Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi All   After a bit of advice to see where I stand. Bought a car in Sept 2022 on pcp. Been told it had a big inspection and was good to go. Had many issues with it throughout the year including trims coming off the car and sunroof not closing.   While getting the sunroof repaired at month 12, in Sept 2023, the bodyshop guy said your cars been in a bad accident. Garage said it hasn't but offered to take the car back at half of what I paid for it as long as I buy a replacement from them before inspecting it (probably damage control) (car was £78k, said they'd offer £40k "trade in value" as if doing me a favour).   Ended up getting a forensic inspection done for £2400 in Dec 2023, confirmed car was in a bad smash (write off level but unrecorded on hpi) and potentially unsafe to drive - front end is slightly bent towards 1 side, what looks like a hairline crack on the chasis, overspray, bonner with patches of filler all over it, damaged rubbers etc   Raised complaint to finance company and few weeks ago to FOS... just wondering what people's experiences have been like going through the FOS, main thing that concerns me is that it was 12-13 months after I bought the car that I realised what caused these issues and raised the issue to the garage/ finance co but the damage/ misaligned panels are actually visible in the advert photos which I saved thankfully.    Dealership has had my car for 4 weeks to let a few bodyshops look at it (without giving me a courtesy car!!!) Not giving me any updates either because I went to the FOS about it and didnt want to speak to them over the phone anymore as opposed to emails. Note: hanging trim was reported within 3 months but due to part delays it didn't come until like July 2023, within 2 months the piece came off again, claimed under repairers warranty for another replacement 6 weeks ago and within 2 weeks this time the trim is coming off AGAIN (assuming it won't stay on due to the car being actually bent out of shape slightly)   Any idea if I have a good case or if there's anything else I can do?   Thanks
    • After the dealer failed to refund the money I checked the sort code and account number to reveal which bank received the money. It turned out to be HSBC BUSINESS DIRECT ONLINE. I called them and they confirmed the account name wasn’t Langley Cars though obviously didn’t tell me the correct account name. My bank contacted HSBC after I reported this to be fraud and they did in fact do a charge back but reversed the decision when the dealer sent a copy of the receipt he gave me for the deposit where it said it was non-refundable. I said that doesn’t mean anything when the car should never have been put on the forecourt when it was a death trap, and not fit for purpose.   The MOT revealed only a few of the faults which he agreed to correct in a week as I needed the car to travel out of London for work. He didn’t meet that deadline either because there were other more serious problems as identified by my independent car check. The same mechanic informed the dealer of these faults. The car wasn’t fixed by the agreed date due to the extensive repairs needed. So he was in breach of our contract on many levels.    I requested the bank find out the correct name of the account and they said the only information they had was like you said was the account number and sort code. I challenged the bank stating that whenever I create a new payee if the name doesn’t match the registered account name, it declines the creation of the proposed payee. So what happened in this instance?    I checked company’s house using the address from where the dealership is located and there was neither the two names, one was aa advertised in AUTOTRADER and the other on the courtyards entrance. I thought as I had made payment to the dealers ‘Trading as’ name that it would more than likely be enforceable than any other. Indeed the Bailiff was the one to call me and say that a variation of the warrant of control needed to be done before he could go and enforce the order. I cross-checked the address on Companies House website and got 3 different business names. Only one appears to be car related.  I am unsure as to what I can do within the variation of the warrant which the bailiff felt was appropriate. I will speak to him again Monday. 
    • Their PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. iit was not posted until 13 days after the event for one thing meaning it would be deemed to arrive on the 15th day instead of the 14th day. Now though we cannot expect that your PCN also missed the deadline there were still two other things wrong with the wording of the PCN that if your PCN has the same wording as your friends means that your PCN would not be compliant either. Their PCN does not specify the period of parking as required n the Act. It does show the ANPR arrival and departure dates but as those times include driving from the entrance to finding a parking place then later driving from the parking place to the exit cannot be described as a parking period. I suspect that the " Important Note" on your form will also not comply though I cannot be sure until we see your actual PCN.The reason I can't confirm that is because they sent out the PCN too late they have said that they are pursuing your friend on the assumption that they were the driver as well as the keeper-something that Courts do not accept. But it does look as if your PCN is not compliant which means that the keeper cannot be held liable to pay the charge. Only the driver can be made to pay it. If you have not appealed and revealed who was driving, there is no way that  Excel know who was driving.  So just to be sure please send them an SAR . On another topic do you have any proof that you did not stay there for so long just to really spoil Excel's day.
    • As your first PCN was a Notice to Driver which would have been followed by a Notice to keeper over a month later [even though it may only state Parking Charge notice] it is even more necessary to send PE an SAR. If either document fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act  2012 Schedule 4 then both you and your father are in the clear. So you do not need to worry about is any paperwork from unregulated debt collectors and fifth rate solicitors. The only thing to look out for is a Letter of Claim and all you have to do is respond with a snotty letter back to them .  
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Licensed breeder Puppy farm & genetically sick pups.


Lesley A

Recommended Posts

First of all you have referenced the Sale of Goods Act. This is been superseded by the 2015 Consumer Rights Act.

By and large for your purposes the effect is the same.

You are entitled to purchase goods which are a satisfactory quality and which remain that way for a reasonable period of time.
You are not obliged to accept a refund or a replacement. It is a matter for your option.

As long as you have got an independent inspection of the animal' s condition then you are on your way. A second corroborative independent inspection would be useful plus quotations.

It seems to me also that you should get a prognosis in terms of an estimate for future treatment bills over the next several years. Presumably the animal is uninsurable – or if you can find an insurance policy which will deal with existing conditions and that will be helpful.

Get the reports together. Get the quotations.

Send a letter of claim and then start your action.

You will need to keep the claim to less than £10,000 if you want to operate within the small claims limits. The small claims court basically means that even if you lose you will not suffer unduly from an award of costs against you.

Also if you go beyond the small claims limit it will encourage the defendant to incur costs that may be to use the danger of costs as a leverage against you.

Get your figures together. Draft a letter of claim and then come back here so that we can have a look at everything

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, can you please tell us how much you paid for this animal

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that your expectations in respect of what you can get from the court are extremely unrealistic.

Compensation for the pain and suffering the dog – forget it. It wouldn't even be recoverable if it was you.

Getting in order that limits her breeding et cetera – forget it. If you have an issue then you need to contact the RSPCA get them to mount inspection and take appropriate action.

Know what you're proposing does not count as a letter of claim.

Come back here with the reports and let's have a look.

Maybe you could think about keeping your writing brief in future. We don't need all the narrative. We are just volunteers and I'm sorry to say, at the end of the day it was you who decided to buy a genetically developed dog from a breeder.
I'm afraid this kind of experience comes with the territory although I completely support you in wanting to sort the breeder out. At the end of the day it is simply a type of eugenics

Link to post
Share on other sites

Willows???

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting confused about this.

You will be best off getting two expert opinions and quotations from independent sources.

The opinions should address immediate remedial needs to put the puppy into a safe condition – in other words to address all the immediate health concerns.
Then separately they should address the prognosis and likely treatment needed to keep the puppy in good health for a number of years. I have no idea how long.

Don't try to go for a money grab on this. You will be viewed with suspicion anyway. Your suggestion that you might claim £3000 for the pain and suffering of the dog was absurd and also undermines your own credibility.

I would also look around the Internet to see if you can see anybody else complaining about this breeder. If you do find anything then post up the links here

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Please post off the copy of the letter which you sent here in PDF format

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we can do much until you give us the information we need.

Also, you will find unhelpful trying to ask us to support you and at the same time asking trading standards to support you.

You need to settle on one source of help so that there is no conflict and that there is consistency in the advice and quality of advice.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you write this letter to the breeders solicitors? How did you get their name and how do you know that they are acting for her?

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, the letter is long – unnecessarily long.

It will be helpful now if you would simply repeat in a brief chronology – bullet pointed – the events.

It has become so complicated that we need a summary.

Secondly, I understand that you have been sending letters and threats setting timescales for action and you haven't followed them up. I hope you realise that by doing this you lose all credibility and they realise that you are simply bluffing.

If you want to proceed with this then we will help you bring a claim that you will have to set deadlines and stick by them. I understand that you have cognitive issues but I'm afraid you will not be able to allow those to interrupt your timely responses and filing of documents.

There is no time here for mucking around for any reason.

If you want to issue a claim then please start off by giving us the summary that I have asked for
consider the fact that you will issue a claim and there will be tight deadlines and you will have to keep in contact with this forum and engage with this thread properly and without delay.

If you want to manage this then I expect that you can win the case – although it is no guarantee.
It will depend mainly on you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm certainly not aware of this 12 week deadline. When did you find that please? Please post a link.

14 days is the normal and I would be surprised if it was different in this case.

However – and although I am completely understanding of your cognitive issues – when you go into the court process, they will require that their deadlines are met and that court documents are supplied well in advance.

If you go to a hearing and you are face-to-face with the judge then certainly the judge is likely to be very sympathetic if you have certain issues but while it is just the paperwork and preparation for trial, I'm afraid that you will have to sort things out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for this chronology.

I see that you bought the animal and you were aware at the time that there was a great three murmur and you received a reduction because of that.
I have no idea what her memories – and it's not relevant to me.
However when it comes to the question of damages, if you are claiming for the kind of treatment required for a more serious murmur – you say it is a grade 5 murmur, then I would expect that the court would only want to make an award that represented the extra seriousness of the condition.

So, for instance – if it was £1000 for a vet to address a great three murmur but £4000 to address a grade 5 murmur, then the court would only award you the difference between the great three in the grade 5 because you knew of the grade three at the time that you purchased the animal.

Please could you itemise the damages that you are seeking – in bullet pointed form. And give a total.

Make sure it is all realistic – and can be supported by evidence – and this means proper veterinary reports and assessments

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be helpful if you got somebody to post the link that you are referring to which apparently says that you have to give three months notice.

Although I haven't seen it, I am quite certain that you have misunderstood the situation and that maybe doesn't apply to the kind of claim that you are considering bringing.

It sounds like the kind of pre-action protocol that exists for debt – and this is not debt.

In this red you initially referred to trading standards – and then your local authority – now you are referring to a Ministry of Justice website.

You are thrashing around and getting conflicting advice from different sources.

I suggest it's about time that you sell the one source and decided to stick with that.

He said that you have found a source which suggests that a beer can be liable for the full cost of care for life. Please can you provide that source. Give us a link.

If you refer to these kinds of information then we need a source.

On your calculation so far you have arrived at £9800. Normally small claims and County Court will not deal with future losses. They will only deal with losses incurred so far.

If you try to claim for future losses then I suspect that the part of your claim which refers to losses not yet incurred will be thrown out but you will have paid a higher claim fee to reflect the money your claiming and that won't be recoverable.

What are your losses incurred so far? If there are any outstanding surgical procedures which need to be done then it would be sensible to do those now and incur the costs and then go back and claim for those.

You certainly need to inform the breeder of every cost that you are incurring so that they can't later on challenge them and say that they weren't warned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with listing out future issues in your particulars of claim – separately from the main claim – but of course it will mean that you will incur a greater claim fee because the claim fees are calculated on the basis of the value of the claim.

In principle, future losses are not recoverable in this kind of thing – certainly not in small claims.
It's up to you if you want to try it.

The normal way to go would be to sue for your losses incurred so far and then to claim for further losses in the future. It could be useful to flag up to the court that you are expecting to incur further expenses and maybe the judge will suggest something.

I'm not quite sure exactly what to advise you on that particular point.

And you won't like what I'm about to say but I'm afraid that when one starts purchasing animals on the basis of their genetics – their eugenics – then all too often one finds that one is faced with the possibility of fragility and illness – and with a commensurate distress to the animal.
I certainly wouldn't be the one to suggest putting the animal down, but it is probably worth asking yourself why you decided to buy this particular animal/breed of animal – and whether you are acting in the best interests of the animal to give it a life with apparently continual suffering and need for medication.
There are thousands of healthy unwanted animals languishing in care homes around the country – and they all need a loving home.

We are helping you because this is what we do even though we may disapprove of the purchase you have made. We disapprove also very strongly of the breeder and these kinds of breeding programs.


I'm very pleased to see that the RSPCA seems to have distance itself from dog shows and Krufts and so forth. These animals are not ornaments. They are sentient beings.

I should point out that the comments I have made above are my own views. I have no idea what site team thinks about this kind of thing. They may differ from me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lesley A said:

 

However, it could also be argued that those pups on puppy farms are as much in need of rescue, love and care than any other rescue centre pets and that those who purchase them are saints. 

 

They wouldn't be there – if weren't people prepared to spend are a load of money to buy ornamental animals.

The penalties for handling stolen goods are greater than the penalties for theft. The reason for this is that it is felt that if they want people prepared to buy and sell stolen goods, then the level of theft will decline.
Same principle.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lesley A said:

The internet states that a Particulars of Claim should be detailed - as you said my original letter was too detailed,

once again, you are referring to something that you have found online without giving as the source.

