"Rescue" animals

[CurlewKate]

I've seen on here recently posts about a contract that you sign when you get a rescue animal, stipulating, for example, that a cat has to remain indoor, or that you can't rehome or pts without permission from the rescue. I've also seen this about animals bought from breeders. Is there any legal basis to these contracts?

[NeedCoffeeNowPlease]

A contract is a contract, so there could be repercussions if you go against an agreement. I doubt any would really enforce it, those clauses are there because of past experiences and for the welfare of the animals. They expect you to stick to it in good faith when you get an animal from them. Most likely they'd never know but, if you go against it, maybe you can be a test case about how legal it is?

[HonorHiding]

When I adopted my cat from Cats Protection, the promise I made was that if I needed to put him up for further rehoming it would be through them only. They are doing what they can to safeguard the future of an animal they have taken into their care. No doubt if I decided to give him up to some random on social media or a toxic neighbour (I won’t!) they probably wouldn’t find out or have the funds to litigate my breach of contract. But perhaps the fact that I was prepared to make that promise gave them some comfort that I would act in the cat’s best interests.

Not going outside - that would often be because they are FIV+. Why would anyone want to breach that and enable the spread of FIV? Sometimes the legalities are the least important part of a situation (and I say that as a legal professional!).

[AndTheSurveySays]

How can someone take action against you for doing with your property what you wish as long as it's within the law? Those contracts sound unfair, I doubt they can be enforced.

[HonorHiding]

@AndTheSurveySays

How can someone take action against you for doing with your property what you wish as long as it's within the law? Those contracts sound unfair, I doubt they can be enforced.

Well the law does have means of restraining how we deal with our property if to do so would be in breach of others’ legal rights. Injunctive relief is a key example. I don’t expect to see a CP injunction in the High Court any time soon, however.

[CurlewKate]

@HonorHiding "But perhaps the fact that I was prepared to make that promise gave them some comfort that I would act in the cat’s best interests."

Presumably the vetting process would have given them that comfort?

[PinkSparklyPussyCat]

When DM died her cat was supposed to go back to the rescue. In the end he went to live with her neighbour. What was better for him, a nice home in an area he knew or back to a pen?

[CurlewKate]

I can imagine loads of scenarios where people feeling constrained by these "contracts" wouldn't be in the best interest of the animal concerned.

[Kennykenkencat]

@AndTheSurveySays

How can someone take action against you for doing with your property what you wish as long as it's within the law? Those contracts sound unfair, I doubt they can be enforced.

Because when you get a rescue you don’t “own” the animal
The animal belongs to the rescue and you are in effect just fostering them.

[JorisBonson]

I've had rescue cats for donkeys years and have never signed anything like that.

[Kennykenkencat]

Anyone remember the Real Housewives episode that involved LV’s rescue being contacted by a kill shelter because they had one of her dogs that another housewife had given away instead of handing back to the rescue

[Kennykenkencat]

I have had cats and dogs for donkeys years and have always had to sign

[JorisBonson]

I've always taken the difficult to adopt cats so maybe they just didn't want them back 😂

[PinkFootstool]

We recently had to PTS our Romanian rescue dog.

The contract with them was that we would have to offer her back to them if she needed to be rehomed. We contacted them when she got very ill to ask whether they needed to give permission for her to be PTS, but they said she was clearly much loved, and they trusted our judgement to do what was in her best interests. It's possibly an unusual set up though, as they have excellent post-adoption support which seems to be a rarity in the sector, and they remembered our dog very well, even posting up a lovely tribute to her after she passed, with lots of information about how she came to be in their care in Romania.

I'm aware of a long running saga online where a Foster carer ended up PTS a dog in their care without the permission of the organisation they fostered through, and they've made her life hell through public and legal claims of "murdering" the dog which was patently ill and elderly. However, it is the Internet, so possible it's made up....

[LionessSky]

I went to a Trevor Cooper (the dog law specialist) seminar about 20 years ago and he said such contracts are not enforceable as animals are classed as property and once bought and paid for they are yours to do as you will (within the law obviously).
Unless laws have changed in the meanwhile.

[SilentHedges]

@CurlewKate

@HonorHiding "But perhaps the fact that I was prepared to make that promise gave them some comfort that I would act in the cat’s best interests."

Presumably the vetting process would have given them that comfort?

I volunteer in animal rescue (rodents), and do home checks etc. All adopters sign an "Adoption Form" which essentially says they will give the animal the correct care we've recommended, and should it need rehoming again they will do so through us (rarely happens after our strict vetting process).

I doubt it has any legal binding, but acts as a reminder to the owner and yes gives us some comfort.

Adopt, don't shop 🙂

[rbe78]

@AndTheSurveySays

How can someone take action against you for doing with your property what you wish as long as it's within the law? Those contracts sound unfair, I doubt they can be enforced.

This is exactly the point - the contracts make it clear that you are NOT the animal's owner, the rescue remains the legal owner of the animal (which are currently counted as property under UK law). So if you decide you no longer want to/can keep the animal, you need to return their property to them.

[CurlewKate]

@SilentHedges

Yay to this!!!

[PinkSparklyPussyCat]

@rbe78

This is exactly the point - the contracts make it clear that you are NOT the animal's owner, the rescue remains the legal owner of the animal (which are currently counted as property under UK law). So if you decide you no longer want to/can keep the animal, you need to return their property to them.

How on earth would they know though? We never heard from the rescue again after we adopted Harry, and DM's cat had been with her three years with no contact.

I contacted the rescue when DM died and they said they would have him back but would PTS if he showed any signs of kidney issues. There's no way I could send him back and risk a 10 year old cat being PTS for something that wasn't causing him any problems. I presume they thought I would keep him

[Greenfairydust]

@Kennykenkencat
Because when you get a rescue you don’t “own” the animal 
The animal belongs to the rescue and you are in effect just fostering them.''

@rbe78
This is exactly the point - the contracts make it clear that you are NOT the animal's owner, the rescue remains the legal owner of the animal (which are currently counted as property under UK law). So if you decide you no longer want to/can keep the animal, you need to return their property to them.


Has everyone suddenly gone mad?

Fostering is a completely different thing from adopting an animal. Fostering is temporary until the animal can be rehomed with a permanent owner.

And no, the rescue centre does not still ''own'' the animal once you have adopted it. That's a ludicrous concept.

Frankly I would not use any shelter or charity that tried to make you sign such a ridiculous contract.

I got my cat from Battersea Dogs & Cats home, paid the fee and became her owner. End of story.

[AndTheSurveySays]

This is exactly the point - the contracts make it clear that you are NOT the animal's owner, the rescue remains the legal owner of the animal (which are currently counted as property under UK law). So if you decide you no longer want to/can keep the animal, you need to return their property to them

Then what obligations does the rescue owe to the animal it is still apparently the owner of? Surely to claim they are still the owners they need to provide some type of ongoing care towards the animal?

[rbe78]

@Greenfairydust You realise that other people having different experiences from you doesn't make them 'mad' right? Some rescues, including the one I adopted from, have contracts as I described above.

[CurlewKate]

So if the rescue still owns the animal, what responsibilities do they have towards them?

[CurlewKate]

Actually, I don't think cats are property are they? Or has that law changed? (Mine certainly aren't-although that might just be them.)

[bondsy]

Sorry, not read the full thread but I've followed 'Tuk's law' campaign for a while. It was started after a healthy dog called Tuk was put to sleep by the vets, when his original rescue would have taken him back. It's quite a sad story really as the poor little guy had been through so much already and I believe he was only put to sleep because of treatable behaviours difficulties (think it was a bit of puppy biting?) that could have been fixed.

The rescue was down on the dogs microchip as a back up but he was PTS without the vet checking the microchip. So I think this law is campaigning to make it a legal process that vets must check micro chips before PTS.

[rbe78]

@CurlewKate

So if the rescue still owns the animal, what responsibilities do they have towards them?

They have the responsibility of taking them back if the adopter no longer wants to or is able to look after them.