Lost: White And Tan Bichon Frise Female In South East (CT1)

  • Dog ID 122181
  • Status Lost
  • Registered 16 Nov 2017
  • Name POPPY AND ROSIE
  • Gender & Breed Female Bichon Frise
  • Age Adult
  • Colour White and Tan
  • Marks & Scars Rosie has a post-operative scar on her belly
  • Tagged Unknown
  • Microchipped Yes
  • Tattooed Unknown
  • Date Lost 15 Sep 2016
  • Where Lost Our beloved Cavachons were stolen by someone we believed our friend and trusted to look after for a short period. In an act of pure evil she stole them and handed them in as strays in Canterbury
  • Lost In Region South East
  • Lost In Post Area CT1
  • Date Reunited
  • Other Info We are offering a reward of £1000 for the location and facilitation of the safe return of our darling family members Poppy & Rosie have individual pages 122253 & 122255
  • Phone 1 02087401009
  • Phone 2 07488315539
  • Listed By Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
  • Views 5066
  • Alerts Sent 350
  • POPPY AND ROSIEPoster Image
  • POPPY AND ROSIEExtra Image

 

Sightings and Information

Please post if you have news about this dog. Log in above or register to leave comments or to like them.
Please note that DogLost cannot be held responsible for the content of any other sites mentioned or linked to here.

Skywalker99
If it can happen for Hamak why can't it happen for these two?
Skywalker99
Should also add that I have no time for processes that do not incorporate exception handling, or organisations that when presented with evidence that the premise they are proceeding on is false refuse to alter course or suspend the process while they investigate what the situation is...although I guess AW do not have the resources to do this.
Skywalker99
I am so very, very sorry that CJ has been unable to get Kent Police to act. I fear this will end in a courtroom, I wish you every success in securing the return of your girls or negotiating a satisfactory outcome for everyone with their new owners.
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
AW Ltd have been very unhelpful," he said. "Even after calling them and informing them of the date and location of where my dog was picked up, they still denied having any knowledge of a Husky." However, once the Town Hall worker contacted them they finally admitted having had her - and the shocking news that the dog had been rehomed. "It has been so stressful," said Adrian. "I am constantly thinking about it. I haven't been able to eat or sleep properly." Paul Dunne, managing director of Animal Wardens Ltd which recently took over the local stray dog

Read more at: http://www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/news/stray-dog-firm-sell-man-s-much-loved-lost-pet-1-1449149
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
http://www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/news/stray-dog-firm-sell-man-s-much-loved-lost-pet-1-1449149
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
We are not the first people to be subject to animalwardens heartlessness:

Stray dog firm sell man's much-loved lost pet
Published: 08:52
Thursday 01 May 2008
THE new stray dog firm has sparked a heart-rending tug of love over a lost pet which it has rehomed.
Animal Wardens Ltd told the distraught owners of missing Kiss, a young Husky cross, they had not found her - but they had.


After seven days in their Tonbridge kennels she was sold to another family who are refusing to give their new pet back.

Both the old and new owners have been offered a pedigree Husky puppy instead of Kiss - but both are refusing to budge.

Adrian McCollin, of Mews Road, St Leonards, and his girlfriend Nawal Amari are devastated at the loss of their much-loved pet and furious with the animal warden service.

They are now seeking legal advice.

Adrian, 24, paid 650 for Kiss in October when she was three months old.
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
Hi CJ, We are revisiting the situation as a criminal matter as well as continuing the civil route. This is after having spoken to Nik Starmer Smith of Coopers the company you have mentioned. As a point of clarification, According to animalwardens as posted below the owners were made aware of this situation

Re: Request for information: Poppy and Rosie

info@animalwardens.co.uk
Reply|
Mon 16/01, 10:20
You
Dear Andrew,
Sorry that I have missed you the past few days, I have been on holiday
and then not fully back in the office due to illness.
I have spoken to my manager who has advised that we have made contact
with the new owners of Poppy and Rosie. Unfortunately they are not
comfortable with us passing on information as the dogs have now
adjusted and settled into their new home and they do not want to upset
them any more after everything that has happened. We do have to
respect their wishes as they have legally rehomed the dogs.
I am so sorry we couldn't help any further.
Kind regards,
Becky
Animal Wardens
DogLostCJ - Police Liaison Co-ordinator
I have now spoken with Kent Police and they advised that this situation is a civil matter & are no longer treating Poppy & Rosie as stolen.
They feel you will need to take court action in order to try to get your dogs back as correct procedures were followed before the dogs re-homed including sending letter to you. Therefore i would recommend a dog specialist like Trevor Cooper to ask what can be done.
We will keep both dogs on site as Missing in the hope maybe a new owner might see them and make contact but as police have stated they are not stolen we must change status to missing.
Any new owners will not be aware of any past history of these dogs so are not at fault.
Skywalker99
Obviously don't know all the facts about what is going on, but have a you set a date by which time you will take legal action and have you communicated that date to animalwardens in an attempt to focus their minds.? i don't think you should divulge any tactics on here, but if you haven't it may be wirth considering...but word it as intend not will. Clause 7 in section 149 is the difficult one...but you have evidence these digs were not strays and should not have been treated as such.
nalamissing
.Last edited: 2017-11-21 10:52:38 by nalamissing
nalamissing
It is good to know that advice from this site has enabled you to make progress. I can read the distress in your posts...but would be wary of sounding too bitter, there are others who can be outraged on your behalf! Good luck today. That email does read a bit like 'I asked my manager what to do and he said....' We seem to be dealing with two parts of the law here, the law on stray dogs, and because they have a CRN stolen goods law. If I buy a shiny new ipad from the slightly dodgy shop and it turns out to be stolen it is not mine to keep even though i bought it 'legally', can't see why that principle shouldn't apply to these dogs. Think it should.
Skywalker99
This is an awful situation...and just shows why 7 days is not enough. My simple mind can not understand why dogs that have been classed as stolen should continue to be treated as strays.
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
I would be genuinely surprised if there is any truth to the information cited in the e-mail below. I'll be able to verify this very soon if I get disclosure tomorrow.
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
The stress and anxiety caused by this has had a major impact on my physical and mental health. The question posed ought to be be why has it taken so long to locate our dogs ? The simple answer is that people just don't care.
Not everyone thankfully. Support and advice from staff and members here has been invaluable and that alone has enabled us to make more progress
Hollieberry
This is so sad that you do not know where your lovely dogs are I wonder why the Dogs trust said that they were in their possession when they were not. I guess the only people that know if your dogs were rehomed is the wardens surely they could ask the new owners if they could provide you with a photo to put your mind at ease .
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
This has been a protracted process and has yielded nothing to date. However, I discovered today that the information I have been seeking since last October is prescribed in the statutory instrument below and the City Council is obliged to make that information available to the public free of charge
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
I then reported the situation to the Kent police who allocated a crime reference number, but told me it was more of a civil matter that I needed to take up with the lady who had lied to the Dogs Trust and given them away as strays. I took legal advice from Nik Starmer-Smith of doglaw.co.uk who advised me that legal options were limited and had a low likelihood of success. I have been trying to locate the dogs since then through the Information Commissioner and my current solicitor.
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
Their response was as follows:
Re: Request for information: Poppy and Rosie
I
info@animalwardens.co.uk
Reply|
Mon 16/01, 10:20
You
Dear Andrew,
Sorry that I have missed you the past few days, I have been on holiday
and then not fully back in the office due to illness.
I have spoken to my manager who has advised that we have made contact
with the new owners of Poppy and Rosie. Unfortunately they are not
comfortable with us passing on information as the dogs have now
adjusted and settled into their new home and they do not want to upset
them any more after everything that has happened. We do have to
respect their wishes as they have legally rehomed the dogs.
I am so sorry we couldn't help any further.
Kind regards,
Becky
Animal Wardens
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
Hi Hollie we have been looking for our dogs since September last year, when we were told by the Dogs Trust that they had our pets in their possession. Unfortunately this information was incorrect and it transpired that they had handed them into Canterbury City Council dog warden service on 17th September. We were not made aware of this until October 1st. From October until January I was in regular contact with animalwardens who led me to believe that they would act to recover my pets. They contacted me in January after delay upon delay and excuse upon excuse
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
I started at the top of the food chain (Canterbury City Council) who referred me to their sub-contractor Serco They then referred me to animalwardens in Manchester who denied the existence of any register or any obligation to disclose the information. They referred me to the kennels (closed by the time I got that far). Claims predictably included ignorance and that old chestnut Data Protection
Hollieberry
Forgive me for asking but why has it taken so long for you to look for your dogs, they have been missing since Sep 2016 have you only recently been made aware ?
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
Requested disclosure of the new owners details over a year ago from animalwardens
Discovered Statutory instrument 288 by accident today prescribing the name and address of the purchaser in relation to 149 (8)The officer shall keep a register containing the prescribed particulars of or relating to dogs seized under this section and the register shall be available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge.
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
149 Seizure of stray dogs.

