Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please do although obviously I don’t know the facts from your side but at least I can tell you how much of a cut and paste job it is.
    • Please check back for a full reply tomorrow. However, it would help if you would introduce pergo spaces into a story full stop it's very long and especially for people with small screens it's very difficult to follow when it is so compacted.   I think this straight has become rather confused because of the third party account which we received at the outset. I think it will probably be helpful if you could repost your story but on a new thread and more openly spaced please.   Then we can start to have a closer look at it. However, as I've already suggested, I think there are two issues. The question of your liability in the accident and the problem of how you have been persuaded to take a rental car at such a high rate.    I would suggest that you hold off telephoneing anyone until we have had a closer look.before you do anything on the telephone. You have obviously had some very important conversations but you don't have any evidence of them. Although the other side may say that they have recorded them, you you may find it difficult to get hold of those recordings if in fact those recordings incriminate them in any way. for instance if they have promised you that you don't have to pay anything for the hire car, that would be an extremely useful conversation to have but you may find that it is difficult to get hold of.   please start a new thread it will be much easier to continue from there                                
    • When I sadly lost my job a while back, i reportd it immpediately to DWP as you are supposed to, but didnt realise at the time that the day I reported to them was the day before I was paid out for the last month. I was actually paid extra whem I left as it was cheaper than redundancy fort the business and at the time it was a good financial move (so I thought).   I was paid on Fri 26th Jan, they paid me out 2 months in one go. I reported to DWP on the 22nd of Han that I was made unemployed, had the letters and evidence. As they spun the story, because of their assesment dates and that, my first payment was on the 1st May and reassured that it works the other way around. That when work starts again, if I dont actually receive money from the company during the assesment period, there wont be an issue as it balances up.   Can I believe this or was it another spun story? I'm concerned that as I'll be paid monthly, (Starting on the 15th paid on the last day of the month), assment ends on the 22nd. Tha they'll take that money into consideration.   I'm just concerned due to the disparity it would cause between 4 odd months I endured with zero income because of how their system works and whatever they ahe in place to counter at this end of the claim.   Anywa, it's just awonder.   Cheers,   Ade    
    • Hi, OP sister here, im going to try and explaine in full details from start to present and see if you have any advice for me on what i can do. on 15/1/2021  at 16:25pm i was traveling along hazlebarrow cresent wich is on my estate at around 30mph, its a tight road with cars parked along the left hand side, as i proceeded through, a van ( which was parked on my left hand side, facing towards me) pulled out from the side of the road, he stopped the van wich resulted in the van being at an angled stationary position on the road. I breaked immediately but the ice and snow skidded my tyers, i skidded into the drivers side of his van, my car bounced off his van and sent my vehicle head first into the back of a parked car ( wich was originally parked at the back of the van before he set off from the side of the road. I will refer to the van driver as MR seddon. ( im going to attatch a street veiw picture and diagram wich will be more helpful in understanding how the accident accured ect) .  The owner of the parked car, which i will refer to as Mr simpson came out of his house. Myself, mr seddon and mr simpson exchanged details and took photos, then i left the scene as my first concern, understandably was to contact my midwife and the hospital. I live just round the corner from the scene of the accident so i slowly drove my car to my property. I contacted Go skippy the next day 16/1/21 and informed them of the accident and gave them all the details ect . by the following monday 18/1/21 i had a call from AX who said they was dealing with my claim as go skippy will not deal with it as i am third party insured. Over the next few days, i complied with their requests ( gave them a written statment of what happened, sent them pictures of the damage to my vehicle and mr seddons van ect). Then on the 19/1/21 AX contacted me again and asked if i need a curtesy vehicle, my first response was ' how much will that cost me?' Of which she replied ' nothing because your insurance covers the cost'. I agreed to the curtesy vehicle and the vehicle was delivered to me on the 20/1/21.  Over the coming weeks, AX and i had regular contact about my claim and updated me in regards to my own vehicle. At one point she said it could be deemed a 50/50 liability. an engineer had collectes my car, deemed in a total loss as the damage was more than 66% of its total value and written my car off . i had a call from a lady from AX and she said they have valued the car and i will be payed out £2200 . i asked when and she said ' we will send you a cheque out for £358 in the post, and the remaining balance will be payed out by Admirel but this may take a few weeks more' .  