I've been reading a facebook group about a battle by one woman trying to get her dog back. She bought a KC reg Pug and had her microchipped. Then in November 2010 the dog was stolen from her secure back garden. She reported the crime to the police and she has an incident number. Then 18 months later a woman who works in a pet shop phoned her saying she had been about to microcip a dog but scanned her first and found the chip, contacted the microchipping database and got her details. She then passed the phone over to a man, the 'owner' of the dog in Somerset. The man gave the woman his mobile number and asked her to call him the next day. Then he went to the police for advice. He had bought the dog from a lady in Manchester who provided him with the dog together with her KC reg papers. The police have said that the fact that the dog has a microchip is not proof of ownership and that this is now a civil matter. The woman is trying to raise the funds to go to court to get her dog back as the police will not get involved.

http://vetsgetscanning.co.uk/stolen-microchipped-pug-tinkerbell-cant-be-reunited-with-owner-because-she-doesnt-have-any-money-to-fight-a-court-case/

Surely people can't just take your dog and then say they are theirs?! Apparently the Manchester lady was traced and she said she had bought the dog in good faith herself so it seems this dog changed ownership several times. But surely the original buyer of the pup is the owner? I can't believe the police are not getting involved. It would be easy to prove would it not with a KC reg puppies, testing the DNA of the parents and then the disputed dog? Unless somehow the person who stole the dog new the dogs parents and created new false papers with them as the parents? I'm not sure how this is possible that the police are not getting involved and an owner is unable to get her dog back. It doesn't bear thinking about, I'd hate to lose my dog and not be able to get her back just because someone else says they bought her and won't give her back!

I think I feel really sorry for both of them. 
Perhaps the police could try the judgement of soloman and the baby to see who really cares the most :)

I must admit I thought about the dog. If it has been where it is for 18 months then I would assume it is well and happy. The dog's welfare has to come in to it but I can't imagine life without my dog and I know I would fight tooth and nail to get her back if she was taken. I spent the first year of her life experiencing panic type feelings that something awful would happen to her or imagining how hard it will be losing her when she is old and grey (I don't do those end of life times well) but those feelings have died down a bit now she is sensible and obedient when out and about but she is still out in the garden alone at times and it could happen to her. It doesn't bear thinking about. The campaign is partly to get vets to routinely scan new animals that join their practice as Tinkerbell had been back and forward to the vets quite a bit in the proceeding months including just after the man came by her so this could have been picked up sooner.

Unfortunately a Microchip does not prove ownership.

Yes that's what they are saying. So, what does prove ownership? The lady has her KC reg papers but so apparently does the man.

Who do the KC have as owners? Apparently people sell KC papers (the KC has a rule against doing it, so it must happen!) so the second lot could well be fake.

> So, what does prove ownership?

Possession maybe.

Putting aside the serious issues here, there is a wonderful irony in this considering the plans to introduce compulsory microchipping in order to... Prove ownership, trace owners, identify those responsible for dangerous dogs.... Hmmmm

Jeangenie, the lady has a set of KC papers for a pug bitch she bought as a puppy which is the puppy that she had microchipped. So I guess the KC say she is the owner of a Pug with parents X&Y. The question is whether the Pug the man has is that dog. And the fact that it has the same microchip in that she had put in before it was in the mans ownership is not enough proof.

If it was a car, it is identified by its engine number (if not wiped) and given straight back to the original owner and the person who paid money in good faith to buy the car not knowing it was stolen is left with no car and no money. But this isn't the same if it is a dog. The Police say there is no way of legally saying who owns a dog. There are DNA tests but it seems they can't force the man to hand his dog over to be DNA tested. So without a law enabling them to do that and the funds to do the DNA tests that will never happen.

This woman is determined to raise the funds herself for the court case to take this man to court for the dog. It will be interesting to see if she does and the outcome.

Scary though that anyone can take a dog and just keep it and there is no come back.