(1)Every local authority shall appoint an officer (under whatever title the authority may determine) for the purpose of discharging the functions imposed or conferred by this section for dealing with stray dogs found in the area of the authority.
(2)The officer may delegate the discharge of his functions to another person but he shall remain responsible for securing that the functions are properly discharged.
(3)Where the officer has reason to believe that any dog found in a public place or on any other land or premises is a stray dog, he shall (if practicable) seize the dog and detain it, but, where he finds it on land or premises which is not a public place, only with the consent of the owner or occupier of the land or premises.
(4)Where any dog seized under this section wears a collar having inscribed thereon or attached thereto the address of any person, or the owner of the dog is known, the officer shall serve on the person whose address is given on the collar, or on the owner, a notice in writing stating that the dog has been seized and where it is being kept and stating that the dog will be liable to be disposed of if it is not claimed within seven clear days after the service of the notice and the amounts for which he would be liable under subsection (5) below are not paid.
(5)A person claiming to be the owner of a dog seized under this section shall not be entitled to have the dog returned to him unless he pays all the expenses incurred by reason of its detention and such further amount as is for the time being prescribed.
(6)Where any dog seized under this section has been detained for seven clear days after the seizure or, where a notice has been served under subsection (4) above, the service of the notice and the owner has not claimed the dog and paid the amounts due under subsection (5) above the officer may dispose of the dog—
(a)by selling it or giving it to a person who will, in his opinion, care properly for the dog;
(b)by selling it or giving it to an establishment for the reception of stray dogs; or
(c)by destroying it in a manner to cause as little pain as possible;but no dog seized under this section shall be sold or given for the purposes of vivisection.
(7)Where a dog is disposed of under subsection (6)(a) or (b) above to a person acting in good faith, the ownership of the dog shall be vested in the recipient.
(8)The officer shall keep a register containing the prescribed particulars of or relating to dogs seized under this section and the register shall be available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge.
(9)The officer shall cause any dog detained under this section to be properly fed and maintained.
(10)Notwithstanding anything in this section, the officer may cause a dog detained under this section to be destroyed before the expiration of the period mentioned in subsection (6) above where he is of the opinion that this should be done to avoid suffering.
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
Environmental Protection Act 1990

