neighbour's dogs attack my cat - dog warden not interested?
Discussion
So... my lovely, cantankerous, but normally more placid than a placid thing 12 year old female cat is sitting on my front porch one evening watching the world go by. (she can stare at a wall for hours so being on the front porch must be nothing short of orgasmic.) And proceeds to get attacked by the neighbour's dogs. It's not clear what kicked things off; neighbour thinks her dogs might have seen a fox which spooled them up and when they saw the cat some 20 feet away they unexpectedly lunged for it and she had both leads ripped out of her hands. Cat suffered soft tissue damage to its hind quarters, still limps 4 weeks later and now pretty much refuses to go outside at the front or the back of the house. Even the sound of a dog barking outside makes her twitch. The dogs are medium sized mongrels that seem docile enough but 40 year old neighbour is clearly unable to control them both while out walkies.
I heard the screaming and yowling and ran to the front door. Cat was standing its ground (that's my girl!) and one dog had signs of a paw swipe across its face. 2nd dog seemed unscathed. I grabbed one of the leads and hoisted the dog into the air. Neighbour dragged the other dog away and I gave her the lead I had in my hands and she f*cked off home.
As it was out of hours and cat was in considerable pain (hindquarters slathered in dog saliva; guess they have now calibrated their jaws that long haired cats have a lot of fluff above the flesh?!) took her to the vet and he administered pain killers and then took 2 x-rays, 2nd one under an anaesthetic, to confirm no internal bleeding or broken pelvis. £425 vet bill as a result. Cat is no longer insured; pretty much drained insurance policy benefits after she had a growth on her tongue removed about 2 years ago. Now when she meows her "voice" cracks like she's a heavy smoker - still makes me smile. But I digress.
My cat usually gives dogs a stiff ignoring - even when friends bring their dogs round she just glares at them and hisses if they get too close and each steers clear of the other and all's fine.
Police don't want to know as no-one was injured. Dog warden doesn't want to know as it happened on private property. Neighbour fully admits cat was always on my front garden. Upon being presented with the vet bill she's back peddling like mad as to what happened - the lies and contradictions in her response are too funny. Such as "your cat charged my dogs; she attacked them" but then later in the letter she says "if they ever attack your cat again I can't be held responsible". And she refuses to pay.
gov.uk website is pretty clear about controlling one's dogs https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public but it seems police and even the dog warden have no interest in upholding the law of the land. I fully appreciate there are greater crimes and more dangerous dogs out in the world for the police to deal with but that the dog warden doesn't give a fig?
And I guess I'm resigned to small claims court to recover my money if the neighbour doesn't have an epiphany soon?
I heard the screaming and yowling and ran to the front door. Cat was standing its ground (that's my girl!) and one dog had signs of a paw swipe across its face. 2nd dog seemed unscathed. I grabbed one of the leads and hoisted the dog into the air. Neighbour dragged the other dog away and I gave her the lead I had in my hands and she f*cked off home.
As it was out of hours and cat was in considerable pain (hindquarters slathered in dog saliva; guess they have now calibrated their jaws that long haired cats have a lot of fluff above the flesh?!) took her to the vet and he administered pain killers and then took 2 x-rays, 2nd one under an anaesthetic, to confirm no internal bleeding or broken pelvis. £425 vet bill as a result. Cat is no longer insured; pretty much drained insurance policy benefits after she had a growth on her tongue removed about 2 years ago. Now when she meows her "voice" cracks like she's a heavy smoker - still makes me smile. But I digress.
My cat usually gives dogs a stiff ignoring - even when friends bring their dogs round she just glares at them and hisses if they get too close and each steers clear of the other and all's fine.
Police don't want to know as no-one was injured. Dog warden doesn't want to know as it happened on private property. Neighbour fully admits cat was always on my front garden. Upon being presented with the vet bill she's back peddling like mad as to what happened - the lies and contradictions in her response are too funny. Such as "your cat charged my dogs; she attacked them" but then later in the letter she says "if they ever attack your cat again I can't be held responsible". And she refuses to pay.
gov.uk website is pretty clear about controlling one's dogs https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public but it seems police and even the dog warden have no interest in upholding the law of the land. I fully appreciate there are greater crimes and more dangerous dogs out in the world for the police to deal with but that the dog warden doesn't give a fig?
And I guess I'm resigned to small claims court to recover my money if the neighbour doesn't have an epiphany soon?
I'd be inclined to appeal to her sense of loyalty to her dogs by giving her the option of paying to end the matter, but state that if she refuses to do that then you will have no option but to take the matter to court.
Stress that you really don't want to do that as you are concerned that the court may decide that her dogs are dangerous, and should be put down, which you don't want, but that you can't be expected to take the financial hit for a dog attack which happened because she was not in proper control of her dogs.
You could get a solicitor to send a letter on your behalf, which might make her take it a little more seriously.
Good luck.
Stress that you really don't want to do that as you are concerned that the court may decide that her dogs are dangerous, and should be put down, which you don't want, but that you can't be expected to take the financial hit for a dog attack which happened because she was not in proper control of her dogs.
You could get a solicitor to send a letter on your behalf, which might make her take it a little more seriously.
Good luck.
I was thinking small claims court, but have a read of this. Do they dogs have any history of attacks?
https://www.dogbitesolicitors.co.uk/dog-bite-laws
https://www.dogbitesolicitors.co.uk/dog-bite-laws
Mort7 said:
I'd be inclined to appeal to her sense of loyalty to her dogs by giving her the option of paying to end the matter, but state that if she refuses to do that then you will have no option but to take the matter to court.
Stress that you really don't want to do that as you are concerned that the court may decide that her dogs are dangerous, and should be put down, which you don't want, but that you can't be expected to take the financial hit for a dog attack which happened because she was not in proper control of her dogs.
You could get a solicitor to send a letter on your behalf, which might make her take it a little more seriously.
Good luck.
This.Stress that you really don't want to do that as you are concerned that the court may decide that her dogs are dangerous, and should be put down, which you don't want, but that you can't be expected to take the financial hit for a dog attack which happened because she was not in proper control of her dogs.
You could get a solicitor to send a letter on your behalf, which might make her take it a little more seriously.
Good luck.
Thanks for all the replies. To the best of my knowledge the dogs have no previous form. Another neighbour tells me that one of the dogs now wears a muzzle when out in public.
I get that £400 is a lot of money but she's not pleading poverty - she's denying any and all responsibility for what happened. Her attitude has gone from being mortified and embarrassed on the evening of the attack to aggression and denial. I will suggest she looks at what insurances she might have.
Spurred by the replies I did some more digging and found https://sites.google.com/site/fidointheuk/controll... I will give the constabulary another bell and push harder. It surely won't endear me to my neighbour but she needs to accept ownership for what happened.
I get that £400 is a lot of money but she's not pleading poverty - she's denying any and all responsibility for what happened. Her attitude has gone from being mortified and embarrassed on the evening of the attack to aggression and denial. I will suggest she looks at what insurances she might have.
Spurred by the replies I did some more digging and found https://sites.google.com/site/fidointheuk/controll... I will give the constabulary another bell and push harder. It surely won't endear me to my neighbour but she needs to accept ownership for what happened.
Friend of ours had something very similar happen recently, albeit with a dog.
She was out walking with her dog, when a woman with a pram and two dogs approached, dogs attacked the friends dog, woman couldn't control her 2 dogs due to the baby etc.
Fast forward, friends dog goes to the vets, around £400 later stitches and painkillers she goes round to the woman's house with photo's of the dogs injuries, woman (and her hubby) deny everything, their dogs barking like crazy and uncontrolled.
Friend recorded it all on her phone just in case, now in the process of going to the small claims court, lawyer involved etc.
She was out walking with her dog, when a woman with a pram and two dogs approached, dogs attacked the friends dog, woman couldn't control her 2 dogs due to the baby etc.
