transfer such rights of legal ownership. The microchip record is intended to assist reunification with the keeper if the pet goes missing.

8. Disputes & legal ownership

We cannot make any adjudication on any dispute over legal ownership for any pets.

In the event of any dispute over transfer of keepership/ownership then we will mark the record as disputed, which will lock the record against any further activity until we are notified the dispute is resolved.

Unfortunately we cannot advise directly how to resolve the matter other than suggesting that you seek independent legal advice as to your rights and remedies.

We will remain neutral in any ownership dispute and will update the microchip record and registered keepership upon confirmation of any court decision and/or settlement of the dispute.

Bradden

Fair enough .. I shall concede. :-)