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

Pollycat

Regardless of ownership of the cat, the fact remains that the vet practice was going to return the cat to the person whose details were on the microchip.

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".

But didn't.

Why?

sheramber

Pollycat said:

Regardless of ownership of the cat, the fact remains that the vet practice was going to return the cat to the person whose details were on the microchip.

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".

But didn't.

Why?

You would need to ask the vet why?

ItsMyCat

Frustrating isn't it!

There's nothing hidden, the situation happened exactly as it says.

There's legislation going through for mandatory microchipping of cats, so the vets and microchipping companies will be reaping the benefits again.

According to the law at the moment, they are classed as property and as I understand it, If you mark your property (watermark thingy, etched postcode etc) and it reappears down the line for example in the unclaimed property with the police, they'd usually ring you and say "I've found your item" even if its years later and be given the option of going to get it back.

ItsMyCat

Pollycat said:

Regardless of ownership of the cat, the fact remains that the vet practice was going to return the cat to the person whose details were on the microchip.

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".

But didn't.

Why?

Yes.... why? So many opinions and so many angles. 

Pollycat

sheramber said:

Pollycat said:

Regardless of ownership of the cat, the fact remains that the vet practice was going to return the cat to the person whose details were on the microchip.

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".

But didn't.

Why?

You would need to ask the vet why?

That would be the first thing I did if it was my cat.

And I'd want a damn good answer to that question.

The vet practice clearly asked the OP if they wanted their cat back so must have thought that was the right and proper thing to do.

And then they gave it to someone else (admittedly to the person who took it in).

I think it was a mistake by the vet practice.

But at the very least they should explain their actions.

And an email to say it was "on its merry way with found the cat person (FTC), here's FTC phone number" is simply not acceptable.

Now...if they had contacted the OP to say someone had brought the OP's cat in for treatment and the vet had found the microchip but they felt they had to return the cat to the person that had brought it in but gave the original owner contact details of the person who had brought the cat in for it to be sorted out between them...that would be different.

But they said the OP could have her cat back.

I think the vet practice have performed pretty badly in this - regardless of what the legal position is.

Undervalued

ItsMyCat said:

Frustrating isn't it!

There's nothing hidden, the situation happened exactly as it says.

There's legislation going through for mandatory microchipping of cats, so the vets and microchipping companies will be reaping the benefits again.

According to the law at the moment, they are classed as property and as I understand it, If you mark your property (watermark thingy, etched postcode etc) and it reappears down the line for example in the unclaimed property with the police, they'd usually ring you and say "I've found your item" even if its years later and be given the option of going to get it back.

It is one factor but the fact that something was registered as yours at one time doesn't automatically mean you are still the legal owner.

It certainly was the case (and I think still is) that if you find something and hand it in to the police, but they cannot be find the rightful owner, you are given the option of having the item. You then have a right to the item over and above anybody else except the original owner, should they ever be found. If you were to sell it and the original owner does turn up you would owe then its reasonable second hand value.

Frankly I am surprised that vets are willing to take charge of lost animals. Even if they have made contact with the person who originally registered the chip what happens if that person is out of the country, in hospital or, as must sadly happen from time to time, say they will collect the animal then doesn't?

Pollycat

Undervalued said:

ItsMyCat said:

Frustrating isn't it!

There's nothing hidden, the situation happened exactly as it says.

There's legislation going through for mandatory microchipping of cats, so the vets and microchipping companies will be reaping the benefits again.

According to the law at the moment, they are classed as property and as I understand it, If you mark your property (watermark thingy, etched postcode etc) and it reappears down the line for example in the unclaimed property with the police, they'd usually ring you and say "I've found your item" even if its years later and be given the option of going to get it back.

It is one factor but the fact that something was registered as yours at one time doesn't automatically mean you are still the legal owner.

It certainly was the case (and I think still is) that if you find something and hand it in to the police, but they cannot be find the rightful owner, you are given the option of having the item. You then have a right to the item over and above anybody else except the original owner, should they ever be found. If you were to sell it and the original owner does turn up you would owe then its reasonable second hand value.

Frankly I am surprised that vets are willing to take charge of lost animals. Even if they have made contact with the person who originally registered the chip what happens if that person is out of the country, in hospital or, as must sadly happen from time to time, say they will collect the animal then doesn't?

If my cat had gone AWOL and turned up at a vet practice, I would arrange to pay for the cat's board and lodgings until I was able to collect it - even if I was abroad or in hospital.

I'm sure that is what the majority of cat owners would do.

I wonder how often a lost animal is taken to a vet.

I'd imagine that a lost cat would usually only turn up at a vet practice if it required treatment or if someone had found the cat and wanted to know if it had an owner registered on the microchip because they wanted to keep it themselves.

That's what I would do if I found a cat.

If it was just a stray and I was concerned about it, I'd contact RSPCA or Cat Protection.

Not a vet.

Kim_kim

sheramber said:

Pollycat said:

ItsMyCat said:

It is an assumption that FTC is "taking good care" of OP cat - and arguable as FTC has mated the cat to have two litters in quick succession, possibly more.

I agree.

There is no reason not to have a cat spayed if she is just a pet.

I wouldn't be surprised if those kittens had been advertised on Facebook for £20 each (or more).

Pollycat said:

ItsMyCat said:

It is an assumption that FTC is "taking good care" of OP cat - and arguable as FTC has mated the cat to have two litters in quick succession, possibly more.

 

Similarly, the RO did not have the cat spayed. 

Maybe 'because of her breed' t( as stated by the R0) the RO wants to breed and make money. However , unless the FCT had the papers and a male of the same breed the kittens wouldn't be worth 'considerably more'.

I have two pedigree cats, both neutered.

If one was lost (even during lockdown) I would have logged onto my chip account & logged them as missing.

If a vets had contacted me they they were found, I’d have gone straight there.  

I found it odd the OP was arranging a collection day in the future. 

Bradden

I wish the OP would return and update us on the sorry saga.

ItsMyCat

Your wish is my command     Nothing to update, hence not added anything.

You may find it odd that the OP arranged a future date to collect. This is because the vet provided the contact number of FTC to the OP, and sent the cat (with kittens) away after their appointment. OP promptly contacted FTC to organise collecting the cat(s) but was faced with delays.... try as they might.