Lisa Walsh (dog breeder Norwich)

Don't really know any labrador breeders but hopefully others on here might know of her. If you know her affix, or any of the dogs names try doing a google search, particularly in KC health test results.
 
She is luckily thank goodness, and of the nicest nature :), although she was advertised as being KC registered, we never recieved anything, kept ringing her to check progress and kept being told by her that the KC were the ones delaying.

Found some more negative info on her again yesterday, and similar stories to ours ie missing kc papers.. My OH rang her last night to obtain the kennel name/number of our pups mother, and finally got out of her that trading standards had taken all her paperwork so she couldnt even give us those details?!
 
Im afraid you wont be the first or last to be caught out by byb, I wouldnt hold your breathe awaiting the paperwork, at the end of the day having a piece of paper is irrelevent if you are just having a pet. If you want to breed yourself than it is important but I hope you dont want to do that given the breeders reputation they wont be good specimens. Personaly I would be more concerned with any lack of health testing which again given this breeder I doubt there are any.
 
Did you check that the bitch was registered with the KC and what the test scores were? This is where the KC ones are worth a look as scores can be checked on their site.

So anyway lessons learnt to always check the parents scores online before any purchase.

Hope you enjoy your pupx
 
Naively when enquiring I asked for the parents scores over the phone (which she disclosed). When speaking to the kc they brought her details up, and she does have litters registered with them - last one being jan this year, amber was born in feb.

End of the day it is only a piece of paper and we don't intend to breed - she's just a loved member of our family :) , but it's the fact our pup was falsely advertised and if she lied about that then what else has she lied about?

The day after finding out more recent bad press about her this week I marched amber straight down the vets for a full mot to put our minds at rest.

Lessons definately learned! We are upset and angry that we were stupid enough to fund this 'business', but we are going to pursue this big time
 
I would suspect either your pups mum had more litters than she should, or the breeder had bred more litters in a year than she should, hence the lack of registration . At one time the kc were very slow doing reg and the papers often weren't back when pups went, however nowadays the kc are actually pretty efficient and reg papers are back very quickly . If you know your pups dams reg name you can check her hip scores on kc website. Good luck with pursuing the breeder, I hope you get some results.
 
MurphysMinder said:
I would suspect either your pups mum had more litters than she should, or the breeder had bred more litters in a year than she should, hence the lack of registration . At one time the kc were very slow doing reg and the papers often weren't back when pups went, however nowadays the kc are actually pretty efficient and reg papers are back very quickly . If you know your pups dams reg name you can check her hip scores on kc website. Good luck with pursuing the breeder, I hope you get some results.
Click to expand...

This I couldnt believe how quickly my paperwork was back this time, 2-3 days at the most and I used online registration which is really simple. I did the registrations at 4 weeks ish...allowing for kcs old time scales. There is really no excuse for breeders to be without paperwork when the pups are collected nowadays unless there is an issue with the KC refusing to register for the reasons listed above.
 
Vizslak said:
This I couldnt believe how quickly my paperwork was back this time, 2-3 days at the most and I used online registration which is really simple. I did the registrations at 4 weeks ish...allowing for kcs old time scales. There is really no excuse for breeders to be without paperwork when the pups are collected nowadays unless there is an issue with the KC refusing to register for the reasons listed above.
Click to expand...

This ^^ I was gobsmacked how quickly my papers came back, and I got all my first choices :D

Glad OPs puppy is healthy and in a good home. It's a shame more byb's aren't named and shamed for what they do and potentially giving other breeders a bad name
 
I have also brought a puppy and not happy any info from anyone of what i can do someone told me to try small claims court as its fraud can i do that??
 
Thanks hun me too as think we all been done, i love daisy but its alot of money if she isnt pedigree she does look like a pure lab tho.
 
Family06 I have PM'd you.

Public participation and exchange of information.
Members of the public spoke of their concern regarding the Greenacres Farm
application. There had been problems at the site and far in excess of the proposed
20 adult dogs were being kept on the site. An overview of the recent history of
activity on the site was given, highlighting that the environmental licence for a puppy
farm did not give consideration to planning conditions. The site had been visited by
Police and Trading Standards in April. Concern was expressed about the
separation of puppies from their parents and that calculations based on monitored
activity on the site would indicate around 50 puppies being sold per week, therefore
around 55 bitches being kept. Issues of contaminated bedding and excrement were
highlighted, due to serious health risk. Electrical appliances were dangerous and
posed a fire risk, and fire exits were blocked. It was suggested that conditions 3, 4
and 5 of the original planning permission were being breached. The applicant had
been given notice to quit by the landlord.
 
5. 2012/0715 – Greenacres Farm, Ipswich Road
Variation of condition 3 of planning permission 2010/1538/CU to increase the
number of adult dogs from 12 to 20.
Jill Casson and Don Proudfoot had visited the site and considered the plans. When visiting the site they had not been happy with what they had seen. There had been
at least 23 adult dogs visible on site, with some puppies separated from their
parents and some pens not big enough for the number of dogs. Upon contacting
the RSPCA and Trading Standards, no comment would be made due to ongoing
cases. The applicant was due to quit by 5th May 2012. Several breaches of the
original planning permission were apparent. Concern was expressed regarding fire
risk and evacuation measures.
It was resolved to recommend refusal, proposed by Don Proudfoot, seconded
by Jill Casson, all in favour.
The following comments would be made:
• Concern regarding noise of animals, especially those in distress at
being separated from parents.
• Concern over the disposal of excrement which was piled up in the yard
causing a health hazard.
• Concern regarding traffic levels entering and exiting the site to buy
puppies – monitored levels showing 50 sold in one week.
• Concern regarding the suitability of the site to house more dogs, given
current overcrowding.
• Concern that there was in excess of 20 adult dogs on site.
• The parish council would support a request that this application was
heard by Committee.
The Clerk was also asked to write to South Norfolk Council expressing concern
that the granting of environmental licences did not take into account current
planning permissions and conditions, and to note the concerns regarding the
disposal of excrement.
 
My advice would be to ring trading standards with your complaint about her, they will log your details. Already they have a huge backlog of complaints against her and RSPCA have her on record too. This is what I did, trading standards have confiscated all her 'puppy paperwork', and she is under investigation for fraud
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top