1990 c. 43Part VIII Control of DogsSection 149
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
1992 No. 288
The Environmental Protection (Stray Dogs) Regulations 1992
Register of seized dogs — prescribed particulars
3. For the purposes of section 149(8) of the Act, the following are the prescribed particulars to
be contained in the register of seized dogs which is kept by the officer—
(a) a brief description of each dog, including its breed (if known), and any distinctive physical
characteristics or markings, tattoos or scars;
(b) any information which is recorded on a tag or collar worn by, or which is otherwise carried
by, the dog;
(c) the date, time and place of the seizure;
(d) where a notice has been served pursuant to section 149(4), the date of service of the notice,
and the name and address of the person on whom it has been served;
(e) where the officer disposes of the dog pursuant to section 149(6)—
(i) the date of disposal;
(ii) whether disposal was by destruction, gift or sale, and if by sale, the price obtained;
(iii) the name and address of the purchaser, donee or person effecting the destruction; and
(f) where the dog was returned to a person claiming to be its owner, the name and address
of that person, and the date of return.
Skywalker99
...and taking an adoption fee benefitting from the proceeds if a crime? I can't fault your logic Michael, and the police were happy to accept a crime had been committed.
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
I am sure that animalwardens ticked all the relevant boxes at the time- I agree that all in society must operate within the law. However, failing to act upon a criminal action after being made aware of it arguably constitutes accessory after the fact. I'm not sure what evidence was presented that they were running free in a public place without their owner being present. In fact I have a comprehensive paper trail which would demonstrate to any judge that they were not as alleged, tied to a lamppost at Kent University. Whether their systems are sufficiently robust is a matter of debate
Skywalker99
Also aware that margins are probably low In this business, salaries may not be high, and that the management culture may preclude this......and who knows what kpis they have from the councils that mean following process is more important.
Skywalker99
SimonH, don't disagree but when given evidence that says they were not strays I would expect a decent organisation to act on that and be pragmatic about the process rather than adopt an 'I've started so I will finish' attitude. I don't know the ins and outs but it would probably have been more cost effective too.......I would also expect an apology and an assurance that my dogs were OK, which would just be a decent thing to do on human perspective.
SimonH
The Animal wardens have a process which was legally complied with - some may call it “jobsworth” but others would say they have to operate within the law that governs them. Last edited: 2017-11-20 09:28:25 by SimonH
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
I've taken your advice on board and contacted CJ in advance of going back to the police.
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
I agree on both fronts. I have been too patient, but in my defence I have never encountered unwarranted malice or indifference on this scale before and the people I would least expect it from would be fellow animal owners or lovers. For nearly a year we looked after Ms Fs border collie 9 hours a day, three days a week and as a dog with boundless energy would take her for at least 2 2 hour walks at rates well below the market rate for dog sitting in London, (something I did more as a hobby and to allow Poppy and Rosie to socialise with other dogs)
Skywalker99
Anyone with a modicum of common sense would have looked at the facts here and said 'this needs to be reviewed', I am so sorry that you seem to be dealing with jobsworth idiots (that is my opinion). And I think you have been very patient and probably far too nice to date, for which I commend you. I really would go back to the police.
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
Ms F advised our solicitors on the 29th Sep by phone that she had handed the dogs into the Dog's Trust. They reported "Ms F has refused to disclose the branch that she has given the dogs to and she has not registered her details nor the dogs with them, hence their system not being able to trace them when we previously enquired" She was fully aware that we would not be reachable until mid-October and deliberately refused to disclose where she had taken our dogs in an inexplicable act of malice
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
Unfortunately we were informed directly by phone by the Dog's Trust on October 1st that they had Poppy and Rosie and we could make arrangements for their collection.When our solicitors called them to confirm a collection time on October 5th, the Dog's Trust clarified that they were sent to the Dog Warden on September 17th when they were brought in by the person we had foolishly trusted. Our solicitor made repeated calls to animalwardens based in Manchester as well as Frandham Kennels and they employed delaying tactics until after Christmas
SimonH
What was the time period between you coming home and receiving the letter from the council via their contracted DW ( Animal wardens ) saying the dogs were in the dog pound, and you contacting them.
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
At the time I believed that animalwardens and the kennels had acted in good faith according to the law. I naively believed they would show some humanity and reunite me with our dogs. However, their subsequent lack of compassion and indifference showed they cared more about compliance, data-protection and using legal excuses to cover their a***. With the benefit of hindsight I would have been much more confrontational with them
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
We have documented evidence and witnesses of the individual concerned taking custody of our girls of her own volition. My solicitor has also provided documentation detailing a telephone call from her stating that she informed them she had given them to the Dog's Trust but refused to state at which location. The Dog's Trust also logged a call from her a few days before her actions which provides evidence of her intent. The legal definition of a stray dog is a dog that is at liberty on its own or is not under control. Her account of events is completely false. The physical description given by the Dog's Trust accurately describes her. She alleged that she found them tied to a lamppost at Kent University. Based on the circumstances and all the evidence to prove otherwise, anyone could reasonably deduce that this was patently untrue. Nevertheless, I contacted the Kent University security team who were extremely helpful and reviewed their CC footage comprehensively, confirming that no such incident had occurred in the 24 period when Poppy and Rosie were alleged to have been 'found'
