Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello. I feel this may be considered to be a petty complaint on my part but would really appreciate views and insight please and I promise to wear my big girl pants and not take offence.  I have lived in my home since 1986. My neighbours moved in a year or two afterwards. In November 2013 I had solar panels installed optimised individually by solar edge and the panels are meant to be ' self cleaning'.  On Wednesday 21.8.19, my semi detached neighbours had a new TV aerial and a satellite dish fitted. It's near to my boundary wall,but clearly fitted on their own wall. I did not look out while his installer was working and did not know what had been done till I went to the front door to see what all the drilling was about then later to get washing in and saw the items on a flex pole. My issue, and this may be where you say I'm being petty, is that the  aerial is angled back and is over my airspace and sitting over my end solar panel. I went next door and told my neighbour my concern about birds sitting on the  aerial and guano issues as well as shading potential interns of the panel.  He said he'd ring the installer. Next morning, he is cleaning in his garden. I saw him and asked if he'd spoken to his installer. He said yes and the chap couldn't get back for 2 weeks.i asked if it could not be sooner, could the aerial not just be slightly moved when the discussion became heated. He said I had no rights to the space above my roof, I had to look at other aerials In the immediate area and he'd taken pictures and would do something if birds mucked Inthe panels and if it was him, he would have bought panels from a company who visited to clean them. I told him I fully appreciated the signal issue but asked could he not have the aerial on the chimney as I do and he told me not to be stupid as he had a dish as well and dishes cannot go on a chimney. I told him I was aware of this. He was by now shouting at me to listen and as I said, it became heated. He then said if I thought the air above my homeward mine I could sort the issue and he would cancel the installer call back. I rang his installer. My neighbours had not recontacted him. He asked if my concern was birds pooping on my panels  and the metal Ariel shadow would have no impact on panel generation and he would ring my neighbour. I am on my own and hate conflict and feel a little intimidated, but am also sure I've done nothing wrong. He told me it was my responsibility to have come out as the work was being done. So, please be frank, am I being petty? Should I just live with this ? I'm aware neighbour issues can escalate and have no desire for that, I just want the darned thing angling slightly away from my solar panel. My aeriels are the chimney ones...his is the new one at the front aspect. Thanks for reading this. 
    • Sorry I should have seen that. Vcs always reply to SARS at the very last minute 
    • Sar(email to VCS) went on 07/08/19 and CPR letter went on 14/08/19 to dcb legal.
    • Thank you all for your input so far. I have now received a letter back from my CPR 31.14 stating 'CPR 31.14 is not relevant to small claims matter, pursuant to cpr 27.2......we are under no obligation to disclose the documentation at this stage.' I assume this response is expected?   I have reworded my defence and made it more succinct, I'm not sure what else I could add?   1. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.   2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.   3. Signage at the site is not sufficient. A sign is present on the left hand side of the entrance, away from the driver, and therefore cannot be easily read by the driver of a passing vehicle. On closer inspection this sign states ’Refer to the full Terms & Conditions signs located throughout the car park’. Signs are located so that information is often obscured by other parked cars and is difficult to read. These signs state ‘Entry to or use of this privately operated and managed car park is subject to the current terms and conditions of vehicle control services ltd. Motorists/persons utilising this car park hereby accept in full the terms and conditions.’ Therefore, the driver is deemed to have agreed to the terms and conditions by having entered the car park before knowing what those terms and conditions are. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.   4. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the civil procedure rules 1998    In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 
  • Our picks

Brian2009

Dog on lead bit another dog not on a lead

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2147 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

My wife took our Labrador out for a walk on the beach. He was on his lead. Another dog came towards my wife, and because my wife was walking on seaweed she slipped when he pulled. She did not let go of the lead. The two dogs had a coming together, which resulted in the other dog getting bitten. The owner has now present me with a bill. While I agree that my dog was the cause of the injury, he was at all time on the end of short lead (3 foot long) which my wife still had hold of, whilst the other dog was running free. Why should I be responsible for the other owner not having his dog under control?

How do I respond to his bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your dog bit the other, it makes no odds that it was on a lead. Under control means on a leash and muzzled.

 

 

What injuries did the other dog sustain? Is there any proof?


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proof is only the vets bill. If one takes your version of Under control as being on a lead and muzzled, why do the police or dog wardens not take action against every dog owner who fails to muzzle their dog? And why is a dog on a lead not considered more 'under control' than one running free?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a dog bites another dog , then by definition it was not under control. Im a dog owner myself and the only reason I don't use a muzzle is because my collie is only a year old and was brought up both before and after I rescued it, around kids and plenty of other dogs so he knows how to behave.

 

The bad part about your predicament is that because your dog did bite another then it would be considered 'not under the owners control'.

 

Imagine if your dog had bitten a person, you could be looking at losing your dog.

 

 

Can I ask a question?

 

What was the other dog doing to cause your dog to attack? Im thinking you could use mitigating circumstances and come to a compromise.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check on the local legislation and whether the dog should have been on a lead. If so, tell the other owner to take a hike. Your dog was under control and the other dog was not and probably was the instigator. If the other dog had been on a lead, the incident would not have happened.

If it was our dog which was on a lead regardless or not whether there is legislation there is no ways we would pay because as far as we are concerned our dog was under control and defending itself.

If it was a human and the human got bitten, then the human would be at fault as they should not have approached a strange dog without the owner's permission and tried to pet it or similar!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Renegadeimp

The other dog came to sniff bits, I suspect, but as my wife was on the ground, having slipped on wet seaweed, possibly our dog went into protection mode.

 

Having spoken to the local police dog handler, his view was, 'Your dog on lead, other dog loose, responsibility for control lies with other dog owner, therefore they will be very lucky to get judgement in Small claims court.'

 

Happy to compromise, I pays for cleaning wifes clothes because of smelly seaweed, and compensation for loss of dignity, and he pays his own vets bill, and puts his dog on a lead if it will not obey his commands!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh gotcha brian. The problem you will have now is actually proving it. It doesnt matter what the police officer thinks, in court it is the evidence that is presented before the judge. I would suggest some kind of mediation and see how that goes. If you are willing to try mediation ( means you accept partial fault, but not complete and still want to find a favourable outcome) then courts look more favourably on it as it is achieved without a CCJ etc.

 

Can i ask what type of dogs were involved?


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mines a Labrador, the other a Shar Pei. What do I need to prove? Clothes smelling of seaweed? loss of dignity? or that my dog was actually involved, and on a lead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

problem is the animals act of 1971 is a bit vague as to what is "damage" and forseeable. The damage in that legislation is for dogs biting humans, not other dogs and that seems to recognise that dogs do bite so it is down to what is forseeable. Is the breed of the dog classified as dangerous? does the dog have a history of biting? Is the use of a lead properly "restraint"? Now, the last bit is really the nub of the matter as it can be argued that any action that allows a dog to bite anything is not proper restraint so the liklihood of a court deciding one way or the other is akin to tossing a coin.

A judge may well decide that dogs biting other dogs is outside the legislation so without previous history there is no case to answer or they may decide that you fall foul of the restraint bit that catches just about any situation if interpreted that way.

Do you have leagl cover on your house/pet insurance? Be worth checking out before taking a decision to pay or defend. Personally I would suggest that the owner of the bitten dog has the most to lose by going to court so perhaps an offer of 50% of the bill without accepting liability might end the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the other dog aggressive in anyway or just coming to say 'hello' ?

If your dog was defending itself then, then they should pay their own vets bill.

However IMHO if their was no aggression by the other dog and just being a dog, then you should pay, irrespective of any other circumstances.

If as you say your dogs behaviour was caused by your wife slipping over, then why should the other owner have to pay for that ( cause and effect ). just one of those things that happen.

I don't think any body will label your dog as aggressive because of this.

Agree with ericsb and maybe offer 50%.

Seen it all before a dog comes up to have a 'sniff' ( on or off the lead ) all ok for a few seconds then one has a go and bites the other! aggression! so the aggressor should pay.

Just because a dog is on a lead does not ensure control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...