URGENT HELP!!! GET MY PUPPY HOME

[skinnydipper]

IMHO it is not the responsibility of the vet to cover fees when the owner is unable to pay nor to provide a rehoming service.

 

[Birker2020]

You know this is a pretty loaded question though.right?
Was your intention to make me feel bad?
Make me feel guilty about euthanising animals when noone is willing to financially care for them?
Or imply that I'm a bad person for offering people the choice of surrender instead of euthanasia? Should I be doing it more or less. I'm confused by the cute comment in particular.

I'm curious about the thought process behind it.

There are 17,000 dogs pts in this country every year that are in good health but cannot be rehomed yet people breed and breed and breed to add to the mix especially during Covid as the price went through the roof. There should be a law against breeding whether mongrels, cross breeds or pedigrees. In America in the kill shelters they take armfuls at a time of dogs and shove them in a big box with a lid and turn on the gas, I've seen it with my own eyes, puppies sat on top of already gassed dogs wondering what's going on as the lid goes down on them. Dreadful.

 

[Pearlsacarolsinger]

Maybe she has reasons to want to escape her current housing situation, she might have kids and it might be an unsuitable place, maybe she is renting and the house is full of mould, maybe she is in an abusive relationship with a partner and needs to escape, maybe it is near the school she desperately wants to get her kids into. There could be loads of reasons that are life changing. She could get a credit card, a 0% and get the money that way, but heck, not everyone knows the ins and outs of that.

In most of those cases it would have been very foolish to even contemplate taking on a new pup. The fact remains that she has available a sum of money which should be adequate to pay the unforeseen vet bill and prefers, for whatever reason, to prioritise future housing, despite being sure that she can afford to pay the vet £100 per week on top of the £500 deposit that she was able to put down towards the bill.

 

[AdorableAlice]

There are 17,000 dogs pts in this country every year that are in good health but cannot be rehomed yet people breed and breed and breed to add to the mix especially during Covid as the price went through the roof. There should be a law against breeding whether mongrels, cross breeds or pedigrees. .

There is, Animal Welfare Act 2006, as amended 2018.

 

[skinnydipper]

....

 

[splashgirl45]

I'm not being nasty or critical but isn't that fraud? If you are not covered for the first 14 days to lie to the insurance company and say you have taken ownership earlier than you actually did to ensure you were fully covered when the animal does actually go to you? Does everyone do this? Is this the norm? Like I say I am just curious as I've never thought about it before. Maybe I am just very naive.

no its not fraud, the puppy did not belong to her, it was reserved and she took ownership after 2 weeks has passed. if you are buying a puppy and its not yet ready to leave its owner, you say you want it and pay when you collect so your ins is in place 2 weeks before you own it properly. thats the prudent thing to do.

 

[splashgirl45]

There are 17,000 dogs pts in this country every year that are in good health but cannot be rehomed yet people breed and breed and breed to add to the mix especially during Covid as the price went through the roof. There should be a law against breeding whether mongrels, cross breeds or pedigrees. In America in the kill shelters they take armfuls at a time of dogs and shove them in a big box with a lid and turn on the gas, I've seen it with my own eyes, puppies sat on top of already gassed dogs wondering what's going on as the lid goes down on them. Dreadful.

the reason there are so many dogs in homing centres is that they dont seem to want to rehome, even 6 month old puppies, to someone who already has dogs. i have always had more than one dog and the last 2 times i wanted a rescue as one of mine had passed away, i tried all of the rescues within a couple of hours journey and wasnt successful so i bought mongrels, not a poodle mix designer dog, just a mutt, as my single dog was missing her friend...

 

[ycbm]

no its not fraud, the puppy did not belong to her, it was reserved and she took ownership after 2 weeks has passed. if you are buying a puppy and its not yet ready to leave its owner, you say you want it and pay when you collect so your ins is in place 2 weeks before you own it properly. thats the prudent thing to do.

I think to be strictly above board you would need to pay for the puppy in full 2 weeks before you pick it up, possibly with an agreement from the breeder that the money will be refunded in full of the puppy is not fit to be picked up. I think insurance companies require you to own the animal you are insuring. I'm sure plenty of people just lie though.

The 14 day wait is a real pain with horses too, but it's the fault of people who used to wait until an animal got ill before they insured it. It still happens with lame horse a lot.
.

