Charging for picking up a dog

Discodog · 02-11-2019 9:44pm

daheff wrote: »

OP said that they refused to release the dog back to the parent unless 50 eur was paid over... not quite the same as asking for a donation.

OP also states that the dog is chipped.

Do you always accept the account of a poster?

The OP wasn't even there.

Gormal · 02-11-2019 10:01pm

Learn your lesson and move on. You could have ended up with fines much higher. €15 per day while dog is in the dog pound, €40 if the Dog was collected by van and €100 fine for straying. And the dog could have picked up some disease from the pound or other dogs in it had it landed there.

It is a legal requirement that all dogs must at all times wear a collar with the name and the address of the owner inscribed on it or on a tag. Failure to have identification on a dog can result in an on-the-spot fine issued by a dog warden.

Plus you were not in control of your dog. Section 9 of the control of dogs Act:

9.—(1) The owner or any other person in charge of a dog shall not permit the dog to be in any place other than

(a) the premises of the owner, or

(b) the premises of such other person in charge of the dog, or

(c) the premises of any other person, with the consent of that person,

unless such owner or such other person in charge of the dog accompanies it and keeps it under effectual control.

(2) If a dog worries livestock, the owner or any other person in charge of the dog shall be guilty of an offence unless it is established that at the material time the dog worried the livestock for the purpose of removing trespassing livestock and that having regard to all the circumstances the action was reasonable and necessary.

(3) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (2) of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or, at the discretion of the court, to both such fine and such imprisonment.

You could have saved yourself all this hassle by having a collar and tag on the dog with phone number and eircode, the person who found your dog straying could have called you straight away. So get an id tag on the poor dog and secure the garden.

Most Charities have scanners and access to the databases. When you chip the dog you also have to register the owner details on the database, after which you will receive an official Microchipping Certificate (came into effect in 2016) in the post.

The charity had to isolate the dog from other animals in their care, they don't know what diseases it may or may not be carrying. They house, feed and water the dog and then all that has to be safely sanitised after the dog leaves. So a release fee of €50 to a charitable organisation is nothing. It is my belief they have the right to recover the costs incurred.

joeguevara · 02-11-2019 10:14pm

Gormal wrote: »

Learn your lesson and move on. You could have ended up with fines much higher. €15 per day while dog is in the dog pound, €40 if the Dog was collected by van and €100 fine for straying. And the dog could have picked up some disease from the pound or other dogs in it had it landed there.

It is a legal requirement that all dogs must at all times wear a collar with the name and the address of the owner inscribed on it or on a tag. Failure to have identification on a dog can result in an on-the-spot fine issued by a dog warden.

Plus you were not in control of your dog. Section 9 of the control of dogs Act:

9.—(1) The owner or any other person in charge of a dog shall not permit the dog to be in any place other than

(a) the premises of the owner, or

(b) the premises of such other person in charge of the dog, or

(c) the premises of any other person, with the consent of that person,

unless such owner or such other person in charge of the dog accompanies it and keeps it under effectual control.

(2) If a dog worries livestock, the owner or any other person in charge of the dog shall be guilty of an offence unless it is established that at the material time the dog worried the livestock for the purpose of removing trespassing livestock and that having regard to all the circumstances the action was reasonable and necessary.

(3) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (2) of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or, at the discretion of the court, to both such fine and such imprisonment.

You could have saved yourself all this hassle by having a collar and tag on the dog with phone number and eircode, the person who found your dog straying could have called you straight away. So get an id tag on the poor dog and secure the garden.

Most Charities have scanners and access to the databases. When you chip the dog you also have to register the owner details on the database, after which you will receive an official Microchipping Certificate (came into effect in 2016) in the post.

The charity had to isolate the dog from other animals in their care, they don't know what diseases it may or may not be carrying. They house, feed and water the dog and then all that has to be safely sanitised after the dog leaves. So a release fee of €50 to a charitable organisation is nothing. It is my belief they have the right to recover the costs incurred.

The shelter was not obliged to retrieve the dog so any costs they incurred was by their own choice. Requesting donation as a gesture is fine but demanding it for release is illegal.

El Tarangu · 02-11-2019 10:16pm

Purple Mountain wrote: »

Ring him back and tell them you want a receipt and casually ask if they are registered for VAT.

Just in relation to the VAT thing - businesses with a turnover of less than a certain amount (less than €30k, I believe) aren't obliged to register for, nor charge, VAT.

An animal shelter in almost all circumstances would fall below this threshold, so while they would be obliged to provide some sort of a receipt, asking them for their VAT number wouldn't be the 'mic drop' moment you might be thinking it would be.

joeguevara · 02-11-2019 10:19pm

El Tarangu wrote: »

Just in relation to the VAT thing - businesses with a turnover of less than a certain amount (less than €30k, I believe) aren't obliged to register for, nor charge, VAT.

An animal shelter in almost all circumstances would fall below this threshold, so while they would be obliged to provide some sort of a receipt, asking them for their VAT number wouldn't be the 'mic drop' moment you might be thinking it would be.

And if it's a registered charity it doesn't pay tax.

John_Rambo · 02-11-2019 10:20pm

joeguevara wrote: »

The shelter was not obliged to retrieve the dog so any costs they incurred was by their own choice. Requesting donation as a gesture is fine but demanding it for release is illegal.

Illegal, but reasonable. However, I have a feeling the €50 release fee wasn't demanded, but strongly suggested as a payment/donation to pay for the logistics that involves rescuing, bedding, feeding etc... along with the day to day ancillary costs of running a shelter. Fair is fair.

I'd be happy to pay €50. It's not extortionate and the ballpark amount I'd have left at the counter anyway.

joeguevara · 02-11-2019 10:23pm

John_Rambo wrote: »

Illegal, but reasonable. However, have a feeling the €50 release fee wasn't demanded, but strongly suggested as a payment/donation to pay for the logistics.

I'd be happy to pay €50. It's not extortionate and the ballpark amount I'd have left at the counter anyway.

Competely agree. But this is legal issues thread and my response was prefaced by that.

John_Rambo · 02-11-2019 10:48pm

joeguevara wrote: »

Competely agree. But this is legal issues thread and my response was prefaced by that.

I hear you, but the legal implications of the dog roaming could have been massive and running in to tens of thousands of €€.

Realistically, any competent, experienced legal civic minded professional on the ground that daily see's the grey between the black and white would surely advice the dog owner as a client to simply pay the donation and counsel the client to be thankful there weren't worse consequences.

Gormal · 02-11-2019 10:50pm

joeguevara wrote: »

The shelter was not obliged to retrieve the dog so any costs they incurred was by their own choice. Requesting donation as a gesture is fine but demanding it for release is illegal.

We only have the OPs word about demanding it.

The charity may have a minimum donation set to cover costs, it is clear the OP didn't like that his relative paid a fee to have his dog returned safely. The owner is responsible for any costs that their pet incurs.

TBH the owner has breached more laws and if the OP sought legal advice, he would be likely be told to cut his losses and quit while he's ahead. I'm sure there is a lot more to it than the OP lets on.

Graham · 02-11-2019 10:53pm

Gormal wrote: »

The charity may have a minimum donation set to cover costs, it is clear the OP didn't like that his relative paid a fee to have his dog returned safely. The owner is responsible for any costs that their pet incurs.

I'm not sure it's a 'donation' if it's compulsory and there's a set amount/minimum.

Which particular legislation covers costs incurred by a pet by a party working on no particular statutory basis?

John_Rambo · 02-11-2019 11:03pm

Gormal wrote: »

TBH the owner has breached more laws and if the OP sought legal advice, he would be likely be told to cut his losses and quit while he's ahead. I'm sure there is a lot more to it than the OP lets on.

This.

Any legal professional would surely look at this and come to this conclusion. There'd be eyebrows raised if it was €200, but €50 is good money well spent. Personally it would be €100 at the counter. Particularly if there was livestock in the area.

Always Tired · 02-11-2019 11:21pm

When I worked at the SPCA there were a few people who refused to pay the owner claim fee, and if they were willing to raise a big stink about it, fully embarrassing themselves in a public place (it was a busy shelter with people always milling about) we would eventually give them the dog back.

Or, if they were polite/grateful but said they couldn't afford it, we would simply ask them to pay what they could afford.

And I'd say most operate that same way. I doubt they said the dog would not be returned unless the fee was paid, they generally want animals to go out the doors whenever possible.

The owner paid it. The son calling to demand the money be returned was a total tool move though.

Graham · 02-11-2019 11:32pm

Always Tired wrote: »

When I worked at the SPCA there were a few people who refused to pay the owner claim fee, and if they were willing to raise a big stink about it, fully embarrassing themselves in a public place (it was a busy shelter with people always milling about) we would eventually give them the dog back.

As if there were no statutory/legal basis for demanding a fee?

John_Rambo · 02-11-2019 11:39pm

Graham wrote: »

As if there were no statutory/legal basis for demanding a fee?

Reading the post, it's very very very very obvious that there's no statutory/legal basis for demanding a fee. It's down to common decency and civic responsibility. Of course you could pick up the dog, give the finger and head back home. But any responsible dog owner would be happy to pay a fee that would insure the rescue centres future good work.

Graham · 02-11-2019 11:47pm

John_Rambo wrote: »

Reading the post, it's very very very very obvious that there's no statutory/legal basis for demanding a fee.

I suspect you're right there J.R.

joeguevara · 03-11-2019 12:06am

There is a reason why private entities cannot demand fees as espoused by the OP. It may encourage unscrupulous people to go around taking dogs. What would stop them opening gates to let dogs out only to then put them in the back of a van and demand fees.

As I said donations fine. But only if they are discretionary.

If this was in the animal issues forum I'd say to the OP to cop on and be glad your dog is safe.

ganmo · 03-11-2019 9:32am

Graham wrote: »

I suspect you're right there J.R.

These fees/fines are covered by the control of dogs act. Unfortunately as I've said earlier these charities are doing the council's job for them and they arent covered by the act

(c) pays the amount of the expenditure incurred by the local authority or by the Garda Síochána in respect of the seizure and detention of the dog

Discodog · 03-11-2019 9:46am

ganmo wrote: »

These fees/fines are covered by the control of dogs act. Unfortunately as I've said earlier these charities are doing the council's job for them and they arent covered by the act

They are if they are designated as a Pound by the LA. For example the ISPCA have run Pounds. LA's would rather use a rescue than running their own Pounds.

Anyone can tender to be a Pound.

GM228 · 03-11-2019 12:04pm

Discodog wrote: »

ganmo wrote: »

These fees/fines are covered by the control of dogs act. Unfortunately as I've said earlier these charities are doing the council's job for them and they arent covered by the act

They are if they are designated as a Pound by the LA. For example the ISPCA have run Pounds. LA's would rather use a rescue than running their own Pounds.

Anyone can tender to be a Pound.

The fees afforded by S11 (5)(c) only applies to dogs which have been seized and detained by a dog warden or member of AGS and handed to the local authority. Unless they are seized by a dog warden/member of AGS and then handed to the LA there is no lawful authority for the fee even if the pound is working on behalf of the LA.

Dial Hard · 03-11-2019 12:29pm

daheff wrote: »

OP said that they refused to release the dog back to the parent unless 50 eur was paid over... not quite the same as asking for a donation.

No he didn't. He asked - after the fact - what would have happened if his dad hadn't paid the release fee and was told they would have hung on to the dog. There was never any refusal to release the dog.

Dav010 · 03-11-2019 12:43pm

Dial Hard wrote: »

No he didn't. He asked - after the fact - what would have happened if his dad hadn't paid the release fee and was told they would have hung on to the dog. There was never any refusal to release the dog.

Op wasn’t even there and as far as I can tell, without reading back through all the crap, his father didn’t complain, the op did.

I bet my bile duct Dad was just happy to get his dog back and appreciated the care given to it, it’s the son that is rabid about it.

Discodog · 03-11-2019 1:52pm

GM228 wrote: »

The fees afforded by S11 (5)(c) only applies to dogs which have been seized and detained by a dog warden or member of AGS and handed to the local authority. Unless they are seized by a dog warden/member of AGS and then handed to the LA there is no lawful authority for the fee even if the pound is working on behalf of the LA.

I seem to recall that the appointment of Pound Keepers is covered by the Pound Act 1935. The LA's issue tenders & the only way that a Pound can recover their costs is from fees/fines.

For example Ashton Pound Dublin is a private company that operates a Pound & provides Dog Wardens.

There are some strange anomalies. For example anyone may break & enter a Pound for the purpose of providing drinking water.

Section 7(5) of the Act of 1911 states as follows:-
“If any animal is impounded or confined in any pound for six successive hours or longer and is without such food or
water as is required by Subsection 1 of this section to be supplied, any person may enter the pound for the purpose of
supplying the animal therewith.”

GM228 · 03-11-2019 2:23pm

Discodog wrote: »

I seem to recall that the appointment of Pound Keepers is covered by the Pound Act 1935. The LA's issue tenders & the only way that a Pound can recover their costs is from fees/fines.

For example Ashton Pound Dublin is a private company that operates a Pound & provides Dog Wardens.

Indeed, but that has nothing to do with the point I made regarding the fees under the Control of Dogs Act 1986. LAs entering into agreements with private pounds is now covered under the Animals Act 1985, fees for owners could be made lawful by Ministerial regulation when the animal was impounded by the LA, AGS or the OPW, no such regulations were ever made.

Discodog wrote: »

There are some strange anomalies. For example anyone may break & enter a Pound for the purpose of providing drinking water.

Section 7(5) of the Act of 1911 states as follows:-
“If any animal is impounded or confined in any pound for six successive hours or longer and is without such food or
water as is required by Subsection 1 of this section to be supplied, any person may enter the pound for the purpose of
supplying the animal therewith.”

Enter and break and enter are not the same.

To note, the Protection of Animals Act 1911 is no longer in force, there are no such provisions afforded by the 2013 Act.

Discodog · 03-11-2019 2:50pm

GM228 wrote: »

Indeed, but that has nothing to do with the point I made regarding the fees under the Control of Dogs Act 1986.

Enter and break and enter are not the same.

To note, the Protection of Animals Act 1911 is no longer in force, there are no such provisions afforded by the 2013 Act.

If a private rescue becomes a Pound & operates a Warden service then it can impose fees. It would become a Pound/Warden as per the 1986 act.

And it should be noted that the 2013 Act is far more open to interpretation.

GM228 · 03-11-2019 2:55pm

Discodog wrote: »

If a private rescue becomes a Pound & operates a Warden service then it can impose fees. It would become a Pound/Warden as per the 1986 act.

Indeed, but only as I already stated if seized and detained by a member of AGS or the dog warden.

Pounds and dog wardens are not the same. If the person who took possession of the dog at the charity is a dog warden (either directly by the LA or under contract) then yes a fee could be charged, if not a dog warden then no it can't charge even if it is a pound under contract to the LA.

Being a pound or not is not the qualifying criteria for the fees being lawful.

Discodog wrote: »

And it should be noted that the 2013 Act is far more open to interpretation.

In what context?

Discodog · 03-11-2019 3:16pm

GM228 wrote: »

Indeed, but only as I already stated if seized and detained by a member of AGS or the LA dog warden.

In what context?

A private warden/pound effectively becomes the LA Warden if appointed by the LA.

It deliberately avoids specifics. For example, if you don't exercise your dog, it would be impossible to convict under the old Act. Now if expert opinion decides that your dog's needs aren't being provided for, such as exercise, you can be prosecuted. It even covers mental suffering.

“unnecessary suffering” means, in relation to an animal, pain, distress or suffering (whether physical or mental) that in its kind or degree, or in its object, or in the circumstances in which it occurs, is unreasonable or unnecessary.

