Bring my daughter's Lhasa Apso dog (Mickey) home

Dear Mr. Wakelin

As we discussed on the phone, yesterday (7/01/15), I send you this letter to confirm the details, as you requested.

My dog Mickey went missing between 22.6.2011 and 6/07/2011 while being minded by my daughter and her father in St. Ann's, Nottingham, whilst I was on my honeymoon. On my return to England, I was told Mickey had gone missing from their garden and had not been seen since. My daughter adored her dog and they were inseparable, so she was devastated by his disappearance.

My sister reported him missing in my absence, to St. Ann's police station (Nottingham) and also to Babbington kennels but to no avail.

As I had Mickey micro-chipped I wasn't too concerned but as the days and weeks went by, I knew someone had either found or taken Mickey and had ultimately kept or sold Mickey.

On 20.11.2015 at 3.30pm, I received a phone call from the Dog Warden at Gedling Borough Council saying that Mickey had been found. She said she would call me back but in the meantime I was on my way to collect my daughter Georgia from school. I told Georgia that Mickey had been found and she was ecstatic. We cried and hugged with the knowledge we'd be getting him back soon.

When the Dog Warden called me back, she told me there were two potential owners. Another woman had claimed him so I would get a a call on Monday.

On Monday 23.11.15, Kevin Nealon (Gedling Borough Council) rang me and said that a Mrs. Moore was claiming him and she allegedly had his papers (which of course she hadn't, as I had them). He told me he didn't know who Mickey belonged to but it was her word against mine. He then gave me Mrs Moore's telephone number to sort it out amongst ourselves...

I rang Mrs Moore, she proceeded to tell me that her uncle had 'found' Mickey wandering the streets. She told me she had taken Mickey (whom she had renamed Quincey) to the vets. The vet had told her that Mickey was a puppy which I found very strange so when I spoke to the receptionist at Mickey's vets she told me he would have been scanned for a micro-chip. Also the vet would have known he was not a puppy.

Mrs Moore offered to pay me double the price I had paid for Mickey originally but I explained I just wanted my daughter's dog back. She then proceeded to put the phone down on me.

I have rung many places for any advice in the help and guidance of getting Mickey returned to my daughter. Here is a list of people whom have all been supportive.

David at The Dogs Trust

Receptionist at Mickeys vets

Leon Mallard at Citizens advice contacted Andy Callingham Service Manager, Public Protection. Re: Letter to myself dated 15th December 2015

Lois at the microchipping place told me that a lot of people are not aware they have to contact us and that I still own Mickey. She said she gave all my details to the dog warden as he was in my name.

Neil at the control centre for St Anns police told me that St Anns police station has not been manned since March 2015 and no longer take in stray dogs. He also told me that when my sister contacted them not all the officers save a missing report on an animal. He asked to put me on hold for a few minutes. When he returned he told me a lady called Pauline would contact me in the morning as she offered to go through all the missing reports from the time of Mickeys disappearance.

Pauline at the control centre for St Anns police rang me 8-1-16. She explained that she had not been successful at that point but said she was going to go through the missing reports at Carlton police station, as they could have been taken there.

Sally at Babbington Kennels told me they would not have records. She asked me for your name and that she was going to give you a call.

Hope this helps

Yours sincerely

Mrs Tracy Minor nee Saunders

This was the reply...... Dear Mrs Minor
Re: Official Complaint S05/1516/22 Missing Dog – Mickey, Lhasa Apso
I am writing to you following my initial letter dated 13 January 2016, regarding your stage 2 complaint concerning how officers from the Council’s Public Protection Service have dealt with the ownership issues surrounding the Lhasa Apso dog (Mickey) that was found in November 2015 in Carlton.

In order to familiarise myself with the circumstances of this complaint I have read a number of documents that provide useful context and it was very helpful that we had the opportunity to speak on the telephone for some time on Thursday 7 January 2016.

The email that you sent to me on the 10 January 2016 following our conversation very usefully highlights the sequence of events surrounding Mickey’s loss in 2011.

I have also spoken with a number of officers that have had an involvement in this particular case in order to understand what actions they have taken and their reasons for doing so.

Having considered all of the above I conclude that Kevin Nealon and Andrew Callingham have acted correctly and taken fair and appropriate actions.
The reason I have reached this conclusion is as follows:

 the Environmental Protection Act 1990 – Sections 149/150 highlight the statutory duty in relation to the seizure of stray dogs. It was under this piece of legislation that officers seized ‘Mickey’ when he was found on 20 November 2015 in the Carlton area.
 When our officers had the dog scanned the microchip was discovered and you were contacted in accordance with our policy and informed that Mickey had been found having been missing, lost or stolen in July 2011.
Director of Health & Community Wellbeing - David Wakelin
 When the dog had been recovered by my officers another member of the public, Mrs Moore then came forward and informed us that she was the owner of the dog and was able to provide what appeared to them to be a very genuine claim of being the dog’s most recent owner.
 Kevin Nealon did seek professional legal advice recognising that the decision to return the dog to either yourself or Mrs Moore would be subject to scrutiny and challenge. In summary, that advice supported the view that the officers had formed which was that the dog should be returned to Mrs Moore as she was the most recent owner, and could with strong justification claim to be so.
 Officers undertook reasonable steps in my opinion to allow for you to discuss the issue of future ownership with Mrs Moore by facilitating the exchange of telephone numbers. I understand that a conversation did take place regarding the matter of future ownership.
 The advice you were given about seeking your own legal advice to establish a civil remedy to seek possession of the dog is good advice. This advice was supported by the Council’s legal officer and remains an option open to you to pursue.

I can understand the impact of our decision on you and your daughter, our decision was certainly not taken lightly nor without careful consideration of the facts as the officers understood them at that time.

The Council’s Animal Welfare Policy also provides guidance to officers to act at all times in the best interests of the animal concerned.

It is for all of these reasons that the officers took the fair and reasonable decision to return the dog to Mrs Moore.

So, in conclusion, I do not find that your stage two complaint against Kevin Nealon and Andrew Callingham, Service Manager Public Protection, upheld.
I believe that their actions were correct and justified and were made bearing in mind also what course of action would be in the best interest of the dog.
I do understand that my response to you is more than likely not going to satisfy you, but I have taken my decision based on an objective view of the facts and circumstances in this case.

However, if you are not happy with the outcome of this investigation, you may of course complain to the Local Government Ombudsman at
http://www.lgo.org.uk/making-a-complaint

Yours sincerely
David Wakelin Director

David Wakelin Thank you Tracey. I will seek some advice and come back to you within the coming week. Thanks again for your full account. Dave Wakelin Sent from my iPad On 10 Jan 2016, at 15:44, Tracy Minor

Jan 10 at 8:44 PM ....