Government planning to introduce compulsory dog insurance

There should be a tax on the greyhounds I let run off with my money...........
 
wack61 said:
IMO a tax on law abiding dog owners because scumbag drug dealer who it's aimed at isn't going to insure his pitbull is he but everybody with a family pet will.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...scheme-could-penalise-responsible-owners.html
Click to expand...

Agreed. Why will the people walking round the estates with their trackies tucked into their socks with pitbull on lead suddenly pay insurance? Same kind of people don't have car insurance, tax or MOT.

Having watched some of the animal programs from America involving the Houston SPCA and the Michigan Humane Soceity, they seem to have a lot more powers than the RSPCA. Also if needed, they get a quick phone call and they've got 2 armed policemen as backup when handling difficult people or dogs. Our animal protection groups need a bit more assistance from the law and also legal rights themselves.
 
tiler65 said:
There should be a tax on the greyhounds I let run off with my money...........
Click to expand...

There already is, and YOU'VE paid it!! :D
 
Just another way of taxing law abiding citizens and making an extra buck...

Your regular Joe with a dog will pay the tax as it's a legal requiremtent, your typical chave and pikey won't pay didly squat and as there are not enough police to catch normal criminals in the first place nothing will get done to those who don't pay it...
 
I was of the same opinion that it punishes responsible dog owners, but those that hang around shop doors and street corners with status dogs won't bother with theirs. I've seen the same when they ride their motorbikes, quads and varying performance cars around at speed, handbraking with their expensive tyres.
Then I think perhaps there is some reverse strategy at play. If they start a database of registered dogs, and the police do a database search of an address seen to be having dogs, they can then start to penalise the owners - a bit like TV/vehicle licensing where there is no record.
Its still another tax / database to be lost on a train, but if it slowly tightens the net on the status dog owners who use them to fight, then it can only be a good thing to reduce the irresponsible. Here's hoping anyway.
 
Viewfinder said:
erformance cars around at speed, handbraking with their expensive tyres.
Then I think perhaps there is some reverse strategy at play. If they start a database of registered dogs, and the police do a database search of an address seen to be having dogs, they can then start to penalise the owners - a bit like TV/vehicle licensing where there is no record.
Click to expand...

So I have to buy expensive unnecessary insurance for them to build a database up, what was wrong with the old dog licence, costs a few quid and does the same job.

If this happens it'll be a tax on dogs, pure and simple.

we already pay VAT on food, toys, vets bills etc etc

they're talking about insurance premiums in the £100s
 
wack61 said:
So I have to buy expensive unnecessary insurance for them to build a database up, what was wrong with the old dog licence, costs a few quid and does the same job.

If this happens it'll be a tax on dogs, pure and simple.

we already pay VAT on food, toys, vets bills etc etc

they're talking about insurance premiums in the £100s
Click to expand...


Hate to think what my two pups would cost to insure, a 9 year old shar pei male and an 8 year old shar pei female. I would guess at many hundreds of pounds........

Simply another tax on the honest masses.

Another point would be what about the increase in numbers of abandoned dogs as owners who couldn't afford to insure the family pet, decide they have to get shut.
 
Last edited:
Pensioners whose only companion is a little dog that probably only sees the postman, out in a very remote part of the Fens = another unfair tax on the elderly just like the TV licence and high council tax for people who already have VERY LITTLE.
 
It's like the government is trying to commit political suicide just before the election, if this goes ahead I can't see anyone with a dog voting labour :shrug:
 
Don't get me wrong, I hope it didn't come across as having a go or being pro or anti dog registration/tax. I was just figuring out how these government minds think.
I guess you could call it third party dog insurance to cover injury to others. When put in that sense, I wonder if it becomes the thin end of the 'insurance job' wedge - intentional 'accidental' bites like the crash for cash equivalent that was in the news recently.
Perhaps it then opens up the compensation state scenario - police dog bites criminal. Criminal sues police. Shudder to think...
 
Viewfinder said:
Don't get me wrong, I hope it didn't come across as having a go or being pro or anti dog registration/tax. I was just figuring out how these government minds think.
I guess you could call it third party dog insurance to cover injury to others. When put in that sense, I wonder if it becomes the thin end of the 'insurance job' wedge - intentional 'accidental' bites like the crash for cash equivalent that was in the news recently.
Perhaps it then opens up the compensation state scenario - police dog bites criminal. Criminal sues police. Shudder to think...
Click to expand...
Bit different when you take the case of John-Paul Massey into view.

John-Paul Massey, victim of 'weapon dogs'

Quotes from the article
There is cash to be made, too. In 1835, dog-fighting was banned as a sport in Britain. In 2004, the RSPCA received 24 reports of illegal dog fights; in 2007, it was 358.

The consequences can be seen in other, more alarming statistics. Last year, almost 6,000 people – up from 4,300 a decade ago – needed hospital treatment for injuries caused by dogs.
 
Another feeble law to get more tax. With all the Venables thing, that facebook killer who police couldnt be bothered to keep an eye on, oh, and the economy flat.... is this really the most important thing to look on.

Simple way round it! If your dog kills someone or seriously injures them, then the owner goes to court and jailed - a dog can be like a car or gun, it can kill. Responsible dog owners will have nothing to fear from that.
 
Just another way to screw the decent people with good natured family pets whilst the chavvy scum with their pitbulls and other dangerous breeds laugh at us
 
In theory I don't see anything wrong with the idea but they would never be able to enforce it 100% which is why it would hit responsible dog owners.
Mind you, I consider myself responsible but wouldn't do it as we have 19 little angels.
I understand that in Switzerland you have to pay per dog and it is VERY expensive.

If they can't even stop a father raping his two daughters repeatedly over, what was it 20 years, when the authorities knew about it, what chance do we have.
 
They can't even manage to ensure everyone has car insurance, what chance have they got with this. Will the government send our stretched police force to all the parks to wait behind trees, before they make their move to confirm the dog has the relevant policies.
 
This is anothe rof those crazy schemes/laws that are a half assed attempt by the powers that be to solve a problem. The dangerous dogs act in 1991 was similar legislation and that doesn't work properly either - so we have a broken piece of legislation that is now trying to be propped up by pish poor piece of legislation.

Current dog insurance simply will not be fit for the purpose this legislation proposes - for example if I wanted to change insurance company for my hound I would not be able to - he's too old. How about the old folk who have a dog as their only companion? Paying for insurance on top of everything else? Then there are the homeless folk who have thier dogs - what will become of them?

I strongly believe that this legislation if it comes in will (certainly in the short term) lead to a significant increase in abandoned pets. Dog shelters are already struggling to keep up, any more will not be good news.

On a lighter note, I do believe microchipping should be compulsory - it's cheap enough. But it should also remain free to update details such as address etc.

tiler65 said:
There should be a tax on the greyhounds I let run off with my money...........
Click to expand...

There is. Usually it's death for the Greyhound. :(
 
Don't know how they arrive at the figures. I have health insurance for my dog costing £22 per month. That includes public liability cover up to £1 million.

Probably another bit of spin for the election. Just like "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". What a joke that is.
 
Just had a quick online quote done and to cover my 2 dogs would be just over 700 pounds per year.
 
From the animal friends insurance, the recommended dog insurers link on money super market.com. Was 20 odd quid a month for my girl and 30 odd for my boy.
 
That's crazy, how is that insurance different form the £14 a month policy I have for vets insurance which has 1m public liability insurance included
 
Honestly don't know. Just did a quick search to get an idea, could probably get it down if I shopped around.

I can only assume its because its a rare ish breed (wasn't actually listed in their choices, or on pet plans choices) and maybe their age. Also neither dog has any negative medical history, which makes it more sickening.
 
Age of dog makes a massive difference
Over the age of 7 and you can expect insurance to cost a fortune regardless of medical history.
 