I was indirectly involved with discussions regarding the new Act. I talked to a number of Vets & the opinion was to leave the specifics up to individual cases & interpretation. One problem that has since emerged is the unwilliness of some Vets to be seen giving evidence against their clients.

GM228 · 03-11-2019 3:38pm

Discodog wrote: »

A private warden/pound effectively becomes the LA Warden if appointed by the LA.

Yes a private warden is a LA warden for the purposes of the 1986 Act when provided for and appointed under agreement, that is not in dispute.

The point however is that a private pound which impounds dogs under agreement with the LA is not the same as a private dog warden, just because the LA has entered into agreement with a pound to provide the service on their behalf does not mean they have also entered into agreement with the pound to provide a dog warden also.

For a fee to be lawful the dog must be seized and detained by a warden, the fact the dog is retained in a pound is of no relevance if not seized by the warden. The warden must be a person so appointed who holds a certificate of appointment. A legal person can not be the warden, the warden must be a natural person, that is the law.

Discodog · 03-11-2019 3:58pm

GM228 wrote: »

Yes a private warden is a LA warden for the purposes of the 1986 Act when provided for under agreement, that is not in dispute.

The point however is that a private pound which impounds dogs under agreement with the LA is not the same as a private dog warden, just because the LA has entered into agreement with a pound to provide the service on their behalf does not mean they have also entered into agreement with the pound to provide a dog warden also.

The point is can a Pound/Warden, that has entered an agreement with a LA, charge fees & impose fines ?

If not then no company would tender for such an agreement as it's their source of income. They have to balance the tender price against the expected income from fees & fines. For example the ISPCA operate a number of Pounds & Warden services such as in Donegal. Both the Wardens & Pound can impose fees & fines.

Local authorities may enter into agreements with each other to provide dog wardens and dog shelters. Some local authorities may enter into agreements with the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ISPCA) or, with permission from the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, a person or organisation connected with animal welfare to provide these services.

https://www.ispca.ie/guard_dog_register_information/

So the rescue in the OP maybe authorised by the LA.

GM228 · 03-11-2019 4:04pm

Discodog wrote: »

The point is can a Pound/Warden, that has entered an agreement with a LA, charge fees & impose fines ?

If not then no company would tender for such an agreement as it's their source of income. They have to balance the tender price against the expected income from fees & fines. For example the ISPCA operate a number of Pounds & Warden services such as in Donegal. Both the Wardens & Pound can impose fees & fines.

Local authorities may enter into agreements with each other to provide dog wardens and dog shelters. Some local authorities may enter into agreements with the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ISPCA) or, with permission from the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, a person or organisation connected with animal welfare to provide these services.

https://www.ispca.ie/guard_dog_register_information/

So the rescue in the OP maybe authorised by the LA.

Their income comes from the LA themselves and fees - which can be levied, but only if the dog is seized by a warden. Income from fines goes direct to the LA irrespective of weather the warden is directly employed or provided for under agreement.

Private pounds who enter into agreement with a LA could lawfully charge a fee if provided for by Ministerial regulations issued under the 1985 Act, no such regulations were issued. There are fees for pounds covered under the Pounds (Provision and Maintenance), Act 1935 however, but that does not cover private pounds entered into agreement with the LA.

The point I keep making is that the qualifying criteria for a lawful demand for a fee is dependent on the dog being seized and detained by a member of AGS or the dog warden, not just held by the pound themselves i.e a member of the public handing in a dog, if that is not satisfied the test for a lawful demand is not satisfied.

Discodog · 03-11-2019 4:22pm

GM228 wrote: »

Their income comes from the LA themselves and fees - which can be levied, but only if the dog is seized by a warden. Income from fines goes direct to the LA irrespective of weather the warden is directly employed or provided for under agreement.

Pounds who enter into agreement with a LA could lawfully charge a fee if provided for by Ministerial regulations issued under the 1985 Act, no such regulations were issued.

The point I keep making is that the qualifying criteria for a lawful demand for a fee is dependent on the dog being seized and detained by a member of AGS or the dog warden, not by the pound themselves (i.e a member of the public handing in a dog).

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.

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.

Charging for picking up a dog

Comments