Our rescue dog, need some quick advice please.

[dingdongmrs]

We have recently adopted a dog from a rescue, we were told she was healthy and had no proeblems. so we agreed to adopt her, she has settled in well, she is a wonderful girl but..we took her to our vets yesterday and they have told us she has a tumour that need operating on before she gets too old. i have spoken to the rescue and found out they are a non registered charity and very rarely have their dogs vet checked because they cant see the point! they said to get my vet to phone them and tell them she needs this op because they think im lying and if i dont want the vet to phone them i can just give her back to them!

Weve paid £150 to adopt her. and now we have a massive vet bill for her checks and consulation plus we will have the cost of the operation and they dont seem bothered, theyd rather we just gave her back. she is part of our family now, we love her and i wont return her and have her messed around, so we will have to pay for the op ourselves. but im annoyed that they didnt do a vet check on her before letting us adopt her. is there anything i can do? is there anyone i can complain to? this cant be right, surely?! plus as i say they are not a registered charity although they ask for donations ect which i thought wasnt allowed but imnot sure, but as theyre non registered that means i cant talk to the charity commission because they wont have heard of them!

Anyone know what i can do?

There's two aspects to this. Firstly, very sorry to hear about your poor dog.

Remember, that even if a dog is vet checked by a charity before rehoming, this is still no guarantee of future health. You don't mention if you have pet insurance? If you do, this will probably cover the cost, and is another example of why insurance can be very useful. If you are unemployed, you should find the PDSA could help or the Blue Cross with the cost of operation. £150 is a pretty average adoption fee these days - the rescue/charity usually will have already spent much more than that on the dog - typically a reputable charity will ensure dog is wormed, chipped, deflea-ed, neutered, and thoroughly vet checked, That way, if there are any issues, the adopter will know. Those costs are mimimum and don't include food or other care.

Bluntly as far as the rescue goes, this is a case of "buyer beware". Not doing vet checks is in my eyes unforgiveable. The best thing you can do is vote with your feet, and your wallet, don't use them again, and tell others. Most REPUTABLE rescues/charities have websites and state very clearly what care their dogs have - did you check this? Does the rescue claim to be a charity? If so that is a very serious offence? If not, then they are not necessarily doing anything wrong. Personally, I am aware of a number of prominent rescues that are not charities (including one often namechecked here on MN) and I don't agree with/am suspicious of the fact they are not charities. However, for smaller rescues, getting CC approval can be a difficult and arduous process, and I recognise it is not for every organisation.

As with any market (and that's what it is) the buyer should do their homework, shop around, and be cautious. There is an appalling lack of regulation in the dog rescue/rehabilitation sector. I find this difficult personally since we expect and demand such high standards from professional breeders - voluntary sector organisations should meet or exceed these if we wish to be credible. It is difficult to look at some of the more prominent websites and see them as anything other than a business - I wish they could be regulated as such.

How did you come to choose this particular rescue?

I chose this resuce as they specialise in one particular breed and also because a friend of mine works for them! they do claim to be a charity and they also ask for donations but i know they are not registered as they show no charity number anywhere on their site.

i have just managed to sort out that they will pay for the op, my husband was just on the phone with them and the woman said she knew about the tumour but didnt have it checked as she didnt see the point but has now agreed to pay for the op, i think she is worried we will make a complaint but at least it will be sorted out.

we do have pet insurance for her but because the tumour was already there before we rehomed her they wont cover the costs for that.

Poor dog. I hope she comes through the op ok.

I doubt there is much you can do. It's not as if they told you before you adoped her that she had been checked by a vet. You made an assumption. If they had lied to you or mislead you in some way, it would be a trading standards issue.

You could easily have checked the organisation's charitable status on the CC web site before you adopted the dog. Did they ever tell you they were a registered charity, or was that another assumption you made? It's not illegal for someone to ask you for money.

no they didnt tell me personally that she would be vet checked but on their site they have profiles for each dog and on her profile it says she will be checked by their vet before rehoming so they didnt say it to me but it is written down!

no they havent said they are registered which is why i asked if it was wrong that theyre not registered but asking for money, i didnt know the laws on this which is why i was asking.

If they told you she was healthy and had no problems, when they knew she had a tumour, then they lied to you.

I'm not sure about the legalities of it, but I would definitely phone trading standards if I were you.

Also, it might be a good idea to make a print or screen shot of her profile on their site as evidence that they were misrepresenting the vet check.

I agree with the first paragraph of ScuttleButter's post. Sometimes a condition such as a tumour can't be detected without a scan and that isn't part of a basic check up IME, but something which would only be performed IF there were relevant concerns. (I speak here as one whose first knowledge of her dog's tumours was when he collapsed - the vet's opinon was that I couldn't possibly have known).

I hope that ScuttleButter can reassure me that this comment,

"Personally, I am aware of a number of prominent rescues that are not charities (including one often namechecked here on MN) and I don't agree with/am suspicious of the fact they are not charities. However, for smaller rescues, getting CC approval can be a difficult and arduous process, and I recognise it is not for every organisation"

isn't directed at the rescue I help out at which has been name-checked here by me. That rescue is one of those smaller ones which isn't a registered charity owing to the cost and practicalities - time-wise wrt paperwork as the rescue is run by it's owner and his partner with only voluntary help and no paid staff and practically. For example, a claim for expenses must, AFAIAA, be made only if the item, be that a car or a dishwaher, is SOLELY for the use of the charity and not the individuals, meaning that the rescue owner would have to buy another vehicle just to do his shopping/banking in, another washing machine purely for their own clothes and so on - ergo, the losses outweigh the gains.

That aside, putting myself in rescue's shoes, they COULD be saying "Well, we didn't KNOW, how could we have? There were no signs of illness. Had there been a suspicion of a problem we WOULD have taken her immediately to a vet. So if it's such a major problem return the dog and WE will care for her."

I'm just SPECULATING here, of course, this is just possibly the way it appears to rescue.

There is probably something you can do - I'll pm you.

Sorry - I cross posted because I got distracted and now some of what I said is irrelevant and mistaken.

I'm so for you and your poor dog in the light of your 2nd post. That's appalling!

WRT donations, yes, they can be asked for and given even if the organisation is not a charity. nothing wrong or illegal there, it's voluntary, just as it would be if I gave you some money as a gift.

WRT claiming to be a charity and then not being one, that's another matter, and as for KNOWING she had a tumour... the fuckers!

"Personally, I am aware of a number of prominent rescues that are not charities (including one often namechecked here on MN) and I don't agree with/am suspicious of the fact they are not charities."

Scuttle - can you give us a heads up?
To me it's a waste contributing to a non-charity "charity".

catinthehat, I disagree, Some, like the one I mentioned above, spend every penny and every waking monment of their 18 hour plus days looking after the animals in their care. I can say that as a fact with the one above, having stayed over there for days/weeks often enough.

And some registered charities, like the RSPCA, spend their money on uniforms, excessive directorate salaries, law suits when someone publicises their more unattractive and less public face (leaving ill dogs chained up in the snow without shelter, killing dogs with captive bolt guns...) and yet STILL the RSPCA have £119 MILLIION in the bank.

Back on topic, dingdongmrs, I've pm-ed you.

Val, no, I know the one you are involved in, and I've heard nothing but good things about it. In any case, you wouldn't volunteer if you thought there was anything dodgy.

More generally, at least a registered charity has to publish detailed accounts etc (I find the CC website very helpful) which is useful when making an assessment on the work done by an organisation.

