Accused of dog theft - URGENT HELP NEEDED

[superlightr]

E36GUY said:

They've got no money. There is no way they can 'take legal action.'

its theft. its a police action. dogs are property.

[Greendubber]

superlightr said:

E36GUY said:

They've got no money. There is no way they can 'take legal action.'

its theft. its a police action. dogs are property.

It's not theft, there's no dishonesty.

[4x4Tyke]

My mother did cat welfare for many years and some time ago had a very similar situation that did go to the small claims. A cat was put up for fostering by the original owner to the welfare group. After several months fostering yielded no contribution to the costs the group rehomed the cat. A couple of years later the original person tried to reclaim the cat, similar to this, police threats dismissed as civil, the small claims judge threw it out because of the lack of contribution to the costs of ownership showed it was abandonment/adoption and not fostering/boarding. Your welfare concerns and statements from the vet & groomer bolsters the case of abandonment.

In your shoes I would view their abandoning the dog as adoption, not fostering. IF they do complain to the Police, the Police will likely say this is a civil issue after you have explained the situation, I doubt they will even bother to talk to you. The 'crime number' is really just a reference to a complaint of a potential crime. It is not proof there has been a crime, just a record made. I doubt the case will go to court, but even if it does, it will likely take the ongoing care as adoption, not fostering and the worse case is you have to hand the dog over.

Edited by 4x4Tyke on Monday 16th July 12:17

[Blanchimont]

I've not had similar, but if it were me I'd be going back to where you had the dog checked over and groomed, and get their accounts/records of how the dog was when you took him to them.

Then speak to RSPCA about what the next steps are.

Failing that, I would go down the route of "see you in court, as the RSPCA are interested in this due to the state the dog was when he arrived to us."

[Mill Wheel]

Red Devil said:

* Some people should not be allowed to own an animal.

Some people should not be allowed to have children.

Unfortunately it is often easier to prevent pet ownership than child raising.

[superlightr]

Greendubber said:

superlightr said:

E36GUY said:

They've got no money. There is no way they can 'take legal action.'

its theft. its a police action. dogs are property.

It's not theft, there's no dishonesty.

its an intention to permanently deprive. it is theft.

[Greendubber]

superlightr said:

Greendubber said:

superlightr said:

E36GUY said:

They've got no money. There is no way they can 'take legal action.'

its theft. its a police action. dogs are property.

It's not theft, there's no dishonesty.

its an intention to permanently deprive. it is theft.

No it's not.

[cmaguire]

superlightr said:

Greendubber said:

superlightr said:

E36GUY said:

They've got no money. There is no way they can 'take legal action.'

its theft. its a police action. dogs are property.

It's not theft, there's no dishonesty.

its an intention to permanently deprive. it is theft.

An intention to permanently deprive the original owners of a dog they offloaded a year ago because they couldn't be bothered with the hassle?

When is it you think this 'deprivation' started?

[LordHaveMurci]

I'm assuming the dog isn't micro chipped or possibly even registered with a Vet, how would they even prove original ownership of the dog?

Tell them to f*** off & leave the poor dog alone, set them on fire if you think it's a viable option.

[Bigends]

cmaguire said:

An intention to permanently deprive the original owners of a dog they offloaded a year ago because they couldn't be bothered with the hassle?

When is it you think this 'deprivation' started?

If what the relatives have allegedto Police amounts to theft then it'll be recorded accordingly and investigated to establish whether or not its actually theft. Police wont have spoken to the OP yet so wont know any of the background

[Greendubber]

Bigends said:

cmaguire said:

An intention to permanently deprive the original owners of a dog they offloaded a year ago because they couldn't be bothered with the hassle?

When is it you think this 'deprivation' started?

If what the relatives have allegedto Police amounts to theft then it'll be recorded accordingly and investigated to establish whether or not its actually theft. Police wont have spoken to the OP yet so wont know any of the background

Hence my post earlier that the people who neglected the dog would have to lie to the police abiut how the OP came to be in possession of the dog to obtain a crime number for theft.

If the OPs story is true, and I have no reason not to believe him/her then its not theft and there shouldn't be a crime number issued for it and the 'accusers' should be told to jog on.

If they lie and say the dog was stolen from the garden last week then that's easily negated by speaking with the OP as it's not theft.

[MKnight702]

PW555 said:

The Uncle is clearly a knobber, save yourself all the time, energy and hassle etc, as mentioned previously, just offer him some cold hard cash with paper work to record the transaction.

Then pay the cash less already incurred vets fees.

[Thats What She Said]

superlightr said:

its an intention to permanently deprive. it is theft.

Not quite...

"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."

[Burwood]

Greendubber said:

superlightr said:

E36GUY said:

They've got no money. There is no way they can 'take legal action.'

its theft. its a police action. dogs are property.

It's not theft, there's no dishonesty.

theft Too be theft you have to 'intend to deprive the owner permanently' he's had the dog almost a year to date. The police will tell you to move along

[Bigends]

Burwood said:

theft Too be theft you have to 'intend to deprive the owner permanently' he's had the dog almost a year to date. The police will tell you to move along

Police will establish any intent or dishonesty during their investigation and once both sides have been spoken with

[Greendubber]

Burwood said:

Greendubber said:

superlightr said:

E36GUY said:

They've got no money. There is no way they can 'take legal action.'

its theft. its a police action. dogs are property.

It's not theft, there's no dishonesty.

theft Too be theft you have to 'intend to deprive the owner permanently' he's had the dog almost a year to date. The police will tell you to move along

Quite rightly too. The dog needs to be have appropriated dishonestly, which it wasn't.

Scumbag uncle will no doubt allege the poor dog was snatched last week or something ridiculous.

[Burwood]

Greendubber said:

Burwood said:

Greendubber said:

superlightr said:

E36GUY said:

They've got no money. There is no way they can 'take legal action.'

its theft. its a police action. dogs are property.

It's not theft, there's no dishonesty.

theft Too be theft you have to 'intend to deprive the owner permanently' he's had the dog almost a year to date. The police will tell you to move along

Quite rightly too. The dog needs to be have appropriated dishonestly, which it wasn't.

Scumbag uncle will no doubt allege the poor dog was snatched last week or something ridiculous.

OP, any Facebook selfies of the dog?

[superlightr]

Thats What She Said said:

superlightr said:

its an intention to permanently deprive. it is theft.

Not quite...

"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."

yes he has been asked to give the dog back. he has refused. its not his.

by the Op's own words they took the dog in to help them out. They were not given the dog.

[Burwood]

Bigends said:

Burwood said:

theft Too be theft you have to 'intend to deprive the owner permanently' he's had the dog almost a year to date. The police will tell you to move along

Police will establish any intent or dishonesty during their investigation and once both sides have been spoken with

Really
The great pooch heist

[Greendubber]

superlightr said:

Thats What She Said said:

superlightr said:

its an intention to permanently deprive. it is theft.

Not quite...

"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."

yes he has been asked to give the dog back. he has refused. its not his.

by the Op's own words they took the dog in to help them out. They were not given the dog.

Look at the bit highlighted by the poster you're replying to.

There was no dishonesty so there is no theft. This is a civil matter, mainly due to the fact IT IS NOT THEFT.