I didnt hear nothing for around 2 weeks so i comtacted AX again for an update, she told me that admirel are refusing liability and there now in dispute. Every time i contacted them they said the same thing ' admirel are refusing liability' i asked them why admirel consider themSelf not liable and she read from the notes ' mr seddon said he was driving along the road, the corsa ( my vehicle) was at high speed coming towards me , i beeped my horn and tried moving out of the way but i couldnt because of the ice and the snow and the corsa hit my van' . the lady at AX said the problem is that the damage to both our vehicles is consistant with both our stories and due to there being no witnesses, no cctv or dash cam footage- no one can prove who is at fault. I then questioned why i had been told i was being paid out £2200 and she said 'well we have to advice you the estimated value' of wich i replied 'no, there was no 'advice' - i was told it was a done deal i was getting paid £2200 and she told me i had a cheque arriving in the post!!!.  The lady then told me she had requested a ' none prejudice payment' from admirel and waiting for a response.   Shortly after this phone call, AX contacted me again and asked if i had the funds to repair my own vehicle or buy another one, ( im.assuming admirel refused to pay the ' none prejudice payment) I told them No i do not as i have a baby due and even if i did have the funds, why on earth would i fork out to repair my own vehicle when i wasnt at fault ?! . she said ok im going to pass this to managment and see what we can do .   I contacted AX again and asked for an update and expressed how unhappy i was with their service as i felt like they hadnt fought my corner, bowed down to admirel and then had the cheek to ask me to repair my own vehicle . again she said ' its still in dispute, admirel are not budging i have to pass this on to management. She then asked me for 3 months bank statements to 'prove' i dont have the funds to repair my vehicle myself. I thought this was ridiculous and stated that even if i had the funds, why would i repair my own vehicle when im.not at fault!? Obviously this has been on going since middle of january, pretty fed up. My brother come to this forum and you guys had mentioned the hire car rates may fall back on me. I contacted AX first thing this morning regarding this. I made it clear that they can collect the vehicle to stop the daily charges as i do not want to be in thousands of pounds worth of debt when i am a lone parent with a new born baby. and the lady told me ' we will try every avenue to recover the cost from Admirel for the hire car charges, if this means taking them to court, even if this is unsuccessful, considering you comply with your hire vehicle contract and you work with us with your claim ( which you have been doing) you will not be liable for this debt and if worst comes to worst and admirel will not pay, we will just wipe the debt off' . i made her repeat several times that i will not be liable for this debt and she said i have told you my name, and these calls are recordered and i am telling you that this debt will not be on you to pay . She then said that if i was to give AX the hire car back now, then it would jepordise everything. And she said ' we gave you that hire vehicle because we beleive your not at fault so you can keep using it as we know you need transport' I then questioned the need for bank statements again and she told me the reason they need bank statements is so if it goes to court - AX can justify why i needed the hire car for so long ( because i didnt have the funds to repair my vehicle or buy another one) and also so they can prove they have tried every root possible.    After the phonecall it got me thinking about how she said ' aslong as you comply with your hire car contract your not liable for any charges for the hire car' . will they find any fault with the contract just to try and lumber me with the debt? , as it seems pretty fishy how they would just ' wipe off' thousands of pounds if admirel refuse to pay.  And also, she said if i gave the hire car back it would jepodise the case . so when the lady rang me the other week asking if i had funds to repair or buy myself a new vehicle , if i had said yes, ill buy a car tomorrow and come collect the curtesy one. Then what? Wouldnt that ' jepodise' the case?    As you can imagaine, my heads spinning. Stressed and dont know what to do. I dont even care about a pay out , i just want to give the hire car back and be completely done with AX . but now im scared if i give the car back i will be lumbered with thousand of pounds worth of debt from the hire car charges.  Tomorow i am going to read thoroughly through the ' hire car contract' . i am going to give them another call and record them saying i am not liable for the debt. Any advice on how i can just give the hire car back to them without me being liable to pay the debt?  Thank you Gemma
    • Pubs in England report high demand bookings from the 12 April opening date for beer gardens. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies
  • Recommended Topics

Puppy with serious Heart Murmur - How to take action


Recommended Posts

Hi all, I am looking for some advice on action to take against a dog breeder who I feel has sold me a puppy with a misleading action.
I'll try my best to be concise, yet provide as much info as possible - strap yourselves in:

17th September - £200 cash deposit paid for pup (only around a week old at this point)

1st November - Collected pup, and paid remaining £800 cash.
Minimal paperwork given with the pup, but potentially crucially, one piece of paperwork, signed by the Breeder, which states: "VET CHECKED: 29th October"

7th November - First vaccination appointment at our Vets.
Vet immediately finds a serious (grade 5-6 out of 6) heart murmur. He remarks that it is "the worst he's ever seen/heard in a puppy".
He immediately refers pup to a Cardio Specialist hospital for further checks, to determine what is causing the murmur. Her appt is 19th Nov.

I have contacted the breeder to let her know (as this can be hereditary) and try to sort out a refund / discount for the initial money spent on pup.
The only option she has given us is to return our pup and she will refund. 
We are not comfortable with returning pup because:
1. We have formed a strong emotional bond with pup
2. Having spoken to her recently, we are unsure how she might "deal" with pup's health issues.


During my back and forth's on messages with the Breeder, she has admitted that when the puppies were microchipped on the 29th October "because of Covid the nurses did the microchips so they weren't checked as they had been before when microchipped".
It has now got to the point where she doesn't reply to messages and asks that we contact her via post / solicitors etc (hoping I'll just give up / go away, I imagine!)

So what we essentially have is two options for what has happened here:
1. The breeder is lying, and had prior knowledge, and has sold us the pup without letting us know about the heart issue.

2. The breeder didn't ensure the pups were vet checked before sale, but still signed a document saying they had been.

The upshot of this is that our initial cardio consultation and scans could cost £1000-1500.
Then of course depending on what meds/operations she may need, you are looking at potentially thousands of pounds (our appt is on the 19th Nov - when we'll find out more accurate figures).
The Insurance won't pay out because of two reasons:
1. The problem was discovered within the first 14 days of the policy
2. They won't pay out on things that pups are born with, and it's pretty hard to develop a serious heart murmur from nothing in 8 weeks.

So... Having paid £1000 for pup, potentially £1000-1500 for a diagnosis, and then potential thousands for treatment(s) all without insurance covering anything, I am looking into taking the Breeder to small claims court.

Do I have a good chance of winning back either the pup money, money for any diagnosis/treatments, or even both?

Thanks in advance for any advice. Here for questions.

PS: I also have my suspicions that she is not a proper registered breeder, when she should be. And also potentially HMRC may be interested in her cash only puppy policy...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit confused as to whether the dog was micro-chipped or wasn't micro-chipped. Is there a typo up there? Also, what is the relevance to your story?

The dog is treated just as any other goods under the consumer rights act and that means that it must be of satisfactory quality or else the retailer is in breach of contract.

The contract is voidable and that means that you can choose to cancel the contract – reject the dog – and get your money back together with any expenses which you might reasonably have incurred as a result of the breach of contract.

On the other hand you can opt to keep the dog and sue for damages. I suppose the damages could be quite extensive here because you may be talking about long-term care. On the other hand, it will be more comfortable if you can keep their potential claim within the small claims rules and that means that you have to keep a claim to something less than £10,000. If you exceed that then you go on to something called the fast track and that means that if you happen to lose – which is unlikely – that you could be saddled with the other sides costs.

On the small claims track, win or lose, you don't have to bear the other party's costs other than very basic costs which are pretty were negligible.

I can understand that you have formed an attachment to the dog. Also I would have thought that if you are dealing with a professional breeder, that if you return the dog then they might decide to destroy it.

Please will you tell us the name of the breeder. We like everything open and transparent here – as long as you are honest and straight dealing then it is better to be upfront about everything.

Also, what is the prognosis for this dog.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BankFodder - Thanks for your quick reply.

The dog is microchipped. The breeder has claimed on the document that at the same time as being microchipped, the puppies were "vet checked". If they had been, she'd know about the murmur.
My suspicion is that she got a non-veterinary person to fit the microchip. Or got the Vet to do it and then lied about the "vet check".

 

If we go to court we will aim to stay within the small claims boundaries.

 

I am not willing to expose the breeder just yet, but rest assured if I don't get a positive result from either her, or court, it'll be everywhere.

Do you think I have a strong case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it quite amazing because in fact almost nobody who comes here and is bought a pet has been prepared to disclose the name of the person who sold them the animal.

I'm sorry but I find it completely irresponsible and it places other animals in danger as well as causing problems for other prospective purchasers simply because this seems to be some kind of omerta.

 

As I've said, as long as everybody is straightdealing and  transparent then full details should be disclosed. It happens with all other retailers I don't understand why pet breeders are somehow privileged.

Also, if you look through the threads on this sub- forum relating to breeders which have sold sickly animals, pretty well no one ever comes back here and gives us an update either.

Bravo

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry I don't think that you are acting in your best interests or in the interests of other customers or in the interests of the animals.

But I gather from your earlier post was that if you get the result you want then you won't be telling anybody about who it was you were dealing with. In other words there is pretty well no incentive on this breeder to up their game and there is no valuable advice for anybody else who might have the same problem with the same breeder.

I'm struggling to understand what advantage you think you might have by not revealing the name of the breeder right now. Maybe you'd like to explain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

When you say the insurance won't pay out, do you mean your own or the one that the breeder took out on the puppy. When we bought our dog, the breeder had a temporary policy for three months that we could either take over or replace.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PoorlyBorder said:

The only option she has given us is to return our pup and she will refund. 

This is the only option any responsible breeder would offer.

 

Please note what BankFodder quite correctly pointed out

1 hour ago, BankFodder said:

The dog is treated just as any other goods under the consumer rights act 

You don't get to keep the goods and the money just because it's an animal if you choose to go down the consumer rights path - which you're perfectly entitled to do but it's a bit difficult to make a case if the 'retailer' has already reacted appropriately.  If you have incurred extra expenses prior to the retailer offering a full refund then it would be completely reasonable for you to look to recover those.  If you went ahead with specialist diagnosis/treatment after that offer from the breeder I'm not so sure that's recoverable.

 

1 hour ago, PoorlyBorder said:

My suspicion is that she got a non-veterinary person to fit the microchip.

What's suspicious about that?  Anyone can train to microchip animals, many breeders time their training course to when they have a litter ready to be microchipped.  Do not rely on that as an 'and another thing' against the breeder.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the goods which have been supplied are defective then there is no obligation on the purchaser to return them. Instead the purchaser is completely entitled to insist on repairs. This means that the purchaser could insist on the breeder paying all necessary health bills for a fairly reasonable period of time.

This is why one would need to project the likely treatments et cetera required in order to deal with this defect and to understand the prognosis for the health problem.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BankFodder said:

If the goods which have been supplied are defective then there is no obligation on the purchaser to return them. Instead the purchaser is completely entitled to insist on repairs.

I understand the paper exercise but when these things get to court it's never that cut and dried.  It depends very much on the judge on the day and the individual circumstances.  I haven't seen many but I have seen a few, both from the point of the breeder and the wronged buyer.  When it's an issue of a 'repair' it isn't easy to quantify (especially with something like a juvenile heart murmer) and an owner choosing to take on that responsibility when they don't need to doesn't automatically entitle them to unlimited medical expenses.  A repair should put the item right - not possible in this case.   If it were a defective fridge it would be highly unusual for a judge to consider it reasonable for the claimant to insist continuous maintenance (repair) far in excess of the cost of the item when a full refund was offered and there is no one off repair possible.  Not saying it can't ever happen, just that I've never seen it.

Edited by hightail
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I agree with the principle of what you're saying but comparing this to a fridge doesn't work because one doesn't form an emotional attachment with a fridge – and of course fridges are turned out by the thousands and they're all identical so there's no problem replacing a broken one with a new one.

When it comes down to animals then I think in terms of calculating damages for medical expenses, I wonder whether one doesn't start to call on the principles involved in assessing damages for personal injury for human beings.
I'm really not too sure of what the approach would be. But I'm afraid that fridges for animals doesn't work.

Of course another solution would be to chuck the dog in the bin and simply claim for money back – and I can imagine that most breeders faced with this problem, would then end up destroying the dog.

And in case it hasn't come across so far in the various posts I've made over the years, I'm completely opposed to this kind of animal eugenics – and frankly I think that both sides – purchaser and breeder deserve what they get.

I'm still amazed by the reluctance of people who purchase defective animals to disclose the identity of the person or outfit which sold it to them.

I think it's outrageous and I think it makes the purchaser complicit in the problem – although of course they were complicit in the problem in the first place by buying the animal instead of going to a Rescue Centre.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BankFodder said:

I'm really not too sure of what the approach would be. But I'm afraid that fridges for animals doesn't work.