 

[windand rain]

Yep they certainly don't want to rehome it is harder to get a dog from a shelter than it is to adopt a child both are whimsical. I tried as OH and I were older no kids, no pets, 6ft fence, 50 or more years of dog ownership and no we were too houseproud as we had cream carpets fitted in our new home. Bought a puppy so another dog not rehomed

 

[CorvusCorax]

While I think there may be an element of Jackanory in the OP, vets in these islands generally don't put animals down hand over fist, I was contacted just last week by a vet looking for other options rather than PTS.

I've never owned a horse because I know I could never afford it. In the case of something catastrophic happening, and I have thought about it a lot, I would not categorically rule out PTS, but not just on the grounds of cost. Months of cage rest and multiple operations, vet trips and metal work can be extremely stressful for a dog.

 

[ycbm]

They won't rehome to people who work or are out of the house for other reasons for several hours a day, I've heard. As if its better for a dog to live in kennels than be on its own in someone's home for a while. ?.

 

[Goldenstar]

My KC puppies have arrived with insurance in place to cover two weeks , You can then take it on or let it lapse .

 

[Goldenstar]

They won't rehome to people who work or are out of the house for other reasons for several hours a day, I've heard. As if its better for a dog to live in kennels than be on its own in someone's home for a while. ?.

My SIL was turned down because she oversaw lunchtime at the primary school at the end of their road that took one hour a day .
Experienced owners dog proof garden one well adjusted lab already .
They bought a puppy of course .

 

[ycbm]

My SIL was turned down because she oversaw lunchtime at the primary school at the end of their road that took one hour a day .
Experienced owners dog proof garden one well adjusted lab already .
They bought a puppy of course .

That's just crazy, why can't the charities realise that?
.

 

[blackcob]

Looking at the policy wording of a couple of the popular ones then it would be fraudulent or at least render any claim ineligible to take out a policy for a dog still in the breeder's possession, there's clauses about the dog being no less than 8 weeks of age and the pet being in both your ownership and possession before the policy is taken.

I think the usual process is for the breeder to arrange 4/5 weeks free cover, the owner either converts this to a full policy or takes out their preferred policy on the day they take possession of the dog, accepting that this will have a 10-14 day exclusion period. Anything that happens in that initial time period is claimed for on the breeder policy (converting to a full policy if continuous cover is needed for an ongoing condition).

 

[skinnydipper]

While I think there may be an element of Jackanory in the OP, vets in these islands generally don't put animals down hand over fist, I was contacted just last week by a vet looking for other options rather than PTS.

Belgian Shepherd Rescue were contacted yesterday morning by a vet in Dorchester who wanted to help a 9 month old Mal booked to be PTS that afternoon for "aggression".

I was upset at the thought that someone had screwed up and the dog was going to lose its life. I am glad to say that the story has a happy ending.

https://www.facebook.com/BelgianShepherdRescueUk/

 

[CorvusCorax]

Belgian Shepherd Rescue were contacted yesterday morning by a vet in Dorchester who wanted to help a 9 month old Mal booked to be PTS that afternoon for "aggression".

I was upset at the thought that someone had screwed up and the dog was going to lose its life. I am glad to say that the story has a happy ending.

https://www.facebook.com/BelgianShepherdRescueUk/

Not a dissimilar story.

 

[skinnydipper]

They won't rehome to people who work or are out of the house for other reasons for several hours a day, I've heard. As if its better for a dog to live in kennels than be on its own in someone's home for a while. ?.

Try a breed rescue.

 

[meleeka]

Looking at the policy wording of a couple of the popular ones then it would be fraudulent or at least render any claim ineligible to take out a policy for a dog still in the breeder's possession, there's clauses about the dog being no less than 8 weeks of age and the pet being in both your ownership and possession before the policy is taken.

I think the usual process is for the breeder to arrange 4/5 weeks free cover, the owner either converts this to a full policy or takes out their preferred policy on the day they take possession of the dog, accepting that this will have a 10-14 day exclusion period. Anything that happens in that initial time period is claimed for on the breeder policy (converting to a full policy if continuous cover is needed for an ongoing condition).

