Charging for picking up a dog

GM228

Discodog wrote: »

Well in that case most of the rescues, ISPCA, SPCAs are breaking the law & have been for donkey's years. I don't recall any prosecutions.

There is not necessarily any criminal element to charging a fee, rather it is civil, hence why I previously mentioned detinue and conversion, and you will probably never hear of such a case because people will either pay or the pound will give up on their "request".

Only a LA controlled pound (is there even any left) can lawfully charge prescribed fees for detained animals (they don't actually even apply to dogs impounded under the Control of Dogs Act 1986), a private pound can not charge fees unless...

Discodog wrote: »

The OP said that

and a local rang a local dog charity to pick up the dog

That charity could be a Pound & the person who collected the dog could be acting as a Warden. But in any event I don't believe they demanded a fee or threatened not to release the dog. It's notable that this thread isn't full of people saying that the same thing happened to them.

The Gardai & LA's are supportive of rescues as they depend on them especially as the Wardens are only available during the working day.

As I said the only lawful way a private pound could charge a fee is if the dog was seized and detained by an appointed dog warden, pity the OP can't give more details on who/where it occurred.

Discodog

GM228 wrote: »

There is not necessarily any criminal element to charging a fee, rather it is civil, hence why I previously mentioned detinue and conversion, and you will probably never hear of such a case because people will either pay or the pound will give up on their "request".

Only a LA controlled pound (is there even any left) can lawfully charge prescribed fees, not a private pound.

As I said the only lawful way a private pound could charge a fee is if the dog was seized and detained by an appointed dog warden, pity the OP can't give more details on who/where it occurred.

The rescues depend on donations & public good will. They are hardly in the business of coercion. The majority of Pounds are still LA as who would want the job & I can't see people queing up to be wardens.

I suspect that the ISPCA would get out ASAP if they could. It has bought them a lot of bad publicity in the past.

Graham

Discodog wrote: »

The rescues depend on donations & public good will.

Absolutely.

Doesn't change the law though (or lack thereof).

frillyleaf

limerickpat wrote: »

From reading the other side of the story on facebook, the rescue owner asked for 50 and got paid the 50 by another family member. Adam demanded it back and the rescue owner refused. I cant find the post now but I think that was the rescue workers side of the story

What rescue is it ?

GreeBo

Discodog wrote: »

What menaces? Give us €50 or we will keep feeding, exercising & housing your dog. :rolleyes:

Change "dog" for "child" and come back to us with your thoughts on the matter.

Mod
Pls keep on topic.

Dav010

GreeBo wrote: »

Change "dog" for "child" and come back to us with your thoughts on the matter.

You are comparing a child being held to ransom with a stray dog handed into a shelter?

He's kinda right though. If your kid went missing in a shopping centre and when you picked them up there was a €50 "release fee" because they'd housed her, fed her etc. would the reaction be the same?

It would not

Why don't you consider the dog being held to ransom?

KWAG2019

Excellent discussion. The law quoted here lays down procedures to be followed in case of stray dog. The shelter says it is a charity. Taking OP at face value the shelter played hardball.
It’s open to OP to do likewise without going down the road of involving Gardai. The Charities Regulator website offers several routes. Others have pointed to receipt and VAT. Publicity around the issue will also be an option. OP situation may not be ironclad with frequent wandering by dog but the real issue is the demand for an uncontracted fee and refusal to return property when possession of such property might have been created in breach of the legal processes governing that. The shelter may do good work but they too like OP are bound by law.

Discodog

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Excellent discussion. The law quoted here lays down procedures to be followed in case of stray dog. The shelter says it is a charity. Taking OP at face value the shelter played hardball.
It’s open to OP to do likewise without going down the road of involving Gardai. The Charities Regulator website offers several routes. Others have pointed to receipt and VAT. Publicity around the issue will also be an option. OP situation may not be ironclad with frequent wandering by dog but the real issue is the demand for an uncontracted fee and refusal to return property when possession of such property might have been created in breach of the legal processes governing that. The shelter may do good work but they too like OP are bound by law.

The Charity regulator is familiar with charities asking for donations. All rescues, including the ISPCA have charges that are really recommended donations.

The Charities Regulator is hardly going to look into one, incredibly petty & possibly untrue, complaint. 99.9% of dog owners would be happy to give €50 for the safe return of their dog.

The OP is an exception. We don't change legislation because of one extreme opinion. And the OP isn't even the owner of the dog.

It's already been pointed out here that this matter has nothing to do with the Gardai.

There was no demand & no ransom.

