Dog walking services

[StuTheGrouch]

Morning all.

We have a new family dog (little over a year old) and needed to find a local dog walker for 1-2 days per week. I'm new to this, but am surprised at the contracts I am being handed from dog walkers (aside from the fact that these agreements look like they were put together by a school child).

Firstly, the agreements state that should the dog need to go to the vets whilst in their care, I am responsible for payment. This doesn't sit well with me. If it's a general illness that's developed/worsened since I left the dog that morning, then fine. However, if something was to happen to my dog on a walk, then I'd expect the dog walker to take responsibility for that. Is that unreasonable?

There is another page about permission to be off the lead. If anything happens, then their insurance wouldn't cover this. Logical option here is to not give them permission to let the dog off the lead, but then my dog isn't getting the run he needs.

I simply expect that whilst my dog is in their care that they have full responsibility (aside from the illness issue I mentioned). It's unlikely anything will happen, but in the event it does that's surely what their insurance is there for.

I'd like to hear from others about this.

[StuTheGrouch]

Thanks both. This is two people that work together but have separate businesses and cover each other. That's all fine (the contract is a joint one), and they both clearly adore dogs, send pictures whilst on walks etc. No great alarm bells ring with them, plus they have good reviews.

My issue is just the terms around what is the situation if something was to happen to our dog whilst in their care. The agreement seems to absolve them of any responsibility, which can't be right but I wanted to understand if this was common practice or not. So at the moment I'm trying to decide whether to sign this agreement, or move on and find another (who may well have the same terms!).

[StuTheGrouch]

blueST said:

I should have said, in my experience that sort of a contract is normal, we've had similar with all ours. It's another reason why you need a good walker to minimise the risk of ever needing to refer to the contract.

Great, thanks. Seems a bit of an odd way to work to me, but if it's standard then it is what it is.

[StuTheGrouch]

egor110 said:

See it from there point of view.

You claim your dog has a awesome recall , they let dog off as requested and it does a runner .

Or you fail to mention the dog Chase's cats etc and dog does a runner , who's fault is that ?

I get that entirely, so they need to do everything they can to make sure it's safe and risks are minimised. If they did something stupid like let the dog off near a main road, then equally they shouldn't be free of any liability.

[StuTheGrouch]

I don't disagree with that, but the walker should also have the appropriate insurances to cover them against any incidents.

[StuTheGrouch]

Thanks Condor for your input. Out of interest, if something was to happen to a dog whilst in your care, how do you handle this?

[StuTheGrouch]

That wasn't clear, I meant that they shouldn't be free of any liability in every case (e.g. negligence, as you point out). If they were walking my dog and an aggressive dog appeared from nowhere and attacked mine, then there is nothing the dog walker could realistically do. So in that case I wouldn't expect them to take responsibility for that, but equally I wouldn't expect them to wash their hands of the matter either.

As it happens, I've found a new dog walker with far clearer terms, all which are completely reasonable and sensible. They take responsibility for my dog, have the appropriate insurances and it is clear what happens in the case of an unlikely event. They seem far more professional overall.

[StuTheGrouch]

Algarve said:

I think its very unreasonable.

You can't expect someone being paid a tenner an hour to walk a dog to be on the hook for a £4000 vet bill when it swallows a stick or eats poison someone else deliberately left out. There is zero negligence on their part so you shouldn't expect them to cover it.

If they drop your dogs lead and it gets hit by a car, then yeah they should pay for it.

My point is that they should have sufficient insurance to cover such incidences. A family member of mine is a dog walker and does have such insurance. Recently one the dogs they walk managed to cut itself on broken glass, which was hidden inside a bush the dog ran into. They took it to the vets and paid for it (as it happens the dog owner wouldn't take no for an answer when insisting that they reimbursed the dog walker). I suppose it all comes down to having a grown-up conversation about the specific incident, my issue is the stance I faced was 'absolutely any issue is my problem' which I didn't think was a reasonable stance.

We now have a new dog walker. Her terms are very clear and very fair, we have had a good chat with her about things that might happen, and all has been very reasonable. Hopefully nothing ever happens though. The previous walker even wanted a bloody retainer for things like school holidays, which I thought was a piss-take.

[StuTheGrouch]

Challo said:

Emanresu said:

If you need to hire someone to walk your dog, you shouldn’t have a dog.

What about people that love dogs and have to go to work during the day? What about people that are disabled and can’t walk far but love dogs?

My partner and I both work full time, but both make sure we work from home a few days a week each.

Sidney has a dog walker twice a week. It helps us out if we are busy, plus it means he gets socialised with other dogs, spends time away from us. We take him out in the morning and evening every day as well, so I think we do just fine.

Not everyone can take dogs to work, or spend all day at home.

Not worth arguing with an idiot that doesn't live in the real world.

[StuTheGrouch]

dhutch said:

StuTheGrouch said:

...previous walker even wanted a bloody retainer for things like school holidays...

I've yet to come across it in either field, but talking to friend who have a young child they have the same will child care. Stop paying and they kick you of their list. So not only would you be paying a 'second mortgage' in fees, if you go away for a week, or have your parents look after them one day a week, you are still paying the same rate straight through. Mad!

We have children in childcare too, and our previous nursery would extrapolate the days our child would usually attend across the year, and then divide that figure into a monthly bill. Therefore, we would be paying the same throughout the year, even if we weren't using the nursery. My wife is a teacher, so we weren't, yet they still expected us to pay £600 a month throughout the summer holidays.

Like I said, that was the previous nursery and was the sole reason we switched.

[StuTheGrouch]

iphonedyou said:

Emanresu said:

If you need to hire someone to walk your dog, you shouldn’t have a dog.

I sometimes think it would be quite nice to be so intellectually limited that you see life in this simple, almost childlike way.