I agree 100% which is why I'm always so wary of telling people that they can rely on consumer law as if it were like for like.  It's never that simple.  A juvenile heart murmer is not unusual in young animals, often diagnosed at first vaccinations and resolved on its own a few weeks later.  Admittedly a grade 5 is higher than I've known before but it is a completely subjective assessment. 

 

4 hours ago, BankFodder said:

I can imagine that most breeders faced with this problem, would then end up destroying the dog.

The buyer says they don't want to return the pup because they don't trust the breeder to deal with it appropriately and yet they were perfectly happy to buy a pup from them.  They must have been happy enough with the environment and level of care.  I've never known a breeder to destroy an animal they've taken back except on veterinary advice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, hightail said:

The buyer says they don't want to return the pup because they don't trust the breeder to deal with it appropriately and yet they were perfectly happy to buy a pup from them.  They must have been happy enough with the environment and level of care.  I've never known a breeder to destroy an animal they've taken back except on veterinary advice. 

 

Sorry, but I expect that it's far more likely that the breeder simply doesn't want anyone to know what they have eventually done with the animal.

I don't really expect that the majority of breeders love their animals. Maybe they like the breed – and they like the money – but at the end of the day they are running a business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BankFodder said:

Sorry, but I expect that it's far more likely that the breeder simply doesn't want anyone to know what they have eventually done with the animal.

That opinion certainly fits a required narrative.  I have no idea how all these evil breeders go about it.  No vet I know or have ever used would happily euthanise animals on a regular basis for a breeder without question and in the UK it isn't as if we can get hold of the necessary drugs to do it ourselves. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it fits a required narrative – but the idea that breeders might want to get drugs to kill unhealthy animals rather than find some alternative method also fits a "required narrative".

 

In terms of the breeders all being "evil" – these are your words not mine.

In fact there are arguments to say that it is the buyers which are motivating the market and not the breeders.

You might be interested to know that handling stolen goods under the theft act 1968 is considered to be more serious than the substantive act of theft under the same act – on the basis that if there weren't people who were prepared to purchase or deal in stolen goods, then people wouldn't steal.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/11/2020 at 16:43, honeybee13 said:

Hi.

 

When you say the insurance won't pay out, do you mean your own or the one that the breeder took out on the puppy. When we bought our dog, the breeder had a temporary policy for three months that we could either take over or replace.

 

HB

I mean my insurance won't pay out, the breeder doesn't have any.

The two things they won't pay out for:
- Conditions present from birth
- Conditions discovered within first 14 days of Policy start date

 

Both apply to this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your responses. It is a truly distressing time for us and our pup, and the feedback is appreciated.

 

It's a tough one with the Fridge V Puppy debate - you'd like to think a court would see it as different due to emotion but as Hightail says, potentially not(?)

 

Pup goes in for her first consultation at the Cardio specialist on Thurs 19th, so I'll keep you posted. 

Once we know a more detailed diagnosis, and potential costs of "repair" I'll need to make a decision on:
1. Going to small claims court
2. Reporting Breeder to any necessary bodies
3. Exposing Breeder in public domain
4. All of the above

Link to post
Share on other sites

And if the breeder gives you a successful financial outcome, do they get to keep their anonymity?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to hear it

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Update - I sent a letter of intent to the breeder on Saturday, and it was received on Monday.

The letter gives 28 days to respond, otherwise I will take legal action.

In any case I will eventually reveal identity of the breeder and report to various authorities. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why 28 days?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well don't think I'm being territorial about it, but you come to us for help and then you use templates and advice from other organisations. I don't understand why you mix and match.

28 days is far too long – especially given the difficulties you have had so far. Pre-action protocol only requires 14 days. The 28 day now takes you slap into Christmas and New Year's et cetera and causes additional complications.

You should understand that organisations like Which?, Citizens Advice and so forth are all very well but their approach is far too gentle and am afraid that to deal with companies or traders that won't honour their consumer obligations to you, you need to be assertive and keep them on the back foot.
I'm not too sure how you think that giving the breeder 28 days rather than 14 days places you at any kind of advantage or that the breeder is likely to be more cooperative. Short, rigid deadlines are far more likely to keep your potential defendant focused on the issues.

You have sent the 28 day letter now so there's nothing you can do about it. However I think you need to settle on where you are going to take your advice from and stick with it. We are quite happy to stand aside – and it would be better if you did decide because unlike Which? and citizens Advice we don't get paid and we put our effort in for free.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...