nalamissing
Who are their chips registered to now? If the new owners then I believe that with a CRN the chip company should divulge details to you..or the police, doglost could advise. Animal wardens sounds like
bereaucratic incompetence, Frandham kennels not so sure. Have you written to the CEO of animal wardens marking it 'personal and confidential'? I hope Simon is right and your girls were rehomed.
Skywalker99
Tbh the best interests of the dogs would have been served with them being returned to you in October 2016, you appear to have
evidence that they were not strays, albeit some of it circumstantial. Animal wardens and the kennel should do some introspection. Hope you find them.
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
Hi Skywalker - I've had mixed legal opinions from different sources; as I now have a greater understanding of the facts and the law I am hoping that a satisfactory outcome can be achieved without the need for legal action. I'm pleased Tobias story had a happy ending.
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
Hi Simon- that is exactly what I and my solicitor did over a year ago without success. The kennels refused to deal with me directly (or even acknowledge that the dogs were there) referring me to animalwardens who act on behalf of Canterbury City Council. They delayed giving me a definitive response until after Christmas using a variety of excuses as to why they could not act and finally using the EPA 1990 as an excuse. At that time I would have been very happy to have had the opportunity to get some closure. Instead we have had the stress and anxiety of not knowing about the whereabouts or state of well-being of our pets. Bureaucracy and compliance took priority over the welfare of my pets and the mental health of myself and my partner.
SimonH
Michael and Andrew - Your dogs are adorable and very adoptable - I’m sure they waited the minimum time before being adopted (in good faith) and if it’s closure you want in terms of knowing your dogs are happy and loved then the approach I’d likely take would be to message the kennels (I’d guess they have been rehomed from there) and ask if they could contact the adoptors, explain the situation and go from there. Regardless of what other people would or wouldn’t do, I do understand when you say it’s their well being which is your priority - that’s really lovely to read. I move a lot of rescue dogs from dog pounds to their rescues and I’d say most adapt really well in their new homes - if this was a recent situation I’d have a different view on your dogs welfare. Whatever you decide to do I wish you luck - you sound decent people and I hope you both do get closure.
Skywalker99
Worth taking a read through this, circumstances are different but it was the crn that got him home. http://www.doglost.co.uk/dog-blog.php?dogId=103284#.WhCKNuvfWrU
Have you taken counsel's opinion on the outcome of any court case?
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
We do have witnesses. We know that she made a telephone enquiry to the Dogs Trust a few days before they were attempted to be handed in to the Dogs Trust in Canterbury. She didn't give them her details but the description and the circumstances leave us in no doubt that it was her. We can prove that we were not at home when animalwardens contacted us but we were able to establish in the first week of October in 2016 that they had been collected by animalwardens and taken to Frandham kennels. She has already refused to help put things right by owning up to what she has done, but we will give her another opportunity to do so. We are more concerned about the well-being of our pets than anything else.
Skywalker99
I note what SimonH says about what's best for the dogs, however if I had adopted them I would be gutted to learn how they had ended up in rescue and would want them to go back to their owners. I could always get some more rescue dogs!
Skywalker99
Are there witnesses as to the arrangement? I.e friends who knew what had been arranged? Do animal wardens have a record of her as the person who handed them in (in which case she is incriminated anyway). Can you prove you were out of the country when animal wardens wrote to you (why didn't they ring?). Would animal wardens and Franham kennels agree to mediation? However, do not loose sight of the fact that Kent police were prepared to record this as a crime, and therefore these dogs are stolen goods so hiding behind the epa is not really a good excuse. Thinking out loud, if she did give you a statement you could promise no further action and that it would be kept confidential between the parties concerned, with this, plus proof of ownership (the dogs were registered in your names on the chips). I think would ask Doglost to see if they can get the police to do something first. The Crn is probably the most powerful tool you have, use it.Last edited: 2017-11-18 19:06:06 by Skywalker99
SimonH
Would the text messages confirm the arrangement ? I suppose my point being even as a civil case - it’s very difficult to prove without a written agreement unless the text messages show proof without reasonable doubt - I do realise this is a horribly sad situation especially for the dogs who have had so much change in their circumstances over the last year or so - what’s best for them must override everything else IMO. Hope things are resolved for all parties sooner rather than later.
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
Hi Simon- no we don't have a signed written agreement. We had been looking after her Border Collie for 3 days a week (9 hours a day) for almost a year and believed there was mutual trust. We didn't feel the need for her to demonstrate proof of upkeep as we knew her to be a responsible and caring dog owner. Our pets did not require vet care during the period in her care but were fully insured. There is no formal proof of agreement as most historic communication was informal via text messages. Why she handed over the dogs in such a way without our knowledge or consent as to attempt to avoid this being traced back to her by doing this anonymously 50 miles from her (and our) neighbourhood in London defies logic, reason and humanity
SimonH
Have you got a written agreement to state that the person was looking after your dogs for a short period and the terms of that agreement signed by both parties? Was there proof of upkeep of the dogs by the owners to the third party? Was your vets aware and did the third party take the dogs to the vets within the period they were looking after your dogs? Have you letters/emails and text messages between you showing pictures of the dogs under the third persons care? Basically is there proof of the agreement made between you all? Last edited: 2017-11-18 16:32:54 by SimonH
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
Hi-I agree; getting a statement from her confirming her actions would be a positive step but that would effectively mean she's be incriminating herself in an act of theft or fraud.(She claimed to have found the dogs as strays 50 miles from our home)The police suggested I contact her in the first instance which I did but she refused to speak to me when I politely confronted her and requested to meet to discuss why she had acted as she did) Subsequent efforts to request her assistance have fallen on deaf ears. My view of the law which I hope prevails in the end is that the transfer of owner-ships of our dogs was void as they were not strays; but I think the onus is on us now to push the police to take action. I agree that mediation would be the best option when we locate our pets. Thanks for all the really positive and constructive advice which we will certainly act on. It's much appreciated
Skywalker99
Thinking about this overnight...it has been a year and it doesnt look like it is going to be resolved with the person that took them....although IMO offering mediation to get a statement from her that says she handed them in without any authority to do so would not be a bad thing. I don't know all the facts but don't understand your solicitors advice...mediation always best in my opinion. I would also go back to Kent police and ask for their help, a call from the police might focus the minds of some organisations. If they are reluctant to cooperate please speak to CJ the Doglost police coordinator. She does good work and I believe has a good relationship with Kent police, otherwise the only way I can see this being settled is in a courtroom. If not already done so write to your MP and the MP for Canterbury. use social media to raise awareness of your plight. Good luck.Last edited: 2017-11-18 10:32:32 by Skywalker99
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
thank you :-)
Sue - onestopalldogs
Shared to @onestopalldogsLost Facebook and Twitter
Molliemoo
FB have banned me from sharing and commenting, again, otherwise I would share this to Canterbury/Dover/Folkestone Groups. Good luck
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
thanks nala missing- we intend to go to the press. The police actually advised me to resolve the issue with the person who gave our pets away , but my solicitor strongly advised against this. He has been pursuing the disclosure of details via the Data Protection Commissioner. Sadly it has been a case of computer says no so farLast edited: 2017-11-17 17:41:03 by Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
nalamissing
shame animal wardens couldn't behave with compassion and human decency or even just common sense...rather than 'computer says no' or just basic incompetence.
nalamissing
have you been to the press? a story in a local papaer may help?don't get this though, the police recognise that a crime has been committed, the kennels choose to interpret the law differently? a crime is a crime....can't the police help with Frandham kennels? not sure how much your solicitor may know about doglaw, but it might be worth contacting one of those specialist lawyers recommended by skyewalker.
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
Hi Simon;It was in mid September 2016 last year. We were alerted to this on the 4th October. Animal Wardens have been claiming that we lost our property rights after seven days under the EPA. However, we have been maintaining since that the EPA should not apply as they were not strays, not found tied to a lampost and that the actions of the person handing them in was deceptive and illegal. We knew that the dogs were being housed at Frandham Kennels in Kent and wrongly believed that animalwardens were going to resolve the situation. Since then we have been working with a solicitor to attempt to get the Data Protection Commissioner to disclose the whereabouts but the process has thus far been unsuccessful
SimonH
Michael and Andrew - Did the person hand them over a year ago or Sept this year?
Skywalker99
I would also contact vets get scanning http://vetsgetscanning.co.uk if not already done so to help spread the word.
Skywalker99
This just shows that 7 days is not long enough, however you have a crime reference number which means these dogs are stolen goods, animal wardens should (and must) cooperate?? I really hope you get them back.
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
Hi Simon- Yes: they were in the care of someone we had trusted to look after them as of August 2016. They were handed over by this person (who lives in our neighbourhood in West London and she claimed to have found them tied to a lamppost at the University of Kent in Canterbury). As a result of this deception the dogs have been treated as strays even though this is not the case. We had hoped to resolve the situation by Christmas 2017 but animal wardens refused to cooperate
SimonH
Is the lost date sept 2016 correct?
DogLostLisa P - Regional Co-ordinator, Central
CRN issued, status changed to stolen & CRN detail added x
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
Since then we have been attempting to locate and recover our animals through civil proceedings.
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
Thank you very much Skywalker. I have done as you suggested. The dogs were handed into Canterbury as strays which they weren't, Canterbury City council subcontract the management of this to a company called animal wardens. Animalwardens contacted us in late September at our home address in writing (we were away at the time ; hence our 'friend'taking care of our pets)
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
Thank you so much Jayne. We really appreciate your help
Skywalker99
Please email the crn to Doglost so they can update status to stolen. Do you know where she handed them in in Canterbury? They should have been scanned.Last edited: 2017-11-17 13:40:54 by Skywalker99
DogLostJayne - Administrator, Head Office
Alerts sent to helpers in CT16,17,18,19,20,21.
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
Hi Alison, we've received information that Poppy may be in Folkestone, Could you please send Folkestone postcode alerts to CT18 CT19 and CT20.
Thanks so much!
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
After that Rani, she took them to Canterbury where she handed them in claiming to have found them as strays tied to a lamp-post at Kent University. We have informed Kent Police. The crime reference number is ZY267317.
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
Hi Rani, At the time they were handed in we suspected that they were given to the Dogs Trust. The lady that was looking after them took them to Whitstable Dogs Trust which is 100 miles from our home. As our pets were chipped in our name and they were clearly well looked after the Dogs Trust refused to take them
Michael and Andrew Cross-Coyle
Thank you so much Sharon and Alison
rani
Hi,when they were handed in as strays - were they rehomed?