Discodog

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Excellent discussion. The law quoted here lays down procedures to be followed in case of stray dog. The shelter says it is a charity. Taking OP at face value the shelter played hardball.
It’s open to OP to do likewise without going down the road of involving Gardai. The Charities Regulator website offers several routes. Others have pointed to receipt and VAT. Publicity around the issue will also be an option. OP situation may not be ironclad with frequent wandering by dog but the real issue is the demand for an uncontracted fee and refusal to return property when possession of such property might have been created in breach of the legal processes governing that. The shelter may do good work but they too like OP are bound by law.

Playing hardball could of been calling the Dog Warden so that he can fine the owner.

Obeying the law & having an id tag would of prevented all of this.

KWAG2019

Discodog wrote: »

The Charity regulator is familiar with charities asking for donations. All rescues, including the ISPCA have charges that are really recommended donations.

The Charities Regulator is hardly going to look into one, incredibly petty & possibly untrue, complaint. 99.9% of dog owners would be happy to give €50 for the safe return of their dog.

The OP is an exception. We don't change legislation because of one extreme opinion. And the OP isn't even the owner of the dog.

It's already been pointed out here that this matter has nothing to do with the Gardai.

There was no demand & no ransom.

I think you have missed the point of my reference to the CR. There are requirements on all registered charities listed by the CR. Simply checking that the shelter is compliant and informing them of shortfalls and the CR of same returns the hardball to sender. The CR may well do as you predict but even a slap on the wrist for the shelter and a recognition that it has to be accountable is useful. The point was well made early on in the thread that request for hint hint donation would have avoided all this. But then we wouldn’t have had an excellent thread.

Discodog

KWAG2019 wrote: »

I think you have missed the point of my reference to the CR. There are requirements on all registered charities listed by the CR. Simply checking that the shelter is compliant and informing them of shortfalls and the CR of same returns the hardball to sender. The CR may well do as you predict but even a slap on the wrist for the shelter and a recognition that it has to be accountable is useful. The point was well made early on in the thread that request for hint hint donation would have avoided all this. But then we wouldn’t have had an excellent thread.

We don't know what was said & neither does the OP who wasn't even there. But you want to refer to hardball on the basis of hearsay.

The CR aren't going to investigate on the basis of one rumour.

KWAG2019

Discodog wrote: »

We don't know what was said & neither does the OP who wasn't even there. But you want to refer to hardball on the basis of hearsay.

The CR aren't going to investigate on the basis of one rumour.

The entire thread is based on hearsay. I did add for those who read it “taking OP at face value”. Hardball is the alleged threat not to return the dog and demanding a fee and then standing over it in a verbally abusive manner. As an interesting discussion, whatever its factual basis, it brought out the exact legal provisions in regard to fees and taking possession of a stray dog legitimately. I will spell out the point on the CR: there are regulations with which registered charities must comply. It is very easy to see compliance with some of these. The CR need not get involved at that stage. Even you or I could do it. Informing the shelter they are in breach returns the hardball. I suspect a statutory agency with responsibility for compliance might find it difficult to avoid taking some action if they were informed in writing of a breach. It may be as I said a slap on the wrist but the shelter would have food for thought.

Discodog

KWAG2019 wrote: »

The entire thread is based on hearsay. I did add for those who read it “taking OP at face value”. Hardball is the alleged threat not to return the dog and demanding a fee and then standing over it in a verbally abusive manner. As an interesting discussion, whatever its factual basis, it brought out the exact legal provisions in regard to fees and taking possession of a stray dog legitimately. I will spell out the point on the CR: there are regulations with which registered charities must comply. It is very easy to see compliance with some of these. The CR need not get involved at that stage. Even you or I could do it. Informing the shelter they are in breach returns the hardball. I suspect a statutory agency with responsibility for compliance might find it difficult to avoid taking some action if they were informed in writing of a breach. It may be as I said a slap on the wrist but the shelter would have food for thought.

Oh I suspect that they already have food for thought. If they see that dog again - call the Warden & remind them of the previous incident.

The rescue learned years ago that there will always be a few who expect them to bail out irresponsible owners.

The CR will be well aware of spurious & sometimes malicious complaints. I doubt that any charity is immune from them.

KWAG2019

Discodog wrote: »

Oh I suspect that they already have food for thought. If they see that dog again - call the Warden & remind them of the previous incident.

The rescue learned years ago that there will always be a few who expect them to bail out irresponsible owners.

The CR will be well aware of spurious & sometimes malicious complaints. I doubt that any charity is immune from them.

Complaints which point out breaches of compliance to the authority tasked with ensuring compliance will have to be dealt with. Dismissive assumptions of motive sound wonderful and count for nothing.

Discodog

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Complaints which point out breaches of compliance to the authority tasked with ensuring compliance will have to be dealt with. Dismissive assumptions of motive sound wonderful and count for nothing.

I look foward to reading the outcome :rolleyes: