> 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.

The new legislation may or may not change that I suppose. 
However, If you discourage people from owning troublesome dogs because of the liability you are going to have less around for other people to have charge of logically and eventually less people breeding lot least because no one will take them.  I think that is the plan anyway :)

> the dog is out on its own.

Then clearly the owner is responsible.

but there is no OWNER, microchips do not prove ownership...unless of course they change the current situation....we will as you say have to see.

> but there is no OWNER.

It probably does have :)
Microchips, where they have one, just help establish who but the dog will have an owner. 

>we will as you say have to see.

Seems a more sensible thing to do rather than prejudging it as farcical. :)

well yes it does SEEM more sensible granted but judging by the DDA maybe not....Mr Bumble was a very astute man imo :)..however I was more on about the police be unwilling to look into these cases, where a crime number has been issued and the microchip is not worth ..well not worth the data on it.

I'm not keen on waiting, by that time its a done deed. So I intend sending off a few emails, see what the response, if any is

> However, If you discourage people from owning troublesome dogs because of the liability you are going to have less around for other people to have charge of logically and eventually less people breeding lot least because no one will take them.  I think that is the plan anyway

Good point. :)

> however I was more on about the police be unwilling to look into these cases, where a crime number has been issued and the microchip is not worth ..well not worth the data on it.
>

I can't say I blame the police.  The microchip business up to now has been just that, a business enterprise.  Helpful in a lot of ways I am sure but not intended to meet a legal need so the police would need to put quite a bit of work into this.
They may just take the attitude that the dog is well cared for and not suffering and therefore, due to the difficulties and uncertainly of outcome, it cannot justify the public expense.

You may well be right Stooge re the police, although I'm not sure how they can decide an animal is well cared for etc if the animal is a recent acquisition ..you could I suppose apply that to all theft. It certainly does nothing to stop dog theft, which apparently is on the increase,if the police will not act. They may as well tell you when they hand out the crime number that it is for insurance purposes only.

> although I'm not sure how they can decide an animal is well cared for etc if the animal is a recent acquisition

Same way as you assume anyone aquiring an animal is innocent of neglect until shown otherwise I suppose :)

> It certainly does nothing to stop dog theft, which apparently is on the increase,if the police will not act.

Probably not but what would you have them do?  Presumably if it increases in a particular area the priority will rise but I suppose it depends on what other local issues there may be.
I do think they are upfront about the possibilities of solving your crime when you report something though.

'Same way as you assume anyone aquiring an animal is innocent of neglect until shown otherwise I suppose'

Sorry completely different . I would hope the police do not chose to investigate or not based on their assumption of whether the animal is neglected or not.

Being up front about possibilities of solving a crime are not the same as telling you they wont try because it is to costly and they will assume the animal  is ok where it is.

Anyways enough already, we have been here before and a discussion on the police is off topic.

I must tell my friends that had a house break recently that they have no chance of getting their goods back because the police will assume that their T.V. etc is properly happy in its new home lol

>I would hope the police do not chose to investigate or not based on their assumption of whether the animal is neglected or not.

Of course not.  I would expect them to base it on the likelyhood of achieving anything with a reasonable allocation of their resources.  I wouldn't think they would be questioning whether the animal was neglected at all, why would they?

> I must tell my friends that had a house break recently that they have no chance of getting their goods back because the police will assume that their T.V. etc is properly happy in its new home lol

I thought this was now off topic :) but I would imagine your friends have been told by the police how likely it will be to get their property back.

One of my sister's dogs was stolen years ago, old man now he is. He was only a few years old when he was stolen. Anyway he had been missing for about a year, was reported to the Police and other authorities at the time. He was located in a person's house, he was microchipped and as such was handed back to my sister. Being he is a JRT there are no papers for him. He was reported as stolen and all the photos proved he was a much loved pet of my sisters. I have no idea if the person who had him disputed anything, but it was a straight forward hand over.

Going right back to the original post...how on earth did the woman at the pet shop acquire the details of the original owner from the microchip company? Is it not the microchip company that does all the chasing around?

A registered chipper - a vet practice, for example - or dog warden can be given the ownership details from the chip registry. As the pet shop does chipping they'll have an authorisation number to quote when ringing.

> A registered chipper - a vet practice, for example - or dog warden

Does that include everyone that chips then?  I wonder if the training for microchipping by individuals includes an understanding of the Data Protection Act?  Anyone know?

No, not quite right, the chip companies are allowed to give details to  registered that are Vets, and I  think Rescue Kennels , but not to ordinary individuals who chip.  I was involved with a missing/found dog last year.  It is a long and complicated story, but to cut it short, someone had acquired a pug and a  little while later it escaped form the house.  The rang me for help in finding her, and the next day she was handed in to a local vets.   She was handed back to the "owners" as they had rung the all the local surgeries when she went missing.  The vets  advised she was chipped and asked if they had reported her loss to the chip company.  Owners contacts me a couple of days later to say they thought she was in season and could I confirm for them.  In fact not only was she in season but she had a prolapse.    When I assured them she could not be mated and needed a trip to the vets they put her in my arms and said "Can you find her a home then" and got into their car!  As I stood speechless, the parting comment as they drove away was - "Oh the vet says she is microchipped"! 

Got her home and  scanned her, then rang the chip company (not my own company) who would only tell me that she had not been reported lost or stolen, and they could not give me contact details.  After a bit of work I traced the surgery who had taken her in then handed her over, they contacted the chip company and got the address, but they could not give it to me either, just confirm it was the Doncaster area.  I got back on ot the chip company and asked them ot contact the owner - phone number no longer valid.

After a couple of weeks vet treatment she was fine and I started looking for a new home for her.  AS a last shot i asked the chip company to write to the address she was registered to, and they got a reply - wish they had not.  The people got in touch and wanted her back, he had been stolen, along with 4 Chihuahua bitches, from a garden shed - they assured me she did not usually live in a shed, but they had too many litters in the house to have all the bitches in with them, so moved this lot out to the shed.  I tried to persuade them to let me rehome her, as she could no longer be bred from (from a scar she had had at least 1 C section) but they insisted on having her back.  I cried all the way down to hand her back, and all the way home.  Still wish I had left things as they were, having done my duty by informing the chip company and not insisting on the letter.

You did the right think Gwen.  It's a very sad story but that was just bad luck the way it turned out.  It could have been an equally sad story if a loving, grieving owner had never got her back because you had not tried.
It is, however, reassuring to know that there is due care shown over where personal information is handed out.

I emailed the RSPCA and Dogs Trust just to see what their take was on microchipping being law. RSPCA didn't reply...they rarely do. I asked the DT because they are pushing it on their website so asked them why etc. They sent me this reply, obviously only Trevor Coopers take on it though.

'have spoken with our Doglaw Specialist, Trevor Cooper and he has given the following advice': 

'At present, there is no absolute proof of who owns a dog as ultimately only a Court can make such a declaration.  A dog owner is required by the Control of Dogs Order 1992 to ensure their dog wears a collar & tag when it is outside, but that doesn't provide proof they own the dog.  Any new legislation on microchipping is likely to work along similar lines ie. provide for a duty to chip rather than for the chip to provide absolute proof of ownership'.

So really if you get caught without a collar at present or without a chip in the future you wont be able to be fined on the spot, because it will need to go to court if you deny ownership. Lets hope people give the police/dog warden whoever their correct address ....hmmmm...of course if my take on it is wrong, no doubt someone will offer up the correct one :)