This practice is that a particulars of claim should be as detailed as is necessary to identify the defendant, the cause of action and what is being claimed.

After that, any more detail hands clues to the defendant.

Draft a particulars of claim and post it here and will have a look.

Presented in well spaced numbered paragraphs.

The extract which you have posted from the Dog Breeders Reform Group is not at all authoritative.

At the very best it might be hearsay from the kennel club. Are you able to find exactly the same statement on the kennel club website? Even that wouldn't be completely authoritative in that it would necessary by the court but it would be an interesting start.

The Dog Breeders Reform Group seems to be simply a group of activists which apparently have the welfare of dogs in mind. Very noble of course and they lay out certain principles.
For instance:

Quote

What are the Problems with Dog Breeding in the UK?

Dog breeding in the UK has been poorly regulated. Many breeders pay little regard to the welfare needs of dogs used for breeding or their puppies. Dogs are often bred without prior testing for genetic diseases which may be passed on to their puppies. Unsound dogs may be bred with exaggerated physical features which compromise their health, welfare and dignity. Puppies are marketed and sold irresponsibly on-line.

Buying a puppy is often done with insufficient research, with buyers sometimes failing to follow the basic rule of seeing the puppy with its mother and siblings. Buyers may choose a type of dog because of their perceived ‘cuteness’ unaware that some physical features are harmful to a dog and can cause long term suffering. Buyers sometimes choose a breed which is unsuited to their location, home environment and lifestyle and some dog owners are unaware of the lifetime financial costs of caring for a dog, especially the cost of veterinary treatment.

In particular, flat-faced breeds such as Pugs, French Bulldogs and English Bulldogs have become popular. These dogs can suffer from serious health and welfare problems due to their body shape ('conformation')
WWW.DBRG.UK

Dog breeding in the UK has been poorly regulated. Many breeders pay little regard to the welfare needs of dogs used for breeding or their puppies...



Can you tell us how closely you followed the advice given in the above extract from the DBRG which you have referred us to

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Please start your own thread.

You shouldn't worry about anybody seeing anything on this forum as long as you are honest and straightdealing.

Having as much in the open as possible will encourage other victims to join the conversations and to post their stories.

This will help everybody

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again @Princess999 your best hope of dealing with this person is to start a new thread and you tell your story and to make everything as public as possible..

You just in your interests, the interest of others and the interests of the animals involved

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this:

Quote

FULL DETAILS ENCLOSED.
SUMMARY JUDGEMENT FOR: (PLUS DEFAULT JUDGEMENT FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND)
 

Also you seem to be claiming £475 for a legal representative – but I am not aware that you have a legal representative or that in any event, this fee would be recoverable. Please can you explain

 

Also you are saying that there are particulars of claim to follow – what might they be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote

On 7/6/23,  purchased a King Charles Spaniel pup from Elizabeth Turner who is a licensed breeder. The pup was advertised in freeads for a 'reduced' price of £550.00 due a grade 3 heart murmur. This was written on the breeders paperwork issued with the pup. I have since asked for evidence from her vets that this was actually a grade 3 murmur as this is far from true. 
The pup has a significan heart deformity that has resulted in his murmur being a grade 6 which is the worst grade possible. He has evident symptoms and could drop dead at any point. 

The high pressures in his heart are extreme, he has clotting and hormonal issues and was sold with a rife ear infection that had gone too deep to be successfully treated as discharge had travelled deep within the ear and regular ear washes cannot clean as deeply as is required. This means that a GA is necessary and extra precautions are needed for him to receive anaesthesia due to the bad heart and time in intensive care over night also required. 
The cardiac surgery he requires is approx £5K as along as everything goes well and it will give him a normal life expectancy and a symptomless life. 
He suffers collapse, breathlessness at rest, repeated flare ups of ear infections and urgently require two surgeries totalling approx £7.5/8K which I cannot fund. The breeder is affluent and can.
I allege the breeder is knowingly breeding genetically sick pups purely for money. She is failing to provide adequate veterinary care for the pups on sight and certainly not to animals that are sick and worth less as her distain for vet bills runs her actions.
As a licensed breeder, she is failing to adhere to her legal and statutory obligations and failing to take any responsibility for the sick animals she breeds. 
She is failing to all she possible can to screen for sick animals and thus prevent the breeding of the animals she breeds that are unfit (genetically) to be registered by the Kennel Club – therefore she is well aware her animals simply to pass their standards.
She had more than a reasonable knowledge that the puppies she produces will be born with costly conditions and I now believe she is failing to provide transparent declarations of their state of health otherwise why would a breeder be unwilling to provide veterinary evidence of the true state of health.
She fails to show pups with their mother on the basis she has just had a new log cabin built on a section of her abundant land and no animals, but her caged Pug can enter. She failed to humanise and socialise the pup into a domestic setting, so he feared humans and was unable to walk correctly on her interior floors that felt alien to his feet, she failed to ensure he was used to being handled and all this breaches her licensing rules and she failed to vaccinate or provide healthcare for a very sick animal.
She has refused to supply medical evidence of the pup’s parents as she is fully aware they should not have bred proving she had more that reasonable knowledge of the potential for sick pups.
She falsely advertised the pup by declaring a grade 3 murmur when it was sick and offered a refund of the original cost if I returned the much-loved pup to her negligent environment and I now have very good reason to believe she euthanises on sight without the supervision of a vet – this is illegal activity.

