£6 charge for address update on dogs chip.

born_again

JIL said:

To be clear, the reason I was ducking out is that the thread was about a £6 charge for going on line to update an address, no human interaction and how this being a database, for details of a missing pet, could put some people off updating due to the charge. I paid. It wasnt about me. It was the irony.

How do you know there is no human interaction? Maybe it just logs the details & someone manually enters them on their system?

Who maintains the computer systems, cost of setting up & running them.

Lavendyr

JIL said:

Then I suggest you read the definition of "in the wrong"

I was in the wrong for not changing the address sooner, however as to the £6 charge, there isnt a right or wrong answer. 

My resistance was the charge to update an address, not the actual chip. Although I hardly resisted. I paid, first time of asking.

I still think it's wrong to charge £6 with no human interaction to change an address.  I agree it costs money to keep a database running but when I changed the address, the web page wasnt without numerous advertising.

If the vets can read all chips, I feel there could be a better way to do things.

Just a final point, dogs have to be chipped by 8 weeks old, so there isnt really a choice as to company or package.

What is your "better way to do things" then? Unless it is simply for you not to pay. That's clearly not an option. And while you may not have resisted in person, you did then come on here to grumble about a mere £6. 

Anyway, you're clearly not going to accept any position but your own.   

JIL

I dont think anyone should pay to update an address. 

A better way of doing it, could be involving vets. Lavendyr said:

JIL said:

Then I suggest you read the definition of "in the wrong"

I was in the wrong for not changing the address sooner, however as to the £6 charge, there isnt a right or wrong answer. 

My resistance was the charge to update an address, not the actual chip. Although I hardly resisted. I paid, first time of asking.

I still think it's wrong to charge £6 with no human interaction to change an address.  I agree it costs money to keep a database running but when I changed the address, the web page wasnt without numerous advertising.

If the vets can read all chips, I feel there could be a better way to do things.

Just a final point, dogs have to be chipped by 8 weeks old, so there isnt really a choice as to company or package.

What is your "better way to do things" then? Unless it is simply for you not to pay. That's clearly not an option. And while you may not have resisted in person, you did then come on here to grumble about a mere £6. 

Anyway, you're clearly not going to accept any position but your own.   

Just because  that's the way it's always been done, doesnt mean there isnt a better way.

It's up to the owners by law to have their dogs chipped, but it's not checked.  Theres more to this than caring owners doing the best for their animals as most posting on here obviously do. I paid the charge.  But it made me think of how many wouldn't and that's where the system falls down.

My son moved to a new house, there was an old cat sleeping under a bush in his garden. He took it to the vets, it was chipped but the address was his address, however noone could find a new address.

I'm not saying not charging £6 would solve the issue but if that cat had been abandoned I really think the RSPCA should have been able to have a word or if the cat was lost, more could have been done to reunite the owners.


We just seem to have a situation where dogs are chipped and no follow up. By charging that adds to the issue.

It's not about accepting a position, to me it's the bigger picture.

JIL said:

To be clear, the reason I was ducking out is that the thread was about a £6 charge for going on line to update an address, no human interaction and how this being a database, for details of a missing pet, could put some people off updating due to the charge. I paid. It wasnt about me. It was the irony.

How do you know there is no human interaction? Maybe it just logs the details & someone manually enters them on their system?

Who maintains the computer systems, cost of setting up & running them.

I would think that as you have to use a password and email address to log in, then I would think it would be an antiquated system if the details then had to be updated clerically.

sheramber

JIL said:

I dont think anyone should pay to update an address. 

A better way of doing it, could be involving vets. Lavendyr said:

A vet would charge a lot more than £6.

Lavendyr

JIL said:

I dont think anyone should pay to update an address. 

A better way of doing it, could be involving vets. Lavendyr said:

Just because  that's the way it's always been done, doesnt mean there isnt a better way.

It's up to the owners by law to have their dogs chipped, but it's not checked.  Theres more to this than caring owners doing the best for their animals as most posting on here obviously do. I paid the charge.  But it made me think of how many wouldn't and that's where the system falls down.

My son moved to a new house, there was an old cat sleeping under a bush in his garden. He took it to the vets, it was chipped but the address was his address, however noone could find a new address.

I'm not saying not charging £6 would solve the issue but if that cat had been abandoned I really think the RSPCA should have been able to have a word or if the cat was lost, more could have been done to reunite the owners.


We just seem to have a situation where dogs are chipped and no follow up. By charging that adds to the issue.

It's not about accepting a position, to me it's the bigger picture.

JIL said:

To be clear, the reason I was ducking out is that the thread was about a £6 charge for going on line to update an address, no human interaction and how this being a database, for details of a missing pet, could put some people off updating due to the charge. I paid. It wasnt about me. It was the irony.

How do you know there is no human interaction? Maybe it just logs the details & someone manually enters them on their system?

Who maintains the computer systems, cost of setting up & running them.

I would think that as you have to use a password and email address to log in, then I would think it would be an antiquated system if the details then had to be updated clerically.

What do you mean, involving vets? As sheramber said, I can't see any way that it would be cheaper to have a vet do it! 

£6 won't be the tipping point in someone abandoning an animal. More likely it'll be the cost of feeding them, medicating them if they are sick etc. The first cat I adopted was abandoned as a stray, and the animal charity certainly didn't think it was because of the cost of changing the address on his microchip...more likely because he has chronic skin allergies that require lifelong medication and a special diet. 

In the case of your son, what "more" do you think could have been done to find the owners? I would assume your son did as many would do and put up posters, put a paper collar on the cat etc to no avail? I agree it's not a perfect system but what is the alternative? 

To your last point, if the system isn't antiquated then it cost money to set up and configure. Money which needs to be made back for the business to continue in operation. 

My sense is that you are perhaps hoping for some sort of centralised government-managed portal where you can update details for free because it is a legal requirement. While I don't disagree with that in theory, it is almost certainly never going to happen. If water, gas and electricity are privatised, why would pet microchipping be any different? 

JIL

What I meant by vets being involved, is when I went to the vets for my dogs annual booster, they checked the chip and noticed that I hadnt updated my address.  Strange that it wasnt noticed last year!! 

Would be good if when you changed address at the vets, the system could interface with the chipping companies and update that way.

My son adopted the cat, for the last 3 months of its life. It turned out that it was deliberately left behind. I find that shocking. The last know owners were identified via the chip?. Did the owners have other pets? Were they registered with the vet? Could an official body have not had a stern word?

I do think that the system only works if everything possible is done to keep it up to date.  

When I started the thread, it was about paying £6 to change an address seemed to be perverse in not encouraging owners to update as they should. Since then I have found there are so many different companies, doing things differently and it just seems like an outdated system in need of an update perhaps.

I know from replies on here that posters think it was the £6 charge I was objecting to, it was but it was more the fact it's a system that relies on up to date information. It's not just about reuniting pets and their owners, it's more than that. 

Debbie9009

Updating vets systems to interface with the chipping systems will also cost money, so I’ll ask again who do you think should pay for this ? So far you have avoided saying who you think should pay for any system of updating addresses.

Also what about pets that never see a vet after they have been chipped ? How will they be updated.

The reality is, any system will cost money, and as a dog owner I think I should have to pay for that, as it’s for my benefit.  There is also no way to ensure all pet owners update the chip address, you are reliant on people being responsible whatever system is used.

sheramber

Why should it be the vet's job to update your details?  They are there to  take care of your animal's health not be administrators.

Not everybody has an annual health check or give their dogs annual boosters.

There are many  responsible owners who consider annual boosters unnecessary and even potentially harmful.

Of course, all things are possible- at a cost  which is more than likely to be more than any chip company charge.

JIL

I'm not saying the vet should update the system I'm saying an interface that does it if you change your address at the vets.
The annual booster debate is another issue. 

Yes it may be a higher cost BUT it could be used for much more than it is at present.

@Debbie9009 I think that some firms charge to update an address and some dont, so if it can be done in one, it can be done in another. 

Sooler

Charging a nominal fee may also act as an extra security layer to have some trace as to who made the change.