So awful to hear what happened!
Skywalker99
Please report to police and get a CRN if possible. Email stolen@doglost.co.uk for advice. Presumably if handed in as strays they were given to the dogwarden? And there are records of which rescue they went to? Wheldon law http://wheldonlaw.co.uk specialise in doglaw or doglaw.co.uk may be worth contacting for advice. I believe they both give free/low costs initial consultations. There are also www.thepetdetectives.com if you have the resources.
DogLostSharon - Social Media Team
I have shared with DL FB Page, Twitter & Public. I hope that Poppy & Rosie are both safely back at home soon.X
DogLostAlison - Administrator, Head Office & Area Co-ordinator, Lincolnshire
Alerts sent to helpers in CT1,CT2,CT3,CT4,CT5,CT6
Admin
Sorry to see that POPPY AND ROSIE is missing.
  • If your dog is microchipped please let the microchip company know that your dog is missing and check that all details are up to date.
  • Owners targeted by a malicious hoaxer demanding money for the return of their dog should phone the police on 101 immediately and contact investigations@doglost.co.uk
  • A photograph of your dog is essential for the website. If you have not already uploaded one, please do so by clicking on Update details. Alternatively you can email it to admin@doglost.co.uk quoting the dog's DogLost ID number: (122181)
  • Obtain a missing poster by clicking on View poster above. Posters are very important so start postering now!
  • You will need to be logged in to upload photos, edit your dog's details, or add comments. You can add comments by clicking on Click here to add a comment.
  • Contact dog wardens, vets and local rescue centres, and in Scotland, the Police. Give a detailed description with any distinguishing marks/scars or send them a copy of your DogLost poster. You can find vets in your area here.
  • If your dog has been stolen inform the police immediately and obtain a crime reference number (CRN). Send an email to stolen@doglost.co.uk.
  • If your dog is picked up and taken to rescue kennels, it can be legally re-homed after seven days. Visit rescue centres in person and do not rely on checking by phone alone. Other people may not recognise your dog by your description, so give them a DogLost poster.
  • Keep us updated by keeping your dog's page up to date and check for posts from helpers who may have suggestions and possible matches or sightings
  • DogLost is free and anyone asking for money to find or return your dog is not volunteering for us. If you are concerned about an approach you have received, please call our helpline on 01633 668 364. Lines are open seven days a week 08:00-20:00.

Please donate

All donations go towards running the website, maintaining the helpline and keeping DogLost free to all dog owners!

DONATE NOW

Contact us