Fast forward, friends dog goes to the vets, around £400 later stitches and painkillers she goes round to the woman's house with photo's of the dogs injuries, woman (and her hubby) deny everything, their dogs barking like crazy and uncontrolled.
Friend recorded it all on her phone just in case, now in the process of going to the small claims court, lawyer involved etc.
First of all sorry to hear about you cat. Horrible when it happnes to a pet of any species.
In reality as the police and the dog warden have said from a legal standpoint you dont really have a recourse.
Partly because a no human was involved and also because the dogs have no previous reports and from what you say they arent agressive anyway so unlikely to be proven so by anyone. Prey drive and aggression are too very different things.
Your best course of action is to try and be diplomatic with the owner, and I would not recommend or advocate bandying phases like the DDA around as it wont apply anyway. Obviously you have tried this so the only other option would be small claims to recoup some of the cost if obviously they go in your favour.
I would say the small claims odds are slim for the reasons metioned above but it may prompt a resolution before that stage.
In reality as the police and the dog warden have said from a legal standpoint you dont really have a recourse.
Partly because a no human was involved and also because the dogs have no previous reports and from what you say they arent agressive anyway so unlikely to be proven so by anyone. Prey drive and aggression are too very different things.
Your best course of action is to try and be diplomatic with the owner, and I would not recommend or advocate bandying phases like the DDA around as it wont apply anyway. Obviously you have tried this so the only other option would be small claims to recoup some of the cost if obviously they go in your favour.
I would say the small claims odds are slim for the reasons metioned above but it may prompt a resolution before that stage.
Edited by makaveli144 on Tuesday 29th January 16:34
You decided not to insure your cat due to cost so you have to recognise that your decision has left you liable to this bill but.....
Is the dog insured?
Most policies have public liability. Would hers cover this?
edit to add: you haven't insured the cat for 2 years? wouldn't the saved premiums cover the bill minus any excess there would have been?
Is the dog insured?
Most policies have public liability. Would hers cover this?
edit to add: you haven't insured the cat for 2 years? wouldn't the saved premiums cover the bill minus any excess there would have been?
Edited by babelfish on Tuesday 29th January 23:39
Umm, not sure I'm much in agreement with 2 recent posts.
The fact that the police and the dog warden aren't interested doesn't mean much other than they're not interested. More than likely they can't be arsed. no blood shed, no-one died, etc. The link I posted to FIDO certainly implies that. And the law seems clearer than a clear thing to me? Just because no-one's interested in enforcing it doesn't make it OK to ignore. As a result of the FIDO site I will push the police and particularly the dog warden harder.
No-one is quoting the Dangerous Dogs Act which is pretty specific as to the breed. But arguably a dog that is out of control is a potential dangerous dog (note the lower case 'd')?
The prey instinct is strong because the training is weak and the owner weaker still. A friend has a well trained Jack Russell. We can be walking through a field and it will spot a rabbit. It's off the lead so could be off like a rocket. But it looks back to him and he calls it and the dog comes to him. Looking rather unhappy but the dog knows the rules. And gets a treat and praise in return.
I chose not to insure the cat against health issues and I accepted that risk but where on earth does that mean I accept liability for my neighbour's negligence toward my cat?! Although car insurance is different that would be like her using my drive to reverse her car and carelessly driving into my parked car (SORNed and uninsured so all quite legal) on my drive and then saying I should claim off my insurance and when I say it's not insured she says too bad - your loss?! Seriously?
The fact that the police and the dog warden aren't interested doesn't mean much other than they're not interested. More than likely they can't be arsed. no blood shed, no-one died, etc. The link I posted to FIDO certainly implies that. And the law seems clearer than a clear thing to me? Just because no-one's interested in enforcing it doesn't make it OK to ignore. As a result of the FIDO site I will push the police and particularly the dog warden harder.
No-one is quoting the Dangerous Dogs Act which is pretty specific as to the breed. But arguably a dog that is out of control is a potential dangerous dog (note the lower case 'd')?
The prey instinct is strong because the training is weak and the owner weaker still. A friend has a well trained Jack Russell. We can be walking through a field and it will spot a rabbit. It's off the lead so could be off like a rocket. But it looks back to him and he calls it and the dog comes to him. Looking rather unhappy but the dog knows the rules. And gets a treat and praise in return.
I chose not to insure the cat against health issues and I accepted that risk but where on earth does that mean I accept liability for my neighbour's negligence toward my cat?! Although car insurance is different that would be like her using my drive to reverse her car and carelessly driving into my parked car (SORNed and uninsured so all quite legal) on my drive and then saying I should claim off my insurance and when I say it's not insured she says too bad - your loss?! Seriously?
paintman said:
Worth having a word with the RSPCA or Cat's Protection?
I would think they will have a lot more experience of this sort of thing so would be better qualified to advise you.
I did look at both websites and they seem focused on cruelty to animals inflicted by people as opposed to anything else. But can't hurt to give them a bell.I would think they will have a lot more experience of this sort of thing so would be better qualified to advise you.
Sorry not meaning to be controversial but -
Why are you expecting your neighbour to pay the £400? there is nothing wrong with the cat so the dogs did no damage for your peace of mind you wanted to tests done, I also would have in this situation.
If another cat had attacked yours would you be tracking down the cat owner? or just chalk it up as 2 animals being animals?
I must see this differently to you! I am not having a go at all as I would have done the same for my cat but I wouldn't be claiming anything from my neighbour.
Why are you expecting your neighbour to pay the £400? there is nothing wrong with the cat so the dogs did no damage for your peace of mind you wanted to tests done, I also would have in this situation.
If another cat had attacked yours would you be tracking down the cat owner? or just chalk it up as 2 animals being animals?
I must see this differently to you! I am not having a go at all as I would have done the same for my cat but I wouldn't be claiming anything from my neighbour.
I'm expecting the neighbour to pay the bill as it was solely incurred as a result of her negligence. Based on the how the cat was dragging its hindquarters, yowling in pain when we tried to pick her up and had a high heartbeat and was breathing very rapidly we feared serious injury, hence the x-rays and subsequent pain killers. The vet was surprised nothing more serious was wrong; he was surprised that two young dogs inflicted so little damage.
I'm not sure that because nothing was broken or punctured means I should be the one out of pocket? An imperfect analogy: Let's say you're in a car accident somewhere abroad where medical care isn't free. You're sitting at lights and get hit from behind. You complain of sharp neck pains. An ambulance arrives and they put you on a spinal board and cart you off to hospital. After xrays it's determined that you're fine, just some soft tissue injuries. Here are some painkillers; go home. The driver of the other car, who previously apologised profusely for his mistake then says upon being presented with the ambulance/hospital "well, as you were effectively unhurt I'm not paying the bill; you'll have to pay it yourself". What would you do - be grateful that you were OK and let him off the hook?
I appreciate I took on additional risk when I chose not to renew the policy. Cat could get run over. She's survived 10 years so far and seems to know to listen carefully before crossing the road. Getting into a fight with another cat - not likely for a 10 year old neutered female. But just because I took on some risk doesn't mean I should take on all risk. Or does it?
I'm not sure that because nothing was broken or punctured means I should be the one out of pocket? An imperfect analogy: Let's say you're in a car accident somewhere abroad where medical care isn't free. You're sitting at lights and get hit from behind. You complain of sharp neck pains. An ambulance arrives and they put you on a spinal board and cart you off to hospital. After xrays it's determined that you're fine, just some soft tissue injuries. Here are some painkillers; go home. The driver of the other car, who previously apologised profusely for his mistake then says upon being presented with the ambulance/hospital "well, as you were effectively unhurt I'm not paying the bill; you'll have to pay it yourself". What would you do - be grateful that you were OK and let him off the hook?
I appreciate I took on additional risk when I chose not to renew the policy. Cat could get run over. She's survived 10 years so far and seems to know to listen carefully before crossing the road. Getting into a fight with another cat - not likely for a 10 year old neutered female. But just because I took on some risk doesn't mean I should take on all risk. Or does it?