Some large/prominent rescues are very clear about the fact they are not charities - to be fair, they make this abundantly clear on their website, along with invitations to donate/fundraise/sponsor etc. My scepticism is due to the fact that as they are not charities, they avoid regulation by CC, and as a business limited by guarantee for example need only supply fairly limited accounts. It is then difficult for an observer to assess for instance exactly where their dogs are sourced from/go to/how the money flows. The charity for which I volunteer has an AGM for instance where accounts are published, gone over in great detail, the activities of the year are reviewed including number of dogs received/homed etc. and there is an opportunity for oversight and scrutiny. Anybody can stand for election as a member of the Executive providing they are suitable to be a charity trustee.

If a rescue does not have such a structure there is an opportunity for this to become an organisation that may be run very well, or be run very badly, but because it is usually a key individual or very small group, there is no clear oversight/accountability. I don't think that is healthy for any voluntary organisation in the long term. There is even a well known phrase for it "Founder-itis" when those who start up a charity are often reluctant to let go/bring in fresh thinking.

Back to OP - if they claim on their website to do a vet check then you should contact Trading Standards immediately. Personally I would also consider going to the press with this - this is appalling.

Phew, thank you ScuttleButter. I was getting really upset and defensive, thinking that you might be referring to the one I help at and knowing how hard they work and how any personal purchase is a rare thing of amazement which certainly wouldn't come out of the pockets of anyone who donated funds. :)

Sorry I've got a headache as thanks for getting upset over my unfounded fears and I don't normally even do headaches!

I think the medium/larger non registered independents are maybe more often the problem in your description - the ones where monry cabe "lost in the system" rather than the small ones where there is relatively little coming in and it is clear that most funding is coming from the owner's own pockets or "visible" things like fetes and car-boots and where it is equally clear to people who, like you and I, actually see what is being done, that the money is being spent on the dogs.

But I digress. I agree that there's a case for Trading Standards here. I'd also consider involving Environmental Health and asking the Dog Warden at the very least to make an unannounced visit, not ruling out the press but leaving them up my sleeve.

Sometimes, and I don't know whether you'd agree with me ScuttleButter, I have found that other rescues are the best weapon, whether as observers and monitors, advisors or even if need be, whistle-blowers. (Thinking here the Mill Rescue fiasco, where I believe Pat, owner of Mutts In Distress went in and gave solid advice and a bollocking!

thanks Scuttlebutter, what you wrote is what I meant by shorthand of "waste" -

charities oversight& accountability means it is possible for the Vals of this world to spot:

excessive directorate salaries
£119 MILLIION in the bank

Val, I've sent you a PM. Agree that other rescues can (and do) improve things, but we cannot be "policemen" and this is also not fair on people like the OP who have in good faith adopted a dog, thinking it had been vet checked (am still seething that they didn't).

Exactly Cat. Charity and voluntary sector governance is not a pulse quickening subject (well it is to me, but I am v boring ) but this example shows why it is in fact so important. And yes, I too steer well clear of the GSD killers.

I have actually heard quite a bit about a rescue named on here that is not a registered charity also and wonder if it is the same one?

It's quite upsetting to think that people may be supporting unscrupulous people when their money could go to more deserving chairites.

I get quite sad about people giving money to the RSPCA also.

Sorry to go OT OP, I hope your dog gets his surgery and recovers well.

The penny's (finally ) dropped as to whom you're referring to ScuttleButter, or at least I think it has. I've no reason to doubt or criticise them if so but neither have I had more than brief dealings with them and, let's just say if I'm right, they are some distance away from me here in the east of England so I've never been to any premises owned by them. I can't comment on their financial practices at all.

However yes, that's the type, because of it's size and nature of rescue which would be difficult to monitor.

PS, I should imagine you're busy ScuttleButter, but in case you have sent it and think I'm ignoring you, I've not received that pm.

Back on topic, dingdongmrs, what have your vets got to say about the extent of the poor little mite's condition?

Christ don't you feel for them... we know what hospital is all about and why we are in a strange place, our poor dogs have no idea what's going on and where their human companions are. :(

I do so hope that your little girl makes a full and fast recovery.