If the free insurance is converted to a full policy there is no 14 day wait. I know this because my parents got a rescue with two weeks free insurance, luckily converted it to a full policy, then ended up claiming £3k on day 15 of ownership.

 

[Karran]

Try a breed rescue.

Spaniel Aid and Save Our Spaniels turned me down when I was looking as I was out of home more than 4 hours a day - actually asked me if I was able to cut down my hours and when I stared at them in shock, they then told me to apply again once i'd retired as I sounded "Ideal". [/QUOTE]

Belgian Shepherd Rescue were contacted yesterday morning by a vet in Dorchester who wanted to help a 9 month old Mal booked to be PTS that afternoon for "aggression".

I was upset at the thought that someone had screwed up and the dog was going to lose its life. I am glad to say that the story has a happy ending.

https://www.facebook.com/BelgianShepherdRescueUk/

That was Mrs Collie's story at just 6 months old!

I don't know what the answer is in this persons case. But in October last year, I ended up having to max out credit cards replacing my boiler and car suspension in same month. A few days before payday Mrs Spaniel decided to add to the drama by slicing a pad open that required an op and stitches. She was insured but vets wanted payment upfront which I just didn't have. A 0% credit card would have taken days to come in and I wasn't prepared to wait. They offered me payment via Klarna which I am hugely grateful for, which I was able to pay back in full once I had been paid and her insurance paid out.
Disasters happen and I can see both sides of the coin and i'm very relieved I had that option. Not as serious as parvo or twisted guts etc but I do understand that moment of sheer panic in the vets when they gave me the cost and I knew I didn't have the funds or anyone to go to in order to get the funds and my bill was a lot less than OP's!

 

[Pearlsacarolsinger]

I think to be strictly above board you would need to pay for the puppy in full 2 weeks before you pick it up, possibly with an agreement from the breeder that the money will be refunded in full of the puppy is not fit to be picked up. I think insurance companies require you to own the animal you are insuring. I'm sure plenty of people just lie though.

The 14 day wait is a real pain with horses too, but it's the fault of people who used to wait until an animal got ill before they insured it. It still happens with lame horse a lot.
.

Most reputable breeders included approximately one month's 'free' insurance with the cost of the pup,which is covered seamlessly when it leaves withthe new owner. Other possibilities are free insurance as part of vaccination/worming package or, as my vet does, an annual package of insurance, vaccination, worming, flea-treatments, which if you worm and de-flea frequently works out cheaper than paying for each item separately.

 

[blackcob]

Sorry, poor wording on my part for the first bit - the latter option (taking out their preferred policy on day 1 of ownership) would incur a 10-14 day wait on that policy. If you needed to make a claim on the breeder policy cover it would almost always make sense to convert it, even if it weren't your preferred insurer, to ensure continuous cover and not end up with an exclusion. Worst case scenario you pay a month's premium on the policy you don't use, if you're out of the refund period.

The breeder of my last puppy kindly asked if I had a preference for the 4 week free policy, having used various companies previously, and as I knew I wanted a Petplan policy anyway it meant I could benefit from continuous cover.

 

[skinnydipper]

Spaniel Aid and Save Our Spaniels turned me down when I was looking as I was out of home more than 4 hours a day - actually asked me if I was able to cut down my hours and when I stared at them in shock, they then told me to apply again once i'd retired as I sounded "Ideal".

I am sorry that was your experience.

My sister and her OH were turned down by RSPCA when she worked full time days and her OH worked shifts. They were able to adopt from a breed rescue. The dog was taken out by a dog walker on the occasional days when she was going to be alone for more than a few hours.

 

[Karran]

That was what happens here. I live with my brother who does shifts so after I do the big start and end of day walks, he either takes them for a 10 min wander at 11 or 3 depending on shifts. He also gets 1 weekend off a month so a lot of the time there is someone about. It worked out ok in the end. He is besotted with Mrs Collie and her story was only heading in one direction so everyone is a winner really!

 

[Red-1]

No I don't want puppies killed ARU. But I don't want people feeling coerced into signing them over in the heat of the moment when they've just been told their pet is going to die. I also don't want people who have decided not to put their animal through an operation which has a high chance of not succeeding and who have instructed the vet to put it to sleep to feel forced into changing their mind and handing it over. That is another case that has come up on the forum.

This is what I think should happen, or something like it. The owner should sign that they lose ownership of the animal if they do not source the funds to pay the full costs within 7 days. And they can't take possession until that payment is made. That gives them a fair chance to get their head straight and beg borrow or steal the money, or settle their minds that handing over is the right thing to do and their own choice made with free will. It also allows the cost to be known and the decision to be made on fact not an estimate that could be significantly too high or too low. It leaves the vet practice no better or worse off than it would have been, it just means a wait by the potential new owner to find out if they have their new pet or not.

I just don't think it's right for people to be pushed into making these decisions in the heat of a desperately emotional moment and then be unable to reverse them even if they find they can get the money almost immediately.

It's not right either for vets to be left open to accusations of malpractice or social media onslaught like this one by an aggrieved owner. It's avoidable, and not just by the big companies banning their staff from doing it, because it very clearly serves a good purpose for a lot of animals.
.

No, I don't think that would be fair. If they offered that, then it would be all too tempting to agree to it, if the treatment failed and the animal died, who would decide to pay? The whole point is that the animal is sick, may or may not recover, may have a big bill or a small bill. That is the risk.

I say that as a person who offered to buy a horse (with whom I had big history) in order to fund a colic operation, as the owner said they would not and the horse was failing. The deal would have been done then and there, I could have potentially saved the horse.

If the horse had died, I would have been left holding the bill, my risk, I would have lost.

If the horse recovered, the owner, on your agreement, could have whisked in, no risk, and paid the bill. I could still have lost.

Can't see anyone agreeing to that! It simply isn't fair.

I'm not being nasty or critical but isn't that fraud? If you are not covered for the first 14 days to lie to the insurance company and say you have taken ownership earlier than you actually did to ensure you were fully covered when the animal does actually go to you? Does everyone do this? Is this the norm? Like I say I am just curious as I've never thought about it before. Maybe I am just very naive.

Is someone going to answer my question please. I am intrigued to know if everyone does this?
Surely if you make a claim against a new horse they would want to see a bill of sale? Or dog?

I have done this with my last 2 horses. Started the insurance as soon as I paid the deposit (as soon as I had a financial interest in the horse), before vetting even. The insurance company knew and were in agreement. One failed the vet, you have 14 days to cancel the insurance, I did.

With the others, one week of the part where you are only insured for external injury had already passed before they came home. Not fraud when you explain that is what you are doing, just minimises your risk.

 

[meleeka]

I don't know what the answer is in this persons case. But in October last year, I ended up having to max out credit cards replacing my boiler and car suspension in same month. A few days before payday Mrs Spaniel decided to add to the drama by slicing a pad open that required an op and stitches. She was insured but vets wanted payment upfront which I just didn't have. A 0% credit card would have taken days to come in and I wasn't prepared to wait. They offered me payment via Klarna which I am hugely grateful for, which I was able to pay back in full once I had been paid and her insurance paid out.
Disasters happen and I can see both sides of the coin and i'm very relieved I had that option. Not as serious as parvo or twisted guts etc but I do understand that moment of sheer panic in the vets when they gave me the cost and I knew I didn't have the funds or anyone to go to in order to get the funds and my bill was a lot less than OP's!

That’s awful that even though you are insured you still have to have funds available. In your case your vets found another way, but what if they hadn’t?! I makes you wonder what the point of insurance is at all.

 

[ycbm]

No, I don't think that would be fair. If they offered that, then it would be all too tempting to agree to it, if the treatment failed and the animal died, who would decide to pay?

If that happened then the potential adopter would be no worse off than in the current situation, where they adopt the animal and it dies. I can see the moral hazard of the owner hedging their bets to wait and see if the animal survives, and maybe the time period should be 24 or 48 hours not a week, but in reality if the animals are dying or the treatments failing on a frequent enough basis to make this an issue then I'd have to start questioning the ethics of painful treatments.

The likelihood is that if a way isn't found to avoid this "heat of the moment" signing over, then commercial pressure will end the practice of vet employees adopting animals completely and more of them will die. I believe this has already happened with some of the big groups and with the reputational damage inflicted by social media attacks it can only get worse.
.