I just got a quote from asda for £800 to £1200 for an 8 year old dog

Policy Per month Annual Excess
Value 12mths £65.78 £789.31 £65.00
Standard 12mths £82.17 £985.99 £65.00
Superior no limit ² £98.56 £1182.68 £65.00

Looks like the canal water level will be a bit higher in the morning :eek:
 
That is exactly why before any such legislation can be considered it should be possible to buy the 3rd party insurance seperatly.

Even then, I'm sure it will not be cheap initially - dog owners would truly be at the mercy of whatever insurance companies choose to charge. Then of course we would all have to pay tax as part of the insurance premium...
 
Ok if you are getting quotes for medical insurance on an old dog it will be expensive but as far as I can see all they are legislating for is public liability insurance, which you may find you already have with house cover.
It really doesn't worry me in the least, all my dogs are micro-chipped and all fully insured
 
Gremlin said:
Ok if you are getting quotes for medical insurance on an old dog it will be expensive but as far as I can see all they are legislating for is public liability insurance, which you may find you already have with house cover.
It really doesn't worry me in the least, all my dogs are micro-chipped and all fully insured
Click to expand...

As is mine, but it still worries me :(

One day legislation will be introduced for the good on the country and not in a short sighted effort to win a few votes. :(
 
Yep, its a load of old codswallap.

I agree with the microchipping bit, all pups should be microchipped to their families before leaving the breeder at 8 weeks old. Whosever name comes up with the dog is scanned is responsible for the dog.

A few of you have mentioned the number of dogs in pounds. The situation is horrendous at the moment and I daren't even guess the numbers of dogs being PTS at the end of each week.

I would prefer to see restrictions brought in on who was allowed to breed and how many they were allowed to breed. Maybe a breeders licence. There should be no excuse of "it was an accidental mating". Anyone breeding who shouldn't should be hit by massive fines and compulsory neutering of their dogs. To help people I think that neutering should be subsidised to make it easier for people to afford.

Lets face it how much is the tax payer forking out for all these abandoned dogs. I can't believe that there isn't more of an outcry from the general public about it. Maybe if all the costs involved by each council of how much they spend on the Dog Warden and kennelling strays and the costs of putting dogs to sleep were put more in the public eye things might start to change and people would start to question how things are done at the moment. I have taken a dog to the vets to be PTS because he wasn't suitable for re-homing, I cried for hours afterwards. This is happening to dogs everyday who the only thing they have done wrong is they have been caught straying and their families wouldn't bail them out.

We made a documentary at Northern SBT Rescue's Big Walk Weekend last year. We are posting a copy to our local MP tomorow, we are really pround of how it shows the breed and that not all Bull Breed owners are idiots. I only hope that more people get to see it and start to understand that the problem is not the dogs.

Sorry its a long rant, but I'm afraid its a subject too close to my heart.
 
So after only a week they've decided to drop the idea of compulsory insurance as being impractical. Go figure. Perhaps they we're reading this thread. :lol:
 
staffitaxi said:
Yep, its a load of old codswallap.

I agree with the microchipping bit, all pups should be microchipped to their families before leaving the breeder at 8 weeks old. Whosever name comes up with the dog is scanned is responsible for the dog.

A few of you have mentioned the number of dogs in pounds. The situation is horrendous at the moment and I daren't even guess the numbers of dogs being PTS at the end of each week.

I would prefer to see restrictions brought in on who was allowed to breed and how many they were allowed to breed. Maybe a breeders licence. There should be no excuse of "it was an accidental mating". Anyone breeding who shouldn't should be hit by massive fines and compulsory neutering of their dogs. To help people I think that neutering should be subsidised to make it easier for people to afford.