I do not understand this either as to me it is cut and dry.

I agree that a microchip and even KC papers do not prove ownership as people pass dogs on so often with and without both.

However.............. The original owner reported the theft of the pup 18months ago and has an  incident number, a vet reported a previous microchip and it was traced back to that owners address? Proving it is the same dog.

If theft had never been reported it would be mighty difficult to prove whether a pup had been passed on, but in this case how is it not legally and blatently obvious, and why is the law not backing the owner? Everything proves the dog is hers!!!

Yes, other people have become involved, duped, conned whatever we wish to say but the dog belongs to the first owner.

If I were that person I would just get in touch with The Sun newspaper and go from there, surprising how that paper can push people to do the right thing. People will come forward and help with the cost of a solicitor if nothing else.

ok sorry for this i have a suspisious mind so hear me out lol....what if the 1st owner sold the pup to some1 but after doing this told the police it was took from the garden and she claims on her insurance for stolen pup ??? and then this pup turns up again with a different kc paper as they could of had 1 anyway before the pup gets sold yet again? gosh i think terrible of ppl dont i :(

When I first saw on facebook that someone was raising funds I was suspicious thinking anyone can make a sob story to get money but then did some research and found this story is in the press etc. but yes you could be right. Maybe that is why the police won't get involved. But tragic that because of that lack of trust people lose their dogs and can't get them back.

Well if the police are right and a microchip is NOT proof of ownership, that puts the current compulsory microchipping plans into a different light ;)

Don't know what I'd be prepared to do in this situation :(

That may be the situation at present but as compulsory id is going to require new legislation I would image the position will be made clearer within that legislation. 
Also, the purpose will be completely different. Whereas before legislation, microchipping was a means of identifying a dog that people generally wanted back, compulsory id is about identifying people that might want to claim the dog isn't theirs so it may be the onus will be on demonstrating you have passed the dog on as you do with motor vehicles.

>Well if the police are right and a microchip is NOT proof of ownership, that puts the current compulsory microchipping plans into a different light

The law regarding ownership ofa microchipped animal will certainly need clarifying once and for all.

>considering the plans to introduce compulsory microchipping in order to... Prove ownership,

The same crossed my mind as shivj and Dill.  So, having my dogs microchipped counts for nothing?  Don't know why I bother then!

I  have to admit though, if a dog of mine was taken, and I knew where it was, then I would want to get it back by fair means or foul.

> So, what does prove ownership?

As far as I'm aware, KC papers do not prove ownership either.
The only thing that does is a permanent visible identification like a tattoo. 

> The same crossed my mind as shivj and Dill.  So, having my dogs microchipped counts for nothing?  Don't know why I bother then!

Yup, same thoughts here, too.
And even if the law is brought in, I'm not entirely sure it could prevent this kind of occurrence in the future. In fact it will probably muddy the waters even more as there will be many denying the dog is theirs, even though the chip is in their name.

"Offence to fail to keep a microchip registration up to date" is a possibility, but I don't see how that would have helped this lady, as her stolen dog was sold on, and presumably it would rest with the current owner not to have updated the chip - dealers and thieves will be laughing, as it's not in their interest to update the chip and they merely pass the buck to the buyer.

KC papers obviously don't hold any clout - even if it was proven by DNA testing the dog was the genuine descendant of its KC listed parents on the papers held by the first owner, it still doesn't mitigate the fact the later owner bought a dog in good faith, with KC papers and a chip.

Got to agree, something like the law already in place for other kinds of stolen property HAS to be enacted on behalf of dogs.

I would take a look at www.doglaw.co.uk I have been to a couple of talks with Trevor Cooper on dog law, he has a phone line for advice which I think he said is about £1.50 per min but could be well worth it.

> The only thing that does is a permanent visible identification like a tattoo. 

Even a tattoo can be unregistered or not transferred to a new owner... In that respect it wouldn't be any more useful than this dog's chip.

I have a dog with a tattoo albeit an unusual one, & not registered anywhere I have yet been able to trace. As such it's as much use as an ashtray on a motorcycle.... and if I did trace it, what then? It may not lead to any of the dog's owners in the last 10 years, just to the original breeder who, having sold it on as a puppy maybe 8-9 years ago or more, really can't be expected to be accountable for subsequent owners failing to re-transfer.

I appreciate that, but my understanding is that in legal terms a dog is considered 'property' or 'goods'  therefore visible identification is proof of ownership in the same way the tvs etc that are marked with invisable markers are identifiable.  Microchips are not considered proof of ownership because they are not visible.

So, this tattoo my rescue dog has, even though its visible (if you look in the right place) and might have been done in the first few months of her life.... Might mean that someone from her distant past could have a claim on her?

No more provable than a "hidden"chip is it, really?

According to Trevor Cooper, if there is a dispute over ownership the person with the best chance is the one that can show SEVERAL bits of information that shows the dog has lived with them for a long time, such as being registered with a local vet, training club,  photos of the dog over a period of time being available etc. Anyone could steal or find a dog that is not microchipped and then instantly have it chipped, so in that sense I can certainly see it would be no use to prove ownership.

therefore visible identification is proof of ownership in the same way the tvs etc that are marked with invisable markers are identifiable. 

Off on a bit of a tangent here, but if I marked my TV and then sold it to somebody, surely then I should not be able to go to the police and claim the buyers stole it and I want it back, because I can prove I marked it?!

> No more provable than a "hidden"chip is it, really?

Is that your opinion or a legal one?  There is no specific law on dog ownership so the application of ownership of 'property' applies to dogs.  That is how it was explained to me in legal terms.  However, this isn't really helping the OP, so the suggestion to contact a specialist in dog law is the best one.

> Off on a bit of a tangent here, but if I marked my TV and then sold it to somebody, surely then I should not be able to go to the police and claim the buyers stole it and I want it back, because I can prove I marked it?!

Which is exactly the scenario Whitelily mentioned earlier!

JenP - it is my opinion, yes...... But a tattoo that was done many years ago and transfer has lapsed, is no more use than a microchip with out of date details.

8 or 9 years on and the breeder who had the tattoo done could be untraceable... What makes you think it's any more valid than  a chip?

But my opinion doesn't matter (for what it's worth I agree with you).  It is simply how the legal position stands as I have been told.  Of course, things may have changed since then so the OP is better to seek legal advice.

My ex husband stole my first dog (a BSD groenendael)  in 1990 from our house (broke in) and your quite right it's KC papers in my name, vets vaccination records etc did not prove I owned her.

I only got my girl back after involving the local paper in a plea and the goodness of the people she had been passed onto being willing to return her to me.

JenP - the OP on here isn't the disputed dog's owner.

This has been passed to us as a matter for discussion, and far as I know the stolen dog's owner already has legal representation.

It is a worthy matter for debate, because as has been said, it exposes all manner of intricacies and potential failures in the government's proposal of making chipping of all dogs mandatory.

>visible identification is proof of ownership in the same way the tvs etc that are marked with invisable markers are identifiable.  Microchips are not considered proof of ownership because they are not visible.

'Invisible' markers aren't visible. The clue is in the name ... ;-) You need special equipment to see it - just like a microchip.

White lilly, don't apologise for your suspicious mind, mine is always ticking away. :-D

My only little niggle here is does this dog and new owner have it's correct KC papers? If it does that is a real mystery as obviously they can only have come from the original owner, so it must have been a re-sale, unless the breeder had not passed them on in which case the breeder would have to be involved in the theft. :-(

We know that scams go on all the time, so a different and faulse KC paper is more likely, with the stolen pup,

It would definitely make a huge difference in knowing whether these papers the dog has are of the correct parentage or not.

If someone wishes to do an insurance scam by selling on a dog and then reporting it stolen they would have to be really, really dopey if the dog is microchipped by them, as we know that vets automatically scan every dog whilst having it's annual check.

Very much a mystery but important facts are missing, just seems so far fetched to report it stolen if microchipped and also pass on the KC papers, that is just really dopey, I can't believe that someone would do that and then hope to get the dog back as well when the microchip is eventually flagged............ but then again..........

> According to Trevor Cooper, if there is a dispute over ownership the person with the best chance is the one that can show SEVERAL bits of information that shows the dog has lived with them for a long time, such as being registered with a local vet, training club, photos of the dog over a period of time being available etc

Presumably that's going to prove a bit more difficult when it is a puppy that has been stolen, and the 'new owners' have had the dog in their possession for 18 months.

Stories like this always make me want to hold my dogs a bit closer.  I can't imagine losing them in this way and then not being able to easily get them back

> So, what does prove ownership?

In my case, I was told that having vet records in my name for years was the main 'proof' (this from Trevor Cooper at Doglaw) - and he confirmed that no, the chip doesn't prove ownership of the dog, only of the chip.  My dog was my brother's who I refused to give back due to medical neglect of her - his name hasn't ever been on any vet accounts, mine has for her for the last 9 years (I've had her 1 year) so if my brother was to take me to court, it'd go in my favour.

I suspect this would be a factor in this case, but I agree with the suggestion of DNA if the pug's parents are known - that could prove which KC papers are the real ones for a start, maybe then the chip would hold a bit more sway over things.

>My only little niggle here is does this dog and new owner have it's correct KC papers?

That was why I asked who the KC has as its owner. If it can be proven that the KC registration papers are false then it adds weight to the claim that the dog was stolen.

Dogs a babe, I don't think that the new owner has had the dog for 18 months. :-)

It has been missing and reported stolen for 18 months, it has been passed on several times previous, how many not clear, it was discovered when the newest owner went to have it microchipped, if I've got this story right, so all in all the new owner may not have had the dog for very long at all, as most of us would take a new dog for microchipping within the first week or so of ownership. (At least I would)

Without a doubt it is the first owners dog, I guess the only thing that needs clarifying is whether it was stolen or re-sold?

Thanks Carrington - I missed that bit.  I was too busy worrying about the fact I've currently got the wrong mobile number on my dogs id tags...  !!

:-D Quick, get that changed! :-)

Just had another thought, mind is ticking away here now............... if the KC papers are different to the first owners, they may not be forgeries, it is possible that there could be an unbelievable coincidence, it could be a different pup altogether, with correct papers, as it could also be possible that an error has been made via the data or original packaging of the microchip, there is the possibility of error in all things.

So, the correct course of action is as they are doing in trying to go for a DNA test.

It is the only conclusive proof of where the pup came from and along with that if the KC papers are then faulse case proven and pup returned.

If the KC papers are the originals that is a whole other story..............

>as it could also be possible that an error has been made via the data or original packaging of the microchip, there is the possibility of error in all things.

I recently had to try to trace the owners of a pup whose microchip was registered to another person - the breeder/chipper had mixed up the papers and the wrong chip details were given to the new owners.

Yes, I can fully believe that it happens, human error is alive and well in all things. :-)

With you saying that it also opens up another avenue that the pup may have the same KC papers as it could be a sibling, with the wrong microchip details, oh dear with me on the case that woman would never get her pup back as whatever the outcome I could make that pup not hers. :-D

Lol! That's the problem with taking care to see both sides! :-D

This is not the first case of its kind sadly http://www.chipmenot.org.uk/articles/are-pet-owners-being-misled-regarding-the-safety-and-reliability-of-microchip-implants.html

Also, recent cases in the UK reveal that the chip does not provide proof of ownership. (24-25) So, even if you locate your stolen, microchipped pet, it is possible that your pet will not be returned to you. For example, in April 2010, Dave Moorhouse was contacted by Anibase, a microchip database company, asking if he wanted to change the ownership records of his Jack Russell Terrier, Rocky. Mr. Moorhouse told Anibase that Rocky had been stolen and asked where he was. However, Anibase refused to provide information regarding Rocky's whereabouts.

Steven Wildridge, managing director of Animalcare, the company that owns and operates Anibase, says:

  "This is not a choice, it's an obligation under the Data Protection Act. If the individuals involved do not want us to pass on their details to the original owner then we cannot do so unless compelled to following a criminal or civil proceeding." (26)  

Although Rocky's microchip was registered to Mr. Moorhouse, the police concluded there was no criminal case and refused to help him find Rocky. A Huddersfield County Court judge ruled that the situation was out of his jurisdiction.

Mr. Moorhouse asks, "What's the point of having your pet microchipped if you can't get him back?" (27)

Then there is this..http://vetsgetscanning.co.uk/missing-microchipped-dog-lily-has-been-found-after-nearly-2-years-but-council-wont-give-dog-back-to-owners-for-another-7-days-in-case-new-owner-comes-forward/

The good news is that Lilly has been found but the owners who have been looking for their dog since June 2010 and have a crime reference number have been told that they have to wait seven days in case the 'owner' comes forward? This case is just one of the reasons why the Microchipping industry needs to be updated and regulated.
Why is the microchip NOT proof of ownership?
This was posted yesterday 18th April, 2012.
Lorraine Currie
Sad turn of events with Lily - had a call from the dog warden, she had been found I was given a number told to ring in the morning to arrange collection. Ring in the morning and the council are refusing to let us her her incase her'owners' show up, we have to wait the 7 days. Its been a horrible horrible day - all the info is on her FB page https://www.facebook.com/groups/144707338900230/361565990547696/?comment_id=361667040537591This was posted by owner last night:-I'd just want to repeat that this is NOT Battersea Dogs Home fault, it is Hammersmith and Fulham Council making the rules and as I sad I'm happy to wait the 7 days, Im more than prepared to prove Lily is my dog thats not the issue - the issue is the digusting way we have been treated all day with no reason, we have not been rude to anyone. Yet they have warned us not to go to the dog home, then had security waiting for us, then hid her and moved her. That was after all the lies on the phone this morning. They called US and told US to come get her then all this.

I didn't think microchipping, to date, was ever "billed" as proof of ownership just an assitance in getting your lost dog back to you.

If original owner has KC papers, and bought the dog from the breeder, would the breeder be prepared to provide DNA from bitch/obtain from stud.   If the current owner can provide DNA from the dog with the microchip, would that DNA be regarded as conclusive proof if it tallied with KC registered parents?

well it is not much assitance if the microchip company have someone try to change the details and that someone is not the person they have on their register is it. If the police wont get involved then you have to find the money for a civil case.

Regardless of what it has been billed as , if the powers that be are going to insist we have to microchip our dogs then imo they bloody well had better make it so it is billed as proof of ownership. Otherwise when 'tasty geezer' gets hauled up for his dangerous dog, he can just say 'prove it' ...farcical

I would agree, without the swearing :), but they have the model of car registration for instance when considering ways of ensuring the change of ownership is notified so they should understand the requirements and pitfalls.
I think we need to see what it will entail before we judge it farcical.

> Otherwise when 'tasty geezer' gets hauled up for his dangerous dog, he can just say 'prove it' ...farcical

The DDA  covers the person in charge of the dog at the time of offence, if not the owner = any lack of proof of ownership of the dog does not negate the person in charge of the dog as responsible for it's actions.
So again, chipping is not needed to tackle the issue of dangerous dogs, only enforcement of the current laws.

say he is not in charge of the dog at the time? the dog is out on its own.

Sorry if the word 'bloody' offends you Stooge..there are a myriad of things that offend me about other posters too, so I do sympathise.

I don't have to wait and see, I already find it farcical