 

[ester]

I think it's worth saying that this isn't always veterinary employees taking ownership/it is often short term/they have contacts/they know which charities they work with and whether they might agree to take it on inc. funding care. Otherwise it can sound a bit like vets/nurses are just doing it to acquire pets.

 

[rara007]

Fwiw I understand it’s illegal for most vets to offer long term payment plans in the UK as they’re not correctly financially registered. We’re advised against signing anything over and have to personally commit to it if we do not ‘the business’, for exactly this reason. Anything stray has to go via a charity so there is no comeback on us when it turns out it wasn’t stray all along. This varies between practices but most have been stung by expensive cases being claimed back and most have eye watering unpaid bills as debt. I’ve probably signed 4 things over in my 5 year career so far (all behavioural/ethical rather than unwell). I put 5 to sleep last night, 2 old and unwell, 1 roughly middle aged and behavioural (why these become 2am emergencies is beyond me, I usually assume a domestic situation or they’re worried their day vet would decline) 1 that had been left too long and was now too sick for the owners budget plus another hit by a car that couldn’t afford to investigate let alone treat. That’s the reality of emergency care in deprived areas, and we don’t even insist on 100% of payment at the time and genuinely every week have debts that are unlikely to ever be paid left. I have euthanised both puppies and kittens with the same condition as OPs in the last year. I have colleagues that have dogs that were puppies with the same condition that turned out to have further problems associated with bad breeding. Fortunately in day practice it is a rarer occurance and I knew the type of work I was getting myself into. I do sometimes wonder if it’s eating away at my compassion but it’s totally unfeasible to take the emotional strain of every case. The night before was large breed dog euthanasia as no money for an urgent surgery with uncertain prognosis, he had at least 5 of them all over 50kg and they were allegedly working dogs. The amount of times it’s ‘I have 3 kids and 3 cats and 4 dogs’ so can’t pay. We all make our choices. I have plenty of animals (2 dogs, 2 horses, 18 chickens and an expensive sport but no mortgage or children. There’s no suffering in death (and I eat meat most days).
I think the OPs puppy was very fortunate to get this opportunity and I think the vets have been more than fair, I hope it doesn’t get any complications (which it is at high risk for) and goes on to have a loved life wherever that may be. I’m sorry the OP is upset by the situation they ended up in and no one likes decision making under stress but unfortunately that’s an unavoidable part of medicine. It’s generous they’ve given you updates and are even considering him being signed back over. That’s pretty unusual.

 

[honetpot]

No I don't want puppies killed ARU. But I don't want people feeling coerced into signing them over in the heat of the moment when they've just been told their pet is going to die. I also don't want people who have decided not to put their animal through an operation which has a high chance of not succeeding and who have instructed the vet to put it to sleep to feel forced into changing their mind and handing it over. That is another case that has come up on the forum.

This is what I think should happen, or something like it. The owner should sign that they lose ownership of the animal if they do not source the funds to pay the full costs within 7 days. And they can't take possession until that payment is made. That gives them a fair chance to get their head straight and beg borrow or steal the money, or settle their minds that handing over is the right thing to do and their own choice made with free will. It also allows the cost to be known and the decision to be made on fact not an estimate that could be significantly too high or too low. It leaves the vet practice no better or worse off than it would have been, it just means a wait by the potential new owner to find out if they have their new pet or not.

I just don't think it's right for people to be pushed into making these decisions in the heat of a desperately emotional moment and then be unable to reverse them even if they find they can get the money almost immediately.

It's not right either for vets to be left open to accusations of malpractice or social media onslaught like this one by an aggrieved owner. It's avoidable, and not just by the big companies banning their staff from doing it, because it very clearly serves a good purpose for a lot of animals.
.

I think it's about ownership and consent as well as money. If you have ever bought a horse for a £1, in law that £1 means it's a legally binding contract, it makes the line clear, it's not given or a loan, it's sold. Funding treatment for an animal that is not yours, and you have no idea of the ongoing costs and decisions to be made, makes a legal mire. If further treatment is expensive who will pay, if the balance of best interests to PTS is unclear, who makes that choice? If the animal dies and then the vet has to take them to at least small claims to get the money, it just extra stress for someone who is just trying to do their professional best for the animal. Hell, you book into a hotel and the first thing they do is take your credit/debit card details, and you sign for charges, and if you read the small print, often any damage to the room.