Lets face it how much is the tax payer forking out for all these abandoned dogs. I can't believe that there isn't more of an outcry from the general public about it. Maybe if all the costs involved by each council of how much they spend on the Dog Warden and kennelling strays and the costs of putting dogs to sleep were put more in the public eye things might start to change and people would start to question how things are done at the moment. I have taken a dog to the vets to be PTS because he wasn't suitable for re-homing, I cried for hours afterwards. This is happening to dogs everyday who the only thing they have done wrong is they have been caught straying and their families wouldn't bail them out.

We made a documentary at Northern SBT Rescue's Big Walk Weekend last year. We are posting a copy to our local MP tomorow, we are really pround of how it shows the breed and that not all Bull Breed owners are idiots. I only hope that more people get to see it and start to understand that the problem is not the dogs.

Sorry its a long rant, but I'm afraid its a subject too close to my heart.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you have said, micro chipping is a great idea, but only if you have a microchip reader. It's already a legal requirement for dogs to wear an identity tag and many dogs don't have them either, so I think chips would only go so far. Where we do get dogs with tags or chips we can reunite them, the first time without charge. If they are repeat offenders it starts to cost. In most cases they never get as far as us because the finder returns the dog.

At the risk of making work for myself it's easy to find out the costs if you need to, just put a Freedom of Information Act request in.

I can tell you that it costs me approx £1000 pcm to kennel stray dogs, if the owners are traced they can claim the dog only after they have paid all the costs of kennelling (inc collection and vets fees if necessary) and the Statutory Release fee of £25. The £1000 relates to the costs of kennel rental and those that are not claimed and have to be re-homed. This figure doesn't include the proportion of my ACO's salary costs. Add that in and you can probably add another £2-3K a month to the figure.

I can say that the people we use to re-home don't pts dogs unless there is a medical need to. It puts a massive strain on their resources but they will not do it. They also neuter all their dogs to prevent indiscriminate breeding, which is the single biggest problem we face.

Oh and by the way the Police won't deal with stray dogs anymore so there is a real problem in getting strays dealt with out of normal hours, the costs to councils of running a 24 hour reception facility would blow my annual budget in under 2 months. It's a truly grim situation and I can't see it getting any better any time soon.
 
maddog.mark said:
I agree with much of what you have said, micro chipping is a great idea, but only if you have a microchip reader. It's already a legal requirement for dogs to wear an identity tag and many dogs don't have them either, so I think chips would only go so far. Where we do get dogs with tags or chips we can reunite them, the first time without charge. If they are repeat offenders it starts to cost. In most cases they never get as far as us because the finder returns the dog.

At the risk of making work for myself it's easy to find out the costs if you need to, just put a Freedom of Information Act request in.

I can tell you that it costs me approx £1000 pcm to kennel stray dogs, if the owners are traced they can claim the dog only after they have paid all the costs of kennelling (inc collection and vets fees if necessary) and the Statutory Release fee of £25. The £1000 relates to the costs of kennel rental and those that are not claimed and have to be re-homed. This figure doesn't include the proportion of my ACO's salary costs. Add that in and you can probably add another £2-3K a month to the figure.

I can say that the people we use to re-home don't pts dogs unless there is a medical need to. It puts a massive strain on their resources but they will not do it. They also neuter all their dogs to prevent indiscriminate breeding, which is the single biggest problem we face.

Oh and by the way the Police won't deal with stray dogs anymore so there is a real problem in getting strays dealt with out of normal hours, the costs to councils of running a 24 hour reception facility would blow my annual budget in under 2 months. It's a truly grim situation and I can't see it getting any better any time soon.
Click to expand...

I can't see why it costs £1000 plus to kennel a dog in rescue. That's in excess of £33 per day.
 
Taz


Apologies if I didn't make this clear, I blame the man flu. The cost is not per dog, it includes the cost of keeping open 6 dedicated kennels for our stray dogs, in other words I pay whether they are all used or not. I'm sure you can appreciate that you don't mix strays with other peoples pets.

The 2-3k figure is out to, my brain was well muddled, it would be much nearer £1000 a month.

Hope this makes more sense.

Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top