Compulsary Dog Insurance

[wild whippies]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

Is there only me on K9 who's fuming with the recent proposal to introduce compulsary third party liability insurance?

Does the government honestly think owners of dangerous breeds are going to fork out to insure their dogs?

Insurance companies can refuse to offer a policy anyway so they'll probably refuse the risky ones whilst rubbing their hands together at the hefty premiums they'll issue to us responsible dog owners.

Is it really fair that a burglar can sue the pants off you if your dog bites them for breaking into your property?

Can you imagine how fast the premiums will escalate when scammers cotton on?!

I've also got issues over the compulsary micro-chipping thing too, my gripe being that it isn't compulsary for anyone to scan a lost dog that is found. (unless it's involved in a major incident where the owners can be held liable and I'd bet my bottom dollar some one will scan it then!) :shifty:

Unfortunately I came across a dead dog in the canal today. It was in a heavy state of decay but I managed to recover a collar and thought it best to notify the police incase some poor owner is searching for their lost dog. The police weren't the slightest bit interested in a description or the collar and told me they'd get the waterways to remove it. Chances are the dog won't be scanned for a chip.

Which brings me back to dangerous dogs, if I seen a 'dangerous dog breed' who do I contact? The police? Will they even be interested?

Maybe an advertising campaign about what exactly folk should do would be more effective and actually exercising the dangerous dogs act policy that's already in place would be a good start. Maybe looking into cases where dogs have attacked other dogs in public would be worthwhile - especially when I recall folk in the past trying to spar their dogs at mine when I was out walking and I know damn well they were doing it for a purpose.

God knows how many times I've harped on, on here about compulsary licensing for 'high risk' dogs that are recognised as difficult to train and own. I think vets should also be made to notify authorities of dogs they've treated with fighting related injuries where they have reasonable suspicians of dog fighting or even to highlight a potential 'blackspot' area where innocent dogs are being attacked.

Don't get me wrong, if I thought either of these proposals would benefit me, my dogs or someone else then I'd be dutifully handing my money over but personally I think this is a complete scam. :rant:

 

[wild whippies]

Folk should also check out Annie's post about Dogs trust membership, well worthwhile whether you want to get insurance or not! :thumbsup:

http://www.k9community.co.uk/forums/index....showtopic=67364

 

[peppermint sue]

I agree it is a complete scam :rant: :rant: :rant:

 

[Lal]

Totally agree with Wid Whippies, this would be completely unenforceable. The very people/types of dog they are targetting aren't going to fret about not having insurance. Genuine dog owners/lovers will be out of pocket and the irresponsible will continue as ever.

 

[FeeFee]

Yes, I have to agree, it's completely daft.

It will just be saddling responsible dog owners with extra costs and bureaucracy and will be completely ignored by drug dealers with weapon dogs on sink estates or the scum involved with dog fighting.

Insurance won't stop anyone being attacked, and getting compensation if you are bitten will presumably depend on knowing who owns the dog and being able to prove that a particular dog attacked you, not likely if it's a bunch of yobs in a park somewhere.

I'm very concerned about what it could mean for us as a small rescue with 40+ dogs at any given time in family foster homes. We have a 3rd party liability insurance that covers us as a charity but if we have to insure every dog individually that's going to be a huge additional cost over the course of a year.

I'm sure the insurance companies are rubbing their hands with glee and already making plans to hike up premiums to silly levels for certain breeds knowing people will have no choice but to pay up if they want to keep their dogs :angry:

I sometimes wonder which alternative universe the people who come up with these proposals are living in :rant:

 

[tinabow]

agree with everything jac's had said

also think more dogs will be PTS or end up in RESCUES

where every penny counts

would be hitting the wrong people imo

 

[Lal]

I hadn't thought about the implications for various dog rescue organisations, more particularly the smaller ones, and their situation with regard to foster homes etc.... Another piece of evidence to show that the politicians advocating this scheme have not thought it through.

 

[fallenangel]

trying to getinsurance for racing whippets is a no go to start with well if i cannot aford it they will have to lock me up cos my dogs are going nowere

 

[~Annie~]

I agree with pretty much all the above, and yes I'm fuming too. As with so much else it is the good guys who will be penalised. Plus I have always chosen to third party insure my dogs but I still resent being told I have to and criminalised if I don't. And again, my boys are all microchipped, but that should be a choice ... some people have serious concerns about what happens when microchips move.

Wendy I know getting medical insurance for racing whippets is nigh on impossible, but surely you can still get third party insurance?