Your particulars of claim should be factual and should really contain the minimum of facts – simply sufficient to establish or cause of action without going into unnecessary detail at this point.
Much of what you have put here is to be substantiated by medical reports.

Do you have medical reports to support what you say?

I'm not sure that failing to socialise the animal – walking on interior floors et cetera is going to be recoverable unless you get a veterinary report which says that that would be expected and that it would be in breach of any normal contract for an animal if this had not been carried out.
I'm afraid that your assertion – however moving it might be – that the animal is in danger of being euthanised if it was returned, is probably not something that has any legal basis and is not going to produce a judgement from the court.

I'm afraid that this particulars of claim is far too involved. Far too emotional. Much of it is not based on any kind of recoverable cause of action. Some of it is speculative and you would not be able to prove it.
I'm afraid the fact that the breeder may be affluent has no bearing on your entitlement to damages.
Your assertion that she is well aware that the animals may be born with costly conditions is surmise – even if it might be true – are you able to substantiate this to a satisfactory standard?

I'm afraid that this particulars of claim are so disorganised that you will effectively be handing a victory to the breeder and of course the court will find it very difficult to disentangle the story and you will lose credibility.

The fact that she fails to show pups with their mothers because of some excuse – is neither here nor there. The important thing is that she didn't show you the pup with its mother and you accepted this.
You would have to have firm evidence of the fact that she was deliberately misleading you and that she was not telling the truth in respect of the reasons why she said that she could not show the pup with the mother before you could bring any action on this.

It's clear that you feel very strongly about the whole thing that I'm afraid that that is not enough in a court of law where a judge is being asked to make a decision.

The allegations you're making are really a matter for the RSPCA welfare and for the kennel club – or whatever other authority there exists for these kinds of animals. If you were able to show that the RSPCA welfare had taken an interest and had applied sanctions then this would be a good piece of evidence for you then to bring a court case.

Have you contacted the RSPCA about this? Have you contacted the kennel club or any other authority in respect of this?
Is this some particular breed which has some kind of club for this particular breed of animal? They might well be interested and they may be interested in taking action.

 

 

The litigant in person rate per hour is only available if you bring a case for a value which is beyond the small claims limit of £10,000. Then the litigant in person rate is about £19 per hour – not too sure what the present rate is.

 

Not only that, you wouldn't be able simply to claim some lump sum. You would have to detail the hours that you'd spent. The courts are very careful about awarding the kinds of costs and they would want to see a claim for what ever sum you have in mind thoroughly supported by evidence of the time that you'd spent, phone calls, other expenses et cetera.

I'm afraid that simply deciding that it's worth £475 is not going to work.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please post up a copy of the licensing conditions so that we can see them – together with a link to their source

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you refer to the last version of the N1, are you referring to the one which you posted up here last Friday at 1:30?
If you are, then that is the one that I have already commented on.

I was hoping that you are going to produce another version which would be more factual, more succinct, in numbered paragraphs – and less emotional.

At least that lot.

I also asked you if you had reported the matter to the RSPCA. Is there some reason that you haven't responded to this question?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want some help then you had better produce your proposed particulars of claim laid out in an orderly way – one point per paragraph and numbered paragraphs.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, we are aware of the cognitive et cetera problems that you are experiencing. However, apart from the fact that we are simply volunteers and our time is stretched anyway, I'm afraid that your personal predicament will not cut a lot of ice with the court – and certainly not with the defendant.

Also, if this goes to trial – and based on the nature of your claim and the amount you are claiming, it probably will – then you are going to have to do address the court, present a cohesive and convincing case – deal with a defendant and may be a defendant's lawyer if she decides to instruct one and I'm afraid that if you are finding it difficult already at this stage, then you really need to consider what you are doing.

I see that you have got all the motivation and all the enthusiasm that is needed – in spades. However you need a well structured and ordered mindset and you need to be to present your case in that way.

The document which you have posted above seems to be extremely incomplete. It doesn't set out any cause of action. It also makes allegation such as a breach of licensing conditions but you don't explain how that has happened.

You seem to be making claims for sums of money without any supportive evidence that those sums of money you are claiming is reasonable.

And you may not like what I'm going to say now – but I can imagine that at some point the court might consider that you are wasting money and that the animal should be put down.
And before you rise up in shock and horror – don't forget that courts deal with exactly the same questions in relation to the withdrawal or otherwise of life-support systems not only from elderly patients or people who have suffered trauma – but even from young children and babies.
When they make these decisions, the judges are taking a pragmatic view in terms of life expectancy, quality-of-life – and also the economic cost of maintaining a life throughout whatever limited expectancy that person might have.

Here we are dealing with an animal – which, like it or not, is simply a chattel – "goods".

Although the judge would not be able to order its destruction, I'm quite sure that the judge should have at the back of their mind the economic's involved and the practicality and the common sense of what you are asking.

At some point, the question might arise as to whether or not it is a better decision to award you the cost of a new animal rather than simply maintaining this one.

Once again, you may not like it – but in effect you have bought the animal equivalent of a used car and to use an insurance term, it may well be "beyond economical repair".

Being awarded damages to cover the cost of care for the life of a permanently injured person is one thing. Asking the court to make a similar kind of award to cover the cost of care for the life of a permanently sick animal is totally different – and I would rate your chances of success on that heading is pretty well Zero.

There is no point in beginning a claim with unrealistic expectations. It will simply cost you money, embarrassment, it will hand a victory to the other side for absolutely no reason at all.

You have probably gathered already from things that I have said earlier on in this thread – that I consider that the breeding of specialist pedigree animals is a kind of eugenics. I find the whole thing deplorable.
As far as it continues, it is clear that it is not properly regulated and that it is an industry where cowboys get involved in the cowboys only exist because there are customers around who want to own an animal simply on its looks and not some other animal because it looks different.

We are happy to help you – but you had better start being realistic about your claim.

If we consider the interests of the animal – is it really reasonable to maintain a sick animal in this way with all the trauma of medical attention and operations et cetera throughout its life?

I know that this is going to make difficult reading. Once again, there are lots of lonely animals desperately need of love and homes which are simply waiting in rescue accommodation all over the country.
Presumably they aren't good enough for you?
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The cause of action in your case would be a breach of contract.

The contract would be whatever is written in the agreement between you – and also terms which might be implied either because it represents the reasonable expectations of both parties or because there are outside regulations such as possibly breeding rules or licence rules et cetera that are automatically incorporated into a contract for an animal. You will know this better than we do.

Why don't you start off by assembling all the bills you have incurred so far and also the professional opinions and quotations of veterinary experts.

How many pages as that run to – before I asked you to post it up in PDF format

Link to post
Share on other sites

every paragraph.

It should start off:

  1. the claimant agreed to buy a XXX animal from XXX defendant, a professional breeder for £XXX
  2. The defendant is a licensed breeder – licensed by XXX organisation and therefore as a condition of the licence, has agreed to abide by XXX rules.
  3. The claimant relied on the fact that the defendant was a licensed breeder and relied on the fact that the XXX rules would be respected by the defendant.
  4. Blah blah blah
  5. the defendant breached the terms of the contract in that she failed to observe the licensing rules and failed to conduct her breeding operation in compliance with the rules and failed to conduct the sale in compliance with those rules.
  6. Blah blah blah

and so on

Link to post
Share on other sites

Started off well but then you reverted to generalisations .

You should particularize the breaches :

 Failed to do xxx contrary to the requirements of licence paragraph X sub paragraph y

Failed to do ZZ country to the requirements of licence paragraph z sub paragraph w

Etc

These should all be sub paragraphs

For instance

Paragraph 3A

Paragraph 3B

3c

3D

Etc

The paragraph letters should be in lowercase

 

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...