Innocent animal stuck in the middle
Discussion
As a few of you may have noticed from my post in the dog pics thread, I was expecting to adopt a staffy this week but the process has come to a juddering halt due to "company policy" by the rescue centre.
A home check was required to check the suitability of the accommodation and outside area - all fine and all good to go, or so I thought. The rescue centre are now insisting that no adoption can take place unless I take out an insurance policy either through them or sort my own out. I have flat out refused for two main reasons :
1. My previous dog of 14 years - also a staffy - never had an insurance policy and all medical treatment over her life time (which amounted to around 8k in total by my estimations due to an operation and some scans) was all paid for out of a slush fund which was put aside each month as contingency. My financial position is even better now than it was then and I would not agree to adopt an animal if I had doubts over whether I'd be able to keep it healthy.
2. All insurance policies have limits and pet insurance is no different. I have looked through the small print on a few of the insurance providers and there are strict limitations on how many claims you can make in a given period, plus also strict limits on the size of a single claim. Furthermore the premiums rise astronomically once the dog starts getting on a bit.
I have no doubt that my slush fund method saved many thousands of pounds over those 14 years.
We have reached a stalemate where they are refusing to deviate from their "company policy" and I will not be blackmailed into signing up for a completely unnecessary insurance policy. Meanwhile, the poor dog is the one stuck in the middle not knowing what the hell is going on its life.
Call me cynical but I question the underlying motives of some of these "rescue centres". This isn't one of the well known mainstream places either, it's one I've never heard of before. If their true goal is to get the animals rehomed as quickly as possible then once the home check box has been ticked off what's it got to do with them whether the new owner does or doesn't decide to take out an insurance policy?
Not happy..
A home check was required to check the suitability of the accommodation and outside area - all fine and all good to go, or so I thought. The rescue centre are now insisting that no adoption can take place unless I take out an insurance policy either through them or sort my own out. I have flat out refused for two main reasons :
1. My previous dog of 14 years - also a staffy - never had an insurance policy and all medical treatment over her life time (which amounted to around 8k in total by my estimations due to an operation and some scans) was all paid for out of a slush fund which was put aside each month as contingency. My financial position is even better now than it was then and I would not agree to adopt an animal if I had doubts over whether I'd be able to keep it healthy.
2. All insurance policies have limits and pet insurance is no different. I have looked through the small print on a few of the insurance providers and there are strict limitations on how many claims you can make in a given period, plus also strict limits on the size of a single claim. Furthermore the premiums rise astronomically once the dog starts getting on a bit.
I have no doubt that my slush fund method saved many thousands of pounds over those 14 years.
We have reached a stalemate where they are refusing to deviate from their "company policy" and I will not be blackmailed into signing up for a completely unnecessary insurance policy. Meanwhile, the poor dog is the one stuck in the middle not knowing what the hell is going on its life.
Call me cynical but I question the underlying motives of some of these "rescue centres". This isn't one of the well known mainstream places either, it's one I've never heard of before. If their true goal is to get the animals rehomed as quickly as possible then once the home check box has been ticked off what's it got to do with them whether the new owner does or doesn't decide to take out an insurance policy?
Not happy..
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
Sorry for the thread hijack, but these organisations make me mad with their pedancy. There is NO such pet adoption as a PERFECT match, just best fit. I get very angry when the animals welfare takes second fiddle to their idiotic policies.
There is no need to apologise as I couldn't agree with you more.It's alright saying to roll over and just take out a policy but apart from a massive inconvenience and monumental waste of my time, it does nothing to tell them that their "company policy" is ridiculous and unnacceptable. They will simply expect all future adoptees to just accept it because that's what everyone else does. I've never been one to be bullied into doing something I don't agree with, especially when it boils down to it it's nothing more than a pathetic box-ticking exercise as having a policy in place at the time of the hand-over has absolutely no bearing on how well the animal will be cared for under its new owner.
I'll be having a final discussion with them about this later today to see if common sense will prevail but if not then I'll be drawing a line under it as I will not tolerate being blackmailed by an animal rescue centre. There are no shortage of dogs looking for adoption and I'm sure it won't take long to find someone who will greatly appreciates that I can give their dog a loving home and puts the dog's welfare first rather than being more interested in selling insurance policies and ticking boxes.
rsbmw said:
You do realise it's now you being pedantic and refusing to back down over your policy, and putting the dog second?
As pointed out above, there are good reasons for these policies at times, whether you accept it or not.
Explain to me how "there are good reasons for these policies" when you can cancel it 30 seconds after it starts? How does this alter the dog's care and welfare?As pointed out above, there are good reasons for these policies at times, whether you accept it or not.
Unexpected Item In Bagging Area said:
They're sticking to their policy that you think is unreasonable, you're sticking to your policy that they think is unreasonable.
What would you have to gain from not giving in and taking out insurance temporarily? It doesn't take long to purchase pet insurance and even less time to cancel it, particularly in view of the fact that you'll have the dog for many years.
It doesn't look like the adoption is going to happen. The rescue centre has now stipulated that in addition to an insurance policy being in place "at the signing of the contracts" (What would you have to gain from not giving in and taking out insurance temporarily? It doesn't take long to purchase pet insurance and even less time to cancel it, particularly in view of the fact that you'll have the dog for many years.
yes, seriously), they have also dictated that random checks will be performed at any time of their choosing in the future to ensure that valid insurance cover is still in effect. If it is found not to be in place then the contract is terminated with immediate effect and the dog taken back into their care.I am frankly gobsmacked at this conduct but from the majority of the replies above it seems that no-one else sees any problem with this. Frankly I'm done with rescue centres and it disgusts me that they operate in this manner with poor animals caught up in the middle of their ridiculous bureaucracy through no fault of their own.
Cerbhd said:
I don't believe they would legally be able to check this even if they had the resources to call every insurance company.
They've said they would require physical proof, ie. a valid insurance policy. Whether they could actually check its validity or not is detracting from the point.What next? Dictacting what dog food you feed her and having to scan your receipts as proof? Installing CCTV in your home to check you're feeding her twice a day and playing tug'o'war for at least an hour a day? It's beyond ridiculous. No, a lot of these rescue centres seem to think they're a branch of the RSPCA in the way they're acting like Little Hitler's.
I am sure I will find a dog locally via a private ad. Due diligence will be required of course and I may have to get her spayed myself but it'll be far simpler than having to deal with a bunch of jobsworths.
I've already started making enquiries about a red female staffy in S Yorks who is looking for new home. It's a private ad but also listed on the local rescue centre site as well. She's 5 years old which is older than I'd ideally like but she's a real cutie and very placid from what the owner has told me. I'm going to give this other place 24 hours to see if they have a rethink and decide that rehoming an innocent animal is more important than insisting on worthless bits of paper, but if common sense doesn't prevail then I'll be heading down to S Yorks over the weekend 
.
.
Hallelujah! Common sense has prevailed and a "special exception" has been made. I collect her tomorrow. 
Gassing Station | All Creatures Great & Small | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff