Owner's anger at £151 bill after dog is returned

11:10am Thursday 1st November 2012 in News Photograph of the Author By Ben Endley, Senior reporter

Owner's anger at £151 bill after dog is returned Owner's anger at £151 bill after dog is returned

A nurse who feared her Jack Russell had been dog-napped has been handed a £151 bill after a stranger collected him from outside her house and handed him over to authorities.

Donna Raine, 41, was told by neighbours that a woman driving a 4X4 collected her pet, Barney, from outside her home in Penn Road, Rickmansworth, on Wednesday last week and was heard to call the dog by his name.

Mrs Raine noticed Barney was missing around half an hour later at 3pm but said she only began to worry when he had not returned a couple of hours later.

She said: "He normally just mooches about on the pavement then comes back home when he is bored.

"By 5pm we were starting to get worried because he had never been away that long before."

Eventually she contacted the Chess Veterinary Surgery in Rickmansworth where staff said Barney had been brought in that afternoon but was handed over directly to a Three Rivers District Council animal control warden.

However, by the time she had discovered this and contacted the council at 5.30pm the dog warden had already gone home - leaving her facing an uncomfortable night without him.

Council documents show the officer set off to transport Barney to the kennel at 4.05pm and was called 15 minutes later with a name and address of the owner but as she didn’t have a phone number and had left the area, she proceeded to the kennel before finishing work at 5pm.

Mrs Raine says she is furious she was not contacted before the dog warden went home as Barney has a microchip under his skin which contains her contact details.

She said: "I was upset and angry about this, nobody from Three Rivers District Council made any attempt to contact me on Wednesday despite being given my details at 4.20pm.

"I have had to pay £151 to get him back - a huge amount of money.

"I want to know why nobody contacted us; this issue could have been resolved very easily had someone done their job properly."

She complained to the council but an investigation found the company responsible for the chip did not hold a telephone number for her and she was told the fine would stand.

In an email response to the complaint, Geof Muggeridge, director of community and environmental services, said: "It is the responsibility of a dog owner to ensure that their dog is properly ID’d and not allowed to stray.

"If Barney’s details had been sent to the database in 2008 and he had a tag on with contact details, it is likely that he would have been returned the afternoon he strayed.

"I consider that in the absence of these the animal control officer made every reasonable effort to ascertain the owner’s details including going further than normal practice in requesting a track back to the implanter of a microchip."

Comments(30)

Reg Edit says...
11:31am Thu 1 Nov 12

Outrageous!

What do we pay our council taxes for?

Report this post »

TRT says...
11:35am Thu 1 Nov 12

Woman lets dog roam streets and is charged for return of animal. And she expects to get sympathy from the Watford Observer's commentards?

There's none from here!

Report this post »

wireworm says...
12:02pm Thu 1 Nov 12

I think she got the wrong dog back - that's no Jack Russell !

Report this post »

The Rover says...
12:18pm Thu 1 Nov 12

The obvious answer is in future do not let your dog out of your front door to wonder up the street. Put it on a lead and take it for a walk instead.

Report this post »

highhigh says...
12:18pm Thu 1 Nov 12

This dog is always out on the loose, iv seen a car almost run the stray over before! I see this as a fine for letting her dog 'mooch' outside her house until it feels fit to return.

Report this post »

The Rover says...
12:18pm Thu 1 Nov 12

The obvious answer is in future do not let your dog out of your front door to wonder up the street. Put it on a lead and take it for a walk instead.

Report this post »

crazyfrog says...
12:19pm Thu 1 Nov 12

was the dog wearing a collar with a tag displaying the owners address? if not then the owner can face a fine of up to £5000 under the Control of Dogs Order 1992 for the dog being in a public place without the tag and if it was wearing a collar with id, then why did the mysterious lady 4x4 driver not return it to the owner when she found it in penn road? and how comes she knew the dogs name?

Report this post »

LSC says...
12:20pm Thu 1 Nov 12

TRT wrote:
Woman lets dog roam streets and is charged for return of animal. And she expects to get sympathy from the Watford Observer's commentards?

There's none from here!
I very much agree. I doubt £151 even covered the costs. And while he is 'mooching about' on his own on the pavement, who is clearing up if he makes a mess?

Report this post »

Reg Edit says...
12:23pm Thu 1 Nov 12

You could stay in a hotel for less than £151. Why is the cost so high?

Report this post »

Nascot says...
1:05pm Thu 1 Nov 12

Reg Edit wrote:
Outrageous!

What do we pay our council taxes for?
Not for this service thankfully

Report this post »

TRT says...
1:12pm Thu 1 Nov 12

Like I say, if she expects any sympathy by running to the press over something which is clearly her own fault then she, like her dog, is in for a pounding†

†pun fully intended and, in fact, the only reason I left the comment in the first place!

Report this post »

TRT says...
1:23pm Thu 1 Nov 12

Reg Edit wrote:
You could stay in a hotel for less than £151. Why is the cost so high?
I believe it was a fine rather than a cost recovery according to the article anyway.
However, even if it was cost recovery, you've got the cost of transport to the holding facility including staff time, the cost of the staff at the holding facility, the cost of operating the microchip reading equipment which probably includes some sort of annual fee to the database company, heating, lighting, food, veterinary care...
I think £151 wouldn't even begin to cover it! How much does it cost to keep an animal in overnight at the vet nowadays?

Re-reading the article, it appears as though if the dog gets out of the house or garden, then he normally comes back - well, if he often gets out, it's time to take action about it rather than just not worrying about it for a bit. And why was it an uncomfortable night without the pet? Does he keep the bed warm or something?

Report this post »

DR says...
1:33pm Thu 1 Nov 12

I am fully aware that the responsibility lies with us to keep him in. My point of the story was that TRDC did not contact me- my number was given to the dog warden. The vet receptionist asked the warden if she (the receptionist) should contact me and the warden said no, she would do it and didn't. So I don't mind paying a fee because he was loose although he was not running around like some people seem to think.
I do begrudge paying for transport and kennelling which could have been prevented by one phonecall.
I also want to know who the driver of the 4x4 is. She inticed him into her car calling him by his name.
So, keep going with sarky, useless comments- I need the laughs.

Report this post »

GleeIsOneWord says...
1:33pm Thu 1 Nov 12

i dont think you all understand what really happened. barney wasn't just running around freely outside the owner was supervising and turned her back for a minute and the dog was gone. The owner thought he'd just gone for a quick run around and that barney would return as this has
happened mangy times before. the owner should have been contacted and barney shouldn't of needed to spend the night there. for all of you putting meaningless and hurtfull comments shame on you!

Report this post »

TRT says...
1:54pm Thu 1 Nov 12

"Mrs Raine noticed Barney was missing around half an hour later at 3pm but said she only began to worry when he had not returned a couple of hours later."

Not meaning to cause you any distress or insult, Donna, but this is what was reported. You left your dog loose for two hours according to the WO story. It says you weren't worried about this. Presumably a worried owner would be roaming the streets looking for the dog.

The time line presented in the article is that the warden only received details of your address and name, not phone number, whilst on the way to the kennels. Presumably from the information given later in the article, these details came from the chip company. It's good you had the dog chipped, BTW.
By the time you got in touch with Chess Vets, the dog was already in the kennel and the warden was on the way home having clocked off for the day at 5.
If there are details missing or inaccurate in the story, I suggest you contact the reporter.

You are right about the 4x4 driver, but of course that person's point of view is missing. They could have almost run over Barney and the ear witness could have misheard the person calling the dog. If the dog had a name and address or phone number on it, then surely the 4x4 driver would have been in touch directly? It sounds like the driver took the dog to a nearby vets failing to find any address. If you are angry at anyone, it should be the company responsible for the chip ID who had not included or updated your phone number. The warden got THOSE details at 4.20 before knocking off, but as you could not be contacted immediately, which would have had to have been by someone actually coming out to your house, they took Barney to the kennels. You have no idea, I suspect, if they had other animals they were transporting to the kennel at the same time, so you seem to expect them, when they got the address, to turn around, take an on-spec. drive to your house where you may or may not have been in, then turn around and drive back to the kennel with whatever other animals they may or may not have had, and book them in, taking themselves and the receptionist at the kennel past their end of work time?

Sorry. I think you are barking up the wrong tree with who to blame here.

Only going off what is in the story. No malice intended, but either the story is reported wrong, my understanding of the report is faulty or you should just be chalking £151 up to experience.

Report this post »

DR says...
2:08pm Thu 1 Nov 12

There are a couple of inaccuracies- one being that Petlog did not have his details on their first database but said to the warden that they would check their second database and phone her straight back. She opted to go to the kennels without waiting for that phonecall which came 5 minutes later. That aside, why didn't they call me at all? The warden said to the vets that she would call me and didn't. That is inexcusable.
No the 4x4 driver didn't nearly run him over because I saw the car when I went back into my gate after talking to my neighbour but I didn't pay attention to it.
We did go out and look for him so we were being responsible.
I agree that it needs to be put down to experience but my complaint is still that nobody from TRDC contacted me at all. Shame on them really.

Report this post »

TRT says...
2:12pm Thu 1 Nov 12

This is still at odds with the last 4 paragraphs of the report above.

Report this post »

abbotshornet says...
2:57pm Thu 1 Nov 12

I thought one of the main reasons for 3 Rivers employing dog wardens was for dogs to be re-united with their owners.
The last time our dog sneaked off when the front door was open a very kind neighbour contacted us before we even missed her.
This was because we had our phone number on a tag on her collar, prevention is best.

Report this post »

Eric Morecambe says...
3:57pm Thu 1 Nov 12

I think the police should get involved as our society should not stand for this kind of barking mad waste of tax payers' money. The old bill should dogedy persue those at fault and collar them. Personally I think the owner is still at fault and her subsequent comments are just an attempt to lead us all down the garden path. She should be locked up, just like the mutt should have been in the first place. Now she is just licking her wounds. Grrrrrrrrrrr

Report this post »

DR says...
4:14pm Thu 1 Nov 12

Lol @ Eric Morcambe. What a sensible town we live in.

Report this post »

WD18Firm says...
4:22pm Thu 1 Nov 12

Question: What caused this whole debacle?
Answer: the owner letting the dog wander off.

£151 later. Lesson learned, I suspect!

Report this post »

Mr.Miggins says...
4:28pm Thu 1 Nov 12

WD18Firm says...
4:22pm Thu 1 Nov 12

Question: What caused this whole debacle?
Answer: the owner letting the dog wander off.

£151 later. Lesson learned, I suspect!”


Ha. I dont think this story can be summed up any better

Report this post »

Robert Peel says...
9:34am Fri 2 Nov 12

The owner has the same mentality as cat owners that think just because they love tiddles, it's ok for them to roam around in others gardens and use them as a toilet.

My 5 year old daughter is very timid and is scared of all dogs - I had to grab her and stop her running in the road a couple of months ago when a dog came near her.

She would be petrified if a dog on its own approached us in the street and why should she have to put up with that?

The owners usually use the lame comments of "he's only being friendly" or "he won't hurt you".

Report this post »

TRT says...
9:50am Fri 2 Nov 12

"The owner has the same mentality as cat owners that think just because they love tiddles, it's ok for them to roam around in others gardens and use them as a toilet."

Cats and dogs are completely different kettles of fish. Cats can jump enormous distances, climb trees and slip through tiny gaps. It's almost impossible to cat proof a garden. So are you suggesting that cat owners keep them locked inside and walk them twice a day on a lead? Animal cruelty! You can't let a cat off a lead or you'd never see it again. They aren't pack animals and will not come when called usually.

At least cats will more often than not bury their droppings. Or perhaps you would prefer chicken wire cages going up all over the land, covering every other garden?

So it's not the same mentality at all.

Report this post »

Robert Peel says...
9:57am Fri 2 Nov 12

TRT: Suits me fine, as I don't want my kids to get toxoplasmosis.

I regularly have the misfortune to find cat muck in my garden (not buried) and mangled dead birds (I have no cat).

If you think that having a cat means it's OK for this, then you are essentially very selfish. How can you provide any sort of argument that says that an animal you are responsible for should be allowed to defecate on others property (with associated health risk, not to mention smell and cleaning up). Remind me to pop round and have a dump on your lawn - it must be OK.

The simple answer is to ban cats, but then what would sad old spinsters do?

Report this post »

TRT says...
10:06am Fri 2 Nov 12

Teach your kids to wash their hands then. It'll save them from a whole host of other diseases.

Are you sure it's actually cat muck and not foxes, hedgehogs or badgers? It's not good that birds get caught and killed, in fact it is a problem, but cats also help keep the rat and mouse population under control.

Anyway, I've fed the troll quite enough for one day.

Report this post »

garston tony says...
10:59am Fri 2 Nov 12

DR wrote:
There are a couple of inaccuracies- one being that Petlog did not have his details on their first database but said to the warden that they would check their second database and phone her straight back. She opted to go to the kennels without waiting for that phonecall which came 5 minutes later. That aside, why didn't they call me at all? The warden said to the vets that she would call me and didn't. That is inexcusable. No the 4x4 driver didn't nearly run him over because I saw the car when I went back into my gate after talking to my neighbour but I didn't pay attention to it. We did go out and look for him so we were being responsible. I agree that it needs to be put down to experience but my complaint is still that nobody from TRDC contacted me at all. Shame on them really.
Actually the shame is still on you, allowing your 'dog to mooch about on the pavement to come back in when bored' is not supervising it. In a previous post we're told you were out there with it, but in the article you say you didn’t notice it was missing for 30 minutes. Again that is not what most people would call supervision.

The article tells us that the warden didn’t actually have a number to call you on but whatever happened once your dog went missing is a consequence of you not actually supervising it. Just be grateful the consequences were not worse ie your dog having been run over or having attacked a child (and please, none of this 'they would never do that' nonsense)

If you don’t like the comments then you shouldn’t have run to the press with this trying to pass the blame. Quite honestly if the warden had had your number and had called you and had returned your pet that same day I would hope there would still be a significant fine and charge involved for not supervising it at all and therefore putting it, pedestrians and road users at risk and taking up the time of a tax payer funded service.

Report this post »

garston tony says...
11:09am Fri 2 Nov 12

"By 5pm we were starting to get worried because he had never been away that long before."

This does suggest not the first time he had been out unsupervised, that it was a regular occurance.

Report this post »

Robert Peel says...
11:10am Fri 2 Nov 12

It all seems like a cynical attempt to get the fine waived by going to the press by someone who lets their dog wander round on it's own.

Report this post »

Robert Peel says...
7:47pm Fri 2 Nov 12

TRT: another fine example of a cat owner dodging the question of why its ok for them to assume that having a cat makes it ok for it to roam round and defecate in other's gardens.

Please answer why you having
a having a cat means I should tolerate it and clean up its mess.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree