Help Wanted

[laurapepe]

Hi All,

Last year my dog had a litter of puppies, this was a planned litter and most of them had homes before they were born,

 

I had a small puppie whom the vet gave a clean bill of health and we decided to keep him,

however I was pestered to sell him to a lady, she offered a fantastic home and we decided this would be best for him,

we lowered the price to reflect his size and sold him without papers as a pet only.

 

A month later the new owners said that they had just taken him to the vets and he had a genetic conditin,

i was mortified as he left here fit, healthy and raring to go.

 

I offered a full refund on his return, or money towards vets bills.

2 months went by without a reply then they said he was dying, i asked them to retun him again, they didnt i also offered money again, i said i would pay out on proof of condition, they agreed.

2 moths later and he was getting better they then asked for money, another month went by and i had a note from the vet sayig that they had rejected testing for the condition, so i couldnt pay out.

2 months later they demanded money, i asked for proof of the condition and now they are getting nasty.

 

What should I do? they are now saying the dog is dying again and they are taking the matter further.

[laurapepe]

Sorry for the spelling mistakes, I typed in a hurry and know I look really dim x

[hightail]

There's not much you can do if they are just after money other than wait for them to take you to court and they won't get far there without a full set of test results and a veterinary report. Have they named the condition?

 

Everything has a genetic component so in a way everything is 'inherited'. My dog had cancer at 10 years old and others from the litter probably didn't because their genes were slightly different. Some are simple enough in that it's a case of not doubling up on recessive genes that cause disease but others are a case of what falls out of a complicated genetic mix. The former are avoidable and unforgivable when breeding. The latter are just the luck of the draw.

[Undercover-Elsa]

HiLaura,

I agree with Hightail.

You have clearly acted responsibly and offered financial help or to take the puppy back, subject to medical evidence.

Have they provided anything at all to substantiate their claims..vet bills, copies of reports etc?

 

Keep everything in writing. Might be an idea to respond to their latest demands with a letter, sent recorded delivery, on the lines of:

 

Dear xxxx

In reference to your further demands for money in respect of (pup's name) sold to you on xx xx xx for £xxx without paperwork as a pet.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I have repeatedly stated that I would be willing to contribute to veterinary fees or take the puppy back and refund your money, upon production of satisfactory medical evidence of your claims.

However you have failed to provide this,and the veterinary surgeon informs me that you have refused testing for the condition.

I therefore feel that your continued demands are unreasonable and should you "take this further" as threatened will be seen as vexatious by the court.

 

Because of the time scale involved here and your statements regarding this pup's health, my main priority is his/her welfare about which I am becoming increasingly concerned. As I'm sure you are aware you have a legal responsibility to ensure this pup receives proper veterinary care, and I am beginning to question whether he/she is receiving this in view of your refusal to provide documentary proof.

I am therefore considering requesting the RSPCA to visit your premises to check on the welfare of (name), unless you provide me with copies of vet bills / medical reports or other documents confirming that he/she is receiving appropriate treatment for the condition you claim.

I would be grateful for your written response, enclosing the requested documentation within 7 days of receipt of this recorded delivery letter, otherwise I will have no alternative but to take further action to ensure the welfare of this puppy.

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Just my opinion...hope this helps

 

Elsa x

Edited November 30, 2011 by Undercover-Elsa
typo

[honeybee13]

Great letter, Elsa.

 

Hello Laura. I can't add much to what the ladies have saidbut I just wanted to say that you sound like a responsible breeder and these people sound rather manipulative. I hope they're not trying it on and that everything turns out OK for your 'offspring'.

 

My best, HB

[laurapepe]

Hello All

Thank you so much for your replies.

They sent copies of vets bills (unitemised) which we only for a couple of hundred pounds and not the several hundreds they claimed.

The condition they claim she has is a liver shunt.

They also said she had a heart problem, but this has not been mentioned again, nor by their vet.

The vet had written on a compliment slip and said that when treated for the above condition the dog showed improvement, so the condition is likely but cannot be confirmed as they have opted not to take the test.

I called their vets myselves and they said that although the dog is poorly he is not dying. They also said that the owner does not have much money and cannot afford to take the test and was advised to bring him back to me months ago. The actual vet refused to speak to me the receptionist told me this.

The lady I sold him to has only been in touch with me once regarding this thanking me for my help, her family member is the one 'acting on her behalf' but as far as I see has not been given consent to do so.

They said they are taking him to the vets this week to get a report from the vet and I have a feeling that they are going to ask me to compensate them in full, plus the cost of the dog.

This whole thing is making me ill, and I am chasing them for confimation of the condition so I can pay them.

It seems like the more accomidating you are the more you get treated like dirt.

They also didn't take the dog to the vets within the first month of having him, nor take out aduquate insurance.

I gave them 7 days to produce the full report and take the relevant test, but as this will probably cost more than the money I am willing to give, then I doubt this will happen and it will just run and run all over the Christmas period.

I don't know how much more I can take as they are saying he doesn't have long to live again.

[hightail]

I don't know how much more I can take as they are saying he doesn't have long to live again.

And if he does live for a long time where do their demands end? You need to make it clear to them that you offered to refund them the purchase price on return of the dog some time ago. Either they 'reject' the dog and get their money back or they've chosen to take on the responsibility themselves.

They also said that the owner does not have much money and cannot afford to take the test

I'm frankly astounded at any vet (or their receptionist) discussing a client's financial situation with a third party. They have no right to do so and in any case they can't possibly know whether the owners are paupers or rolling in money. The vet was quite right to refuse to speak to you without the consent of the client and the receptionist was wrong to do so. If they want to take it further they will have to produce the evidence and if there is a definitive test no vet will testify that the condition exists without it.

[laurapepe]

I was quite shocked as well as if they were my vets I wouldn't want people talking about me in that way. The receptionist phoned back last week and said that the proof is in what the vet has sent.

But without speaking directly to anyone, just feel I am being mislead all the time, it is a very frustrating situation and it is getting me down.

I wish that they would have brought him back months ago as if he doesn't have long left, then why hasn't he been put to sleep? surely if this is all true he is suffering.

Once I have concrete evidence i my hand, I will send a letter for the owner to sign to say that I will not send any more money or any other solutions as I have done all I can.

[hightail]

I suggest you read up on the condition - here's one link but of course there will be plenty of articles.

http://www.malteseonly.com/shunt2.html

Without knowing which of the many vague and varied symptoms which can manifest themselves with this condition they treated it's impossible to know if it is indeed a liver shunt. If the vet sent a compliment slip saying the dog had responded to treatment I can only suppose he sold the client some expensive specialist food which is unlikely to have worked in isolation for the condition they're claiming. Complete before and after blood and urine panels would be needed and wouldn't in themselves be definitive proof.

 

It isn't unheard of for vets to want to test for everything. They can be quite good at suggesting a worst case scenario which maximises profit and owners don't question it as they're so relieved when everything comes back negative. Are you sure this dog isn't simply prone to an upset stomach?

[laurapepe]

Thanks for the link Hightail, I have been doing lost of research into the condition and the vet claims that it could be a protosystic shunt (hope I spelt that right) The condition could have been present from birth or aquired, only specific testing can prove and rule this out.

There is testing available for puppies by sending off a sample of bile to a specialist, but it is not 100% accurate.

They say that the vet has given them special food and tablets to 'keep the dog alive' but in my opinion he should have been brought back to me so that my vet could have ruled all these things out from the outset.

I feel that if that had happened all those months ago then the outlook would be very different. I would have done my upmost for his wellbeing.

[hightail]

They say that the vet has given them special food and tablets to 'keep the dog alive'

This is extremely vague. What's more this is an ongoing condition so are they expecting you to pay all future costs? Special food and some tablets wouldn't cure the condition - it has to be managed for ever. I think you need to toughen up and insist they return the dog for a full refund. If you can afford the couple of hundred quid vet bills to date on top of this then you can agree to pay previous reasonable treatment & prescription costs on receipt of an itemised bill. Don't just agree to pay the bill as there may be all sorts of things on there which are not prescription items or necessary.

[laurapepe]

I offered £100 4 months ago, I also gave them the option to bring him back.

I do not feel he is getting the best care and this has made his condition worse.

They have chosen to take the condition on as they didn't return him in the beginning when their vet told them to.

I have emails from them and a letter accepting my offer and then saying that they won't ask for anything else, but I haven't paid out as they didn't send the information I was promised.

They told me that he had had the specific test and they could prove it, so far they haven't, for all I know the dog may not have finnished his course of vaccinations and may have picked something up? anything is possible.

Whilst I really feel sorry for them if all they say is true, if they didn't have the funds to take on a dog or arrange proper insurance then my responsibility ends where I have offered to take him back.

There are so many [problematic] out there who are trying to extract money from people before xmas.

I am however more than willing to send them the £100 as promised, only if they send the proof.

But now they have threatened further action I feel I cannot negotiate with them any more.

I said I would send the money directlymto their vet, now they want the cash..!

[hightail]

Trying to negotiate with them has done you no favours. Stop doing it. Until and unless you have a complete breakdown from the vet you don't owe them anything. They could produce this if they wanted to. Threats of further action are meaningless.

[laurapepe]

Hi Hightail

 

I have just spoken with Consumer Direct and they said that I need to write to them again /(via email to the family member) saying my contract is with the person I sold it to and if they want to take further action they can, but I should deal with the person I sold it to and nobody else.

I am to quote the sale of goods act and offer to take him back for a full refund and as they have not provided any proof of this condition I don't have to pay them any money towards vets bills as this was above and beyond my responsibilities.

 

I never break promises though and the £100 is still there for them if proof is provided.

[hightail]

This was a private sale and SoGA doesn't apply (other than an accurate description being a requirement). If you are producing pups purely for commercial gain then you are a business and SoGA would apply. A decent breeder would obviously take back a pup which had a proven inherited condition within a reasonable time though.

I don't have to pay them any money towards vets bills as this was above and beyond my responsibilities

true but you've offered now - this is why constant to-ing and fro-ing isn't a good idea. You've effectively been encouraging the harassment, like feeding a troll.

[laurapepe]

Thanks for your help.

I will always stick by my promises and if they want to keep him the £100 still stands, upon receipt of proof.

I will also offer to take him back again for what seems like the upteenth time and ignore any correspondance from the third party.

I offered solution upon soloution to begin with and they have dragged this out for months and months.

I am a good person and I will always try and help, the Consumer advice said that it was very strange that they haven't proved the condition and said that the dog should be more of a priority to them.

I really hope that this all ends in a amicable way.

[hightail]

Consumer Advice didn't fully understand the situation. I've been breeding for over 30 years

[laurapepe]

They were more helpful that I thougt they would be.

Am I doing the right thing now?

[hightail]

It's very difficult to advise someone when they've already gone part way down a route I wouldn't take. I'd not go in for any further communication to be honest. If they do want to 'take it further' they will have to provide full veterinary evidence. If there was any reasoning on their part they would already have done so if they have it. I honestly think they're just trying it on.

[laurapepe]

Thanks, that was what I was thinking really, just let them get on with whatever they want to do.

I thought I was doing the right thing as I wanted to be responsible, but you have said the same thing as my husband.

I just went ahead doing what I would be happy with in their situation.

I will leave it for now and see what happens.

Thank you for our help and advice, as far as I am concerned I want nothing more to do with puppies/breeding etc, this has made the last year so tough.

[gemspan]

Hi Laurapepe

 

Consumer Direct really haven't given you the correct information here. Firstly, can you tell me if you carried out all the health tests required for the breed of dog prior to breeding? Is testing for liver shunt part of the test?

 

If a breeder breeds from a dog without carrying out all the health tests then if a puppy becomes ill they have a duty of care to the owner to either take the puppy back and refund the purchase price or help with the vet bills. This is the responsibility that goes along with breeding I'm afraid.... A vet cannot say at such a young age that the puppy is healthy; the fact that he/she was very small would give me cause for concern. I appreciate you were going to keep the puppy and therefore you would have had to pay the vet bills if he/she was in your care.

 

When a puppy is sold it's normally sold with 4 weeks free insurance. Did the owners get this insurance? Did the symptoms appear after the insurance ran out and they decided not to continue with the insurance? I feel you have been very caring in all of this - and a lot more caring than most breeders - but liver shunt is something that you wouldnt have known existed at the time of the sale.

 

The last case I was involved in the puppy owner got the cost of the puppy, the vet fees and an amount for future increased premiums in insurance. Liver shunt can be corrected by surgery but its quite complicated and very expensive. The dog does not necessarily have to die. If the owner has medication then this would suggest he is getting the veterinary care as required under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Perhaps you could offer to pay for the test to get a definitive diagnosis and pay the vet direct for this. That way you know exactly what you are dealing with and what the likely outcome is. If surgery is carried out then the dog should be free of the condition for life.

 

I hope this works out for you. I deal with so many bad breeders that it really upsets me when I hear of a good breeder being treated in this way. Does your breed suffer from liver shunt generally?

 

Kind regards

Gemspan

[laurapepe]

Hi Laurapepe

 

Consumer Direct really haven't given you the correct information here. Firstly, can you tell me if you carried out all the health tests required for the breed of dog prior to breeding? Is testing for liver shunt part of the test?

 

If a breeder breeds from a dog without carrying out all the health tests then if a puppy becomes ill they have a duty of care to the owner to either take the puppy back and refund the purchase price or help with the vet bills. This is the responsibility that goes along with breeding I'm afraid.... A vet cannot say at such a young age that the puppy is healthy; the fact that he/she was very small would give me cause for concern. I appreciate you were going to keep the puppy and therefore you would have had to pay the vet bills if he/she was in your care.

 

When a puppy is sold it's normally sold with 4 weeks free insurance. Did the owners get this insurance? Did the symptoms appear after the insurance ran out and they decided not to continue with the insurance? I feel you have been very caring in all of this - and a lot more caring than most breeders - but liver shunt is something that you wouldnt have known existed at the time of the sale.