AW10 said:
I'm expecting the neighbour to pay the bill as it was solely incurred as a result of her negligence. Based on the how the cat was dragging its hindquarters, yowling in pain when we tried to pick her up and had a high heartbeat and was breathing very rapidly we feared serious injury, hence the x-rays and subsequent pain killers. The vet was surprised nothing more serious was wrong; he was surprised that two young dogs inflicted so little damage.
I'm not sure that because nothing was broken or punctured means I should be the one out of pocket? An imperfect analogy: Let's say you're in a car accident somewhere abroad where medical care isn't free. You're sitting at lights and get hit from behind. You complain of sharp neck pains. An ambulance arrives and they put you on a spinal board and cart you off to hospital. After xrays it's determined that you're fine, just some soft tissue injuries. Here are some painkillers; go home. The driver of the other car, who previously apologised profusely for his mistake then says upon being presented with the ambulance/hospital "well, as you were effectively unhurt I'm not paying the bill; you'll have to pay it yourself". What would you do - be grateful that you were OK and let him off the hook?
I appreciate I took on additional risk when I chose not to renew the policy. Cat could get run over. She's survived 10 years so far and seems to know to listen carefully before crossing the road. Getting into a fight with another cat - not likely for a 10 year old neutered female. But just because I took on some risk doesn't mean I should take on all risk. Or does it?
As I said the dogs caused no damage, so why is the neighbour expected to pay? You did the correct thing obviously and yes she should have control of her dogs! But they are animals, you know there are risks when you let your animal roam free. I'm not sure that because nothing was broken or punctured means I should be the one out of pocket? An imperfect analogy: Let's say you're in a car accident somewhere abroad where medical care isn't free. You're sitting at lights and get hit from behind. You complain of sharp neck pains. An ambulance arrives and they put you on a spinal board and cart you off to hospital. After xrays it's determined that you're fine, just some soft tissue injuries. Here are some painkillers; go home. The driver of the other car, who previously apologised profusely for his mistake then says upon being presented with the ambulance/hospital "well, as you were effectively unhurt I'm not paying the bill; you'll have to pay it yourself". What would you do - be grateful that you were OK and let him off the hook?
I appreciate I took on additional risk when I chose not to renew the policy. Cat could get run over. She's survived 10 years so far and seems to know to listen carefully before crossing the road. Getting into a fight with another cat - not likely for a 10 year old neutered female. But just because I took on some risk doesn't mean I should take on all risk. Or does it?
Your example is flawed, if the lady went to the vets for the scratch on the dogs face and presented a £400 bill would you pay it? After all your cat caused the damage.
I really do sympathise with you I bet it was horrible seeing your cat like that, and at the time money isn't even thought about! However now you face a £400 bill you seem to want to claim from someone, when really its just the risk you take letting your cat out! Trust me I have just paid a similar amount only to loose my cat I am not having a go.
joshcowin said:
As I said the dogs caused no damage, so why is the neighbour expected to pay?
The dogs damaged the cat. The cat is property in law. If your dog damages property you *may* be liable;http://www.doglaw.co.uk/damage-claims/
otolith said:
joshcowin said:
As I said the dogs caused no damage, so why is the neighbour expected to pay?
The dogs damaged the cat. The cat is property in law. If your dog damages property you *may* be liable;http://www.doglaw.co.uk/damage-claims/
joshcowin said:
Have you read the thread, the cat was fine.
I really don't understand your logic so help me understand. In your eyes is there any level of injury at which the neighbour bears any liability? One tooth puncture? 10? A leg hanging by its tendons? a broken pelvis? A dead cat?My cat wasn't roaming; it was on my front porch. 20 feet from the pavement. Hanging out, minding its own business, watching the world go by. As cats do. The dogs were effectively loose. Not under control of their owner. And I own the liability?
Gassing Station | All Creatures Great & Small | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff