Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please please help we were miss sold full fibre by EE July 22  Install couldn’t go ahead no equipment sent and no. Survey it was hell  foind out no full fibre in road so we had to go back to cooper no choice we involved. Ceo and they put in a man from customer resolution s  he was vile he told me I had to go to engineers  something very odd about the ex resolution s in bt basically they took my drive up said they Would put ducting in ready for full fibre we have got £ 40 for a hours upon hours phones stress and more told to go to ombudsman  then bill was £35 we called twice told it was that price as they had treated us appalling two weeks later all sky package gets pulled we call again our bill goes to 165 the next two weeks was hell trying to get yo bottom why it’s off our package it was all on in the end I spent a day on the phone  341 mins was the call anyway I got to the bottom it was this resolution man coveting up the other issue another deadlock  to cover it all up  they hide data  ee did so couldn’t get the miss sell in writing I have now only from sept  Basically now we tried getting full fibre and they have found my drive had to be taken up again which has sunk .  The engineer has placed the wrong ducting again under my drive and need s to be taken to again apparently and the pipe sticks up middle of the drive near gate not behind look so odd it’s a big as a drain pipe open to water and it’s below touching the electrical cables to hot tub . I was sent a letter from the ex resolution to say I had stopped the work  I haven’t  it’s so sadistic she covering up for her mate in that team as the orginal install he didn’t check it had been done correctly  I took to Twitter and posted on open reach they ignored me then after 3 calls of two weeks they sent a engineer bt ignored me ceo emails blocked tag on Twitter unanswered then we get someone from twitter send a engineer he written report to say it’s dangerous since we have  had a  letter to say our problem can not be resolved  then a email to say sorry we are leaving and we can’t get into our account Bt will not talk to us ofcom tells us nothing they can do Citzens advice said go to the police  we can’t go back to virgin due so mass issue with them only option is sky  but point is they make out we have canceled we haven’t we have this mess on our drive dangeous work we are in hell  it’s like she covering up for this collegue it’s all very odd I am disabled and they like played mentaly with me open reach say bt resolved the issue no they have not  I recon they have terminated us making our we have  to hide it from mgt  Help it’s hell I don’t sleep we have 29 may we have tried  calling they just ignore me  at first they are so lovely as they say I am then they go to nnamager and say we can’t say anything to you end call  Scared police are rubbish I need help even typing is so painfull  Thankyou  anyone hello be so grateful     
    • There's a thread somewhere about someone sending the baillifs against Wizzair that is quite hilarious. I would love to see someone do the same to Ryanair. Question is, should you be the one to take that role. You are entitled to the £220, if your flight was from the UK. If it was TO the UK I suppose it is more of a grey area... though the airlines I know have been using £220 as standard. Not that surprising for Ryanair, the worst cheapskates in the universe, to go for the lower amount, and if you forward this to the CEO he will probably have a jolly good laugh and give his accountants a verbal bonus. After all he's the one who said and I paraphrase "F*** our customers, they'll fly with us again anyway". While we would all love to see Ryanair get wooped in court again, I have to join my fellow posters in thinking it's not worth the hassle for (hypothetically) £7 and not sure it will expedite the payment either. It's already an achievement that you got them to accept to pay.
    • The US competition watchdog has taken legal action to stop Tapestry's $8.5bn takeover of rival Capri.View the full article
    • thank you you mean you got a notice of discontinuance? dx  
    • Thanks for your interest dx100. Didn’t reach a hearing. Although they filed court papers, they withdrew a few days beforehand, and admitted it was statute barred and I have it in writing that they say the matter is now closed. Once again, many thanks for all your help.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Licensed breeder Puppy farm & genetically sick pups.***Settled***


Lesley A

Recommended Posts

ok - the links I refer to are articles that popped up during my searches to find out my rights so there were multiple channels referred to for seeking help. i will find them out and get the links uploaded. i have noted you want all links uploaded moving forward.

As also stated previously, I have now chosen to seek all advice from this site as my research was conducted prior to knowing about this site/forum. I refer to the Local Authority of the licensed breeder. I informed them as she was licensed and certainly breached the licensing laws so I informed her LA. She has advised them she is working with me and her solicitors - another lie so I have updated her LA in that respect. Even with her LA Inspector now investigating she has the bared faced audacity to lie.

So my total losses to date if I include the refund costs are £3K so it would appear that is all I can sue for.

That leaves me in a pickle. I cannot afford the surgery or tests upfront and was suing the breeder to obtain the necessary funds for his care. Every hiccup he has at the vets is anywhere between £200 - 1600.00 and defers funds away from the surgery and constantly causes financial hardship. I did not realise they court would not consider future losses.

However, I note you say they do not normally consider future losses. Does this mean there is chance they will. 

I was hoping the court would make an order the £5k surgery costs be made payable to the vet so surgery could go ahead.

I am not in a position to pay for the care needed  then make a claim unfortunately.

 

 

 

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

In response to your comments I will say I am fully aware of why I purchased this pup. Please bear in mind, I did not knowingly purchase a genetically sick pup from a known puppy farmer. 

Buying a pup with a grade 3 murmur does not inflict pain or suffering on an animal as a grade 3 murmur can vanish or improve - thus not life impacting if it remains a grade 3 murmur.  I was willing to accept that any potential issues from that grade 3 murmur were my responsibility but that's not what was advertised or purchased. The pup was bred by her so she can fund his chance at life and health in my eyes - she has never been held to account.

I did not encourage a puppy farmer nor purchase a pup as sick as he is. I have had conversations with my vet who promises he will tell me when the pup starts to suffer but the surgery I sue for will give him a normal healthy life with no long term meds or care required for the cardiac issue. I will not let him suffer but I will fight for his chance at a life that was given to him.

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. 

On the note of business, I will ask the judge regarding future losses or the right to return to court for those future losses as you suggest. 

Theres no harm asking the court to make an order for future losses given those future losses are the key to his survival. Money claims have said I can apply for help with the court fee but I take your point that the higher the claim the higher the court fee.

I guess my next question has to be how do I produce a Particulars of Claim. The internet states that a Particulars of Claim should be detailed - as you said my original letter was too detailed, could I use it as a Particulars of Claim or are they best kept as brief as the chronology and compensation break down I provided you with.

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

Hi Princess999 

I am happy to chat with you, no harm in that.  If it helps get this breeder.  
I am not sure how we make that contact or if my email is allowed up here xxxxxxx

i agree we should be ousting her on this site but I would rather chat to you privately than not at all if you fear her but you should not let her.  


I just had covid and pneumonia so I am behind on my case but starting again today. 
Please do not be scared- she targets targets pups not peeps.

Message me if you prefer but I encourage you to oust here too.   
Maybe a chat mite help you with that but I will do what I can. 
regards 

lesley. 

  • Like 1
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...

Hi,

I have now followed the above PoC link which took me to a N1 form.

I have attached it but each time I open it the text vanishes. I can upload a word version if this happens on this site.

Is this my PoC, is it good to go now please.

I have had covid and subsequent pneuomonia so apologies for the delay in uploading the doc

 

N1 JAX cag version.pdf

Jax JUDICIAL REMEDY.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

I guess that’s what I am asking really. 
I am confused by this particulars of claim.  
is what is on the form enough as a PoC or would I have to send the document I posted a few weeks ago that was king and detailed at a later date.  Just the N1
I called the courts who said that if you work a case yourself you can total the hours spent and charge £19.00 per hour. 
This is confirmed by the Court wingman book of How to manage your own litigation. 
it’s a hard copy book so I cannot upload a link for a ref.  
regards 

lesley 

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

Hi 

Ok I take your comments on board but before I amend the form, Id like to clarify. As I mentioned previously, I have cognitive issues which impacts my ability to structure and you comment of me handing the breeder the win on a plate due to disorganised structure so I just want to be sure what I am doing.

The reason I mentioned things like not seeing the pup with its mom, lack of socialisation, lack of ensuring the pup is accustomed to a domestic setting go towards showing the attitudes of the breeder to her licensing rules hence going to show her true character.

When I reported her to her LA, those were the first questions they asked me as they are strict obligations that form part of her licensing regs. I know these things are not recoverable but if she fails to follow her basic statutory obligations, she is misleading purchasers. 

Do you still think it should be removed when it contributes to showing character?

Yes I have the receipts, reports etc  from Vets - Should I break the vet bill amount down to what dates i spent what instead of the total as a whole?

I can substantiate the fact she has reasonable knowledge when they are forced to disclose documents. The court can enforce that right?

Point taken on the LiP costs being removed for a small claim.

I will attempt to remove the emotion reduce it and make the amendments you have suggested but I just wanted to clarify if I really should be removing facts that show she's breaching licensing conditions. I thought it would be important to show her low level of professionalism because if she cannot honour basic rules of her license, what can she honour?

Yes, multiple agencies have been contacted and I believe I have set the wheels of motion turning with these organisations.

I have yet to contact the police. She is now selling several puppies online as I had contacted Freeads about allowing a puppy farmer to advertise sick animals - as she is now online, I can only presume she cannot advertise with them at the moment whilst they investigate.

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

in english please not some outer Hebridean txt spk......

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

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

Hi. 
I posted another version at approx 14.40. 
It was more succinct and less emotional.  
however paragraphs were not numbered.  
We’d each numbered paragraph represent each day I took the dog to the vets ? 
I answered your question that I had informed the RSPCA.  
 

 

The RSPCA. Say they will follow up.  
they can say when. 
they can share any findings with me. 
I cannot wait until they do - nor could I prove their involvement in court when investigation results cannot be shared with me anyway.  

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

Sir please try and remember and appreciate my cognitive issues.  
I am trying! That remark offers no feedback to what errors I have made or address my question of what goes in each numbered paragraph?  
Does each numbered paragraph represent a new ‘event’ in the series of events between myself and the breeder and vet visits?

Am I telling the story - minus the emotion with a numbered paragraph each time something new cropped up ? 
 

So a numbered paragraph per engagement wether that be with vets or the breeder?
Was the second version still no good ? 

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

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...