 

The last case I was involved in the puppy owner got the cost of the puppy, the vet fees and an amount for future increased premiums in insurance. Liver shunt can be corrected by surgery but its quite complicated and very expensive. The dog does not necessarily have to die. If the owner has medication then this would suggest he is getting the veterinary care as required under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Perhaps you could offer to pay for the test to get a definitive diagnosis and pay the vet direct for this. That way you know exactly what you are dealing with and what the likely outcome is. If surgery is carried out then the dog should be free of the condition for life.

 

I hope this works out for you. I deal with so many bad breeders that it really upsets me when I hear of a good breeder being treated in this way. Does your breed suffer from liver shunt generally?

 

Kind regards

Gemspan

 

Hi there

 

Testing for liver shunts is not a test that is required.

Both lines used for this breeding were free of this condition.

So if this condition is proved to be a liver shunt, then the dog has been so unlucky.

Puppies can have a test at around 6 weeks old, but it is such a grey area as to the accuracy of this testing.

I have offered these people time and time again for them to bring the puppy back for a full refund, I have also offered help towards their bills, but they have refused to have him tested.

I did not offer any insurance as it is not a breeders responsibility to do so.

They did not take out any insurance of their own and only took him for vaccinations 1 month after having him. So their 4 weeks would have been up if they had taken any insurance from me.

This was the only litter of puppies we have ever had from my pet dog and as I am not a commercial breeder I do not have to offer them anything. I was willing to help them if we worked together.

I would not be in a position to help pay for an operation as this would be around £2k, I have offered all I can only to be threatened and treated badly.

We do not know if this condition is congenital or aquired, or something entirely different, maybe picked up through non vaccination, all I know is that I bitterley regret selling to these people as they are not in a position to deal with this supposed condition nor have they ended his suffering.

[gemspan]

Hi Laurapepe

 

Normally a puppy is sold with 4 weeks free insurance from either Pet Plan or the KC insurance. It's not your obligation to provide insurance but the insurance companies do offer it as a way to try and keep the business after the 4 weeks. It used to be 6 weeks free insurance.

 

Actually, as the breeder of the puppy and you sold it the Sale of Goods Act does cover this so whether you are a commercial breeder or a pet breeder it doesnt really matter - the goods that are sold have to be fit for purpose and clearly if the puppy becomes ill then it is not fit for purpose. Sadly the sale of puppies also falls into the same category as the sale of washing machines, fridge freezers and the like. You wouldn't expect a washing machine to break down after 6 weeks or so without taking it back for a refund or for the repairs to be paid for by the shop. The same applies to animals.

 

From what you have said above it seems that liver shunt is a condition that the breed is prone to. What breed is it if you don't mind me asking?

 

If they did bring the puppy back then how would you afford to pay for the treatment if you can't afford to pay them the money to the vet?

 

I misunderstood the thread and though it was you that had been breeding for 30 years. Sadly, breeding puppies comes with all sorts of responsibilities. These responsibilities are often not factored into things when people take the decision to breed.

 

Leaving vaccination for 4 weeks is not something that's bad and I don't think this would be the reason for a liver shunt. Puppies have immunity from their mothers up until 23 weeks and as long as they haven't had the puppy out and about and around dogs that are infected with distemper, parvo etc., then that argument wouldn't stand up.

 

Does your breed have any health test recommendations and how do you know that the bloodline is free from liver shunt? If the breed is prone to it then I figure that it probably there somewhere in the background and it can often take a while to raise its ugly head again.

 

I hope this works out for you but this is one reason not breed from your pet I'm afraid. It's something that shouldn't be done lightly. If they do take you to court then you will be liable to pay something. I hope it doesnt come to that though. Good luck.

 

I am a passionate campaigner against bad breeding and support people who buy from BYBs and puppy farmers to get financial recompense. I'm not for one minute suggesting that you fall into that category but the law is becoming tougher against these people knowingly selling sick puppies to unsuspecting purchasers. You wouldn't believe how often it goes on. I think you have a good heart and have behaved in an ethical manner but please be aware that you do have a responsibility towards the people who buy puppies from you - just as much as a commercial breeder has.

 

I hope this works out for you.

 

Kind regards

Gemspan

 

 

You can do two things here..... You can continue to try and liaise with the owner of the puppy or you can say and do nothing and hope it goes away.

[laurapepe]

I said I couldnt afford to pay for the operation, but i did offer towards their vets bills.

I offered to refund them the full amount paid if they brought him back. My vet then would have done the nessicary tests and given me the best advice available.

We stil do not know if this is a liver shunt we are dealing with, they have been erattic with their communication to me.

This has been going on for months.

[laurapepe]

I also didn't knw that the puppy was sick as they symptoms appeared after they had him for a month. If you see the info avalable on this supposed condition, it is not something that is always apparrent and I would not knowingly have sold a sick dog.