1 reviews | Active since Jun 2015
ADOPTION CONTRACT DENIED DUE TO ADOPTERS COMPLAINT
I adopted a Peke in December last year - contrary to their rules the dog was given to me with a severely ulcerated eye, it was unneutered and in a shocking condition. I took it straight to my vet for treatment and a groom, where the groomers had to remove a thick layer of crust from the dogs body. I heard last week of a young male Peke that needed a home urgently. I phoned and was told people had expressed interest. I was contacted by someone on Saturday to say the adoption had not gone through, the dog was desperate. I phoned Candice who said everyone was busy but in any event, they'd need to home check. I told them this is ******* since I've never had a doggie homecheck before. Why would I offer to pay for and look after this dog if I was not sincere. I was prepared to go then & there to collect. I received a letter from Margie Ains*** as follows: \We will not be entering into another adoption contract with you due to the fact that our service was clearly not good enough for you even accusing us of not caring for our animals."So now a dog must be put down or sit in kennels because of a bruised ego due to a complaint? Clearly the welfare of the animals is not top priority."""
At our SPCA we have a policy regarding the adoption of any of our animals. This policy includes making a prospective adopter aware of any health problems an animal may be displaying and conducting a home check to ensure a suitable home environment for the animal in question. Charlie was a special little dog and we were so pleased that you were prepared to take him despite his ailments of which you were made fully aware. After an internal investigation, we are of the opinion that you made an informed decision when you chose to adopt Charlie. In a prior communication to our National Council, you refer to the success of a home check conducted by Anne Boyce and we are therefore surprised that you allege that you were not subjected to this policy. Charlie went to you unneutered because we felt that it would be in the best interests of the dog to not have to undergo 2 separate surgical procedures requiring anaesthetic within a short space of time. As per your agreement with us, Charlie would have been brought back to the SPCA in January for sterilisation and enucleation (removal of the ulcerated eye) if necessary. The young male Peke that you refer to has been successfully adopted.
At our SPCA we have a policy regarding the adoption of any of our animals. This policy includes making a prospective adopter aware of any health problems an animal may be displaying and conducting a home check to ensure a suitable home environment for the animal in question. Charlie was a special little dog and we were so pleased that you were prepared to take him despite his ailments of which you were made fully aware. After an internal investigation, we are of the opinion that you made an informed decision when you chose to adopt Charlie. In a prior communication to our National Council, you refer to the success of a home check conducted by Anne Boyce and we are therefore surprised that you allege that you were not subjected to this policy. Charlie went to you unneutered because we felt that it would be in the best interests of the dog to not have to undergo 2 separate surgical procedures requiring anaesthetic within a short space of time. As per your agreement with us, Charlie would have been brought back to the SPCA in January for sterilisation and enucleation (removal of the ulcerated eye) if necessary. The young male Peke that you refer to has been successfully adopted.