 

[Roedeane]

I agree with the op completely - the responsible are being penalised when the guilty parties won't insure, chip etc. I think the way forward was to ensure the police acted on dangerous dogs reported to them - like the b*****d dog that broke my dogs neck and the police just said " it's only a dog!" They didn't even come and take a statement even tho I knew where the dog/owner lived and it was a regular thing for said 'dog' to be loose - On this day I opened my gate to walk my lot and the dog rushed in and broke her neck in one bite - she was dead before I could even pick her up! The police want to get off their lazy a***s and do the job we have tp pay them to do! sorry, but it makes my blood boil when responsible dog owners are tarred with the same brush as the idiots - just MHO

 

[FeeFee]

I agree with the op completely - the responsible are being penalised when the guilty parties won't insure, chip etc. I think the way forward was to ensure the police acted on dangerous dogs reported to them - like the b*****d dog that broke my dogs neck and the police just said " it's only a dog!" They didn't even come and take a statement even tho I knew where the dog/owner lived and it was a regular thing for said 'dog' to be loose - On this day I opened my gate to walk my lot and the dog rushed in and broke her neck in one bite - she was dead before I could even pick her up! The police want to get off their lazy a***s and do the job we have tp pay them to do! sorry, but it makes my blood boil when responsible dog owners are tarred with the same brush as the idiots - just MHO

What an awful experience, I'm so sorry :huggles:

As far as I understand it there is very little in the current or proposed legislation that relates to dogs injuring or attacking other dogs. This is generally (though not in all circumstances) seen as a civil matter and not covered by the DDA.

 

[TIGGERGOULD]

I agree with the op completely - the responsible are being penalised when the guilty parties won't insure, chip etc. I think the way forward was to ensure the police acted on dangerous dogs reported to them - like the b*****d dog that broke my dogs neck and the police just said " it's only a dog!" They didn't even come and take a statement even tho I knew where the dog/owner lived and it was a regular thing for said 'dog' to be loose - On this day I opened my gate to walk my lot and the dog rushed in and broke her neck in one bite - she was dead before I could even pick her up! The police want to get off their lazy a***s and do the job we have tp pay them to do! sorry, but it makes my blood boil when responsible dog owners are tarred with the same brush as the idiots - just MHO

well said i totally agree with you

 

[wilfred]

I agree completely with all the above posts.

My feeling is - it's a nice little money-making exercise to bring in some revenue, but it'll only affect the law-abiding. The thugs who wander about with their aggressive-looking dogs, who don't care a damn about responsible dog-ownership, won't run out and get their dog microchipped and/or insured ... it'll only affect the rest of us.

If we look at all those drivers who drive without insurance (and insured motorists pay a premium to cover uninsured drivers in their car insurance); or look at people who don't pay their TV licences - plenty of people in those 2 groups to start with; how on earth will the authorities enforce compulsory dog insurance and chipping?

And if their dog attacks and injures your or your dog, it's their word against yours if there were no witnesses. A friend of mine was walking her dog locally (small seaside town, east coast) and a woman whose family live in this little town, let her dogs out of the garden - one of them came straight to my friend's greyhound, and attacked the greyhound on the pavement. My friend, who is a very calm woman, was rightly annoyed and the woman denied that the attack was happening!! The vet's bill for my friend's dog came to well over £100 and the woman whose dog caused the attack, lied to the dog warden and refused to admit it happened. A worrying detail - the woman who lied about her dog's attack, is something to do with local kids' sports etc etc - not a very good role model, is she?

We all steer well-clear of her, her dogs, and the addresses she's known to stay at when visiting her family in this town but sadly, she's one of many of display a careless attitude towards dog ownership.

The compulsory insurance/chipping is such a ridiculous suggestion that very probably, it will be passed and become law. It needs thinking through properly but will it happen?

 

[Roedeane]

I agree with the op completely - the responsible are being penalised when the guilty parties won't insure, chip etc. I think the way forward was to ensure the police acted on dangerous dogs reported to them - like the b*****d dog that broke my dogs neck and the police just said " it's only a dog!" They didn't even come and take a statement even tho I knew where the dog/owner lived and it was a regular thing for said 'dog' to be loose - On this day I opened my gate to walk my lot and the dog rushed in and broke her neck in one bite - she was dead before I could even pick her up! The police want to get off their lazy a***s and do the job we have tp pay them to do! sorry, but it makes my blood boil when responsible dog owners are tarred with the same brush as the idiots - just MHO

What an awful experience, I'm so sorry :huggles:

As far as I understand it there is very little in the current or proposed legislation that relates to dogs injuring or attacking other dogs. This is generally (though not in all circumstances) seen as a civil matter and not covered by the DDA.

This is classed as out of control in a public place - so why can't the police actually implement the dda against a dog out of control - because they do not b****y care about dogs

 

[FeeFee]

I'm afraid that the DDA only defines a dog as being 'dangerously out of control' in relation to people, not other dogs as below:

Any dog is dangerously out of control if:

• it injures a person, or

• it behaves in a way that makes

a person worried that it might

injure them.

I'm not saying this is right - your experience was awful and my heart really goes out to you, but it's not something generally covered by the existing or proposed DDA legislation

 

[FeeFee]

Looks like the proposal to introduce compulsory insurance has been dropped:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8570830.stm

The government seem to have finally worked out what everybody else realised immediately, which is that people with illegal/dangerous dogs are the people who wouldn't comply with the law anyway. I suppose it's better late then never that some sort of common sense has prevailed :wacko:

 

[fallenangel]

Looks like the proposal to introduce compulsory insurance has been dropped:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8570830.stm

The government seem to have finally worked out what everybody else realised immediately, which is that people with illegal/dangerous dogs are the people who wouldn't comply with the law anyway. I suppose it's better late then never that some sort of common sense has prevailed :wacko:

you mean too many respectabel dog owners vote