I am having a total nightmare.  A gay couple I sold a puppy to have split up.  The dog is being used a weapon against each other.  Anyway to cut a long story short.  The contract was signed by both parties for the sale.  The registration document was never sent off but they have microchipped in ONE of their names only and guess what it is the one who doesnt want me to have the dog back.  He doesnt want us to have the dog back as his ex partner wants us to have him as he knows we will look after him best.

What I want to know is has anyone else had experience of this.  The dog is coming back tommorow but only one person wants us to have him back the other one wants to sell him.  I have never had a dog returned to me other than a week after it was sold circumstances and desperately want him back.  I plan to keep him myself but dont want to cause what will be total chaos to the house and then have the other person take him away again.  The one who has him at present who wants us to have him back has all the paperwork.

Help anyone?

Did you sell the puppy with a 'no rehoming' clause ?  If so, then surely there is no arguement - they have split up, one wants to sell the dog which is in affect against the no rehoming clause so the dog must come back to you ?

Personally, if the dog is coming back to you tomorrow then the dog is in your possession and unless the other one wants to drag it through the courts it's yours - microchip is apparently not proof of ownership of the dog.

When you say the registration document was never sent off is this the KC reg papers ?  Are they already filled in with both their names ?  Can the one who now has him send the reg papers off in his name and then when they come back sign him over to you via the change of ownership form ?

I figure that this is all a 'bitchy' fight between the two of them and that the other one doesn't really want anything to do with the dog so once you have him back it will all probably just settle !

Boxermum

If microchipping is not proof of dog ownership then surely someone could steal your dog and say you sold it to them ? I'm only asking because i was thinking about getting my puppy chipped but it seems pointless if this should happen.

I know it sounds crazy but there has been a LOT of press recently with regards to microchipping - apparently according to some chip companies having your dog microchipped does not prove proof of ownership of the dog but simply of the chip itself ! 

They have an online form for you to update your details on (at a charge !) or to change ownership - but in the next breath they say that sorry having a chip put in doesn't prove that you are the owner ! Red tape and laziness if you ask me

Both my dogs are chipped but I wonder now if it was worth it - some people now prefer getting their dog tatooed as this seems to be more of a deterent

The KC papers still have our signatures on the back never filled in.  The only proof is that the insurance is in duel names but the microchip in the awkward ones name only.

I only found out about this last night and apparantly two weeks ago the nicer of the two was attacked by the other one and the police were called over the dog.  The worse one doesnt want the dog and gave it to the other one with all the paperwork.  Now he is using the dog as a way to hurt the other guy.

Unfortunately the worse one is loaded and I mean loaded so I want to know where we stand before we embark on this crusade.

I wonder :  can you pre-empt all this, by contacting the micro-chip register, and inform them that the dog that they have registered in one name is, in fact, still in your name with Kennel Club????

It may only be a delaying tactic, but might just buy enough time for tempers to cool and for reason to surface again.

Margot

Insurance doesn't prove ownership either.  If the KC papers were never filed in, the nice one has all the paperwork (including sale contract) and he has been given the dog back who is then giving it back to you then in any normal 'nice' persons eyes the dog is now yours - but as you say, if this guy is loaded and you fear him taking things further then I would contact a solicitor for advice.

I still don't think anything will come of it - the guy is obviously bitter, and if he is loaded why would he want to sell on a Dal for what a few hundred pound ?  He sounds to me like a real old fashioned bully who is used to getting his own way, I bet as soon as someone stands up to him and calls his bluff he'll disappear back into the woodwork where he crawled out from.

or they might get back together after you have the pup back......then were do you stand ?would you want to give the pup back to them?

The dog in law, I presume is still yours, as it's never been transferred into their name, so I think that you would have the stronger case!

If the dog comes back to me it stays they will not get it back under any circumstances.  I am getting him to sign a release today.  I have heard of these things happening and have tried to cover every scenario but obviously there is always something.  First and foremost my concern is for the poor dog.

The one who is causing all the trouble owns two massive homes in chelsea and knightsbridge and drives around in a porche and bought a range rover for the dog so if ever there was a reason why having lots of money doesnt make a good owner this is it. 

>The dog in law, I presume is still yours, as it's never been transferred into their name,<

Hi there, sorry unfortunately this is incorrect. The dog was sold and the transfer papers signed so the dog is not TTS's.

If it were me I would offer half the cost of the dog to the other partner and get the dog back. Receipt would be a must.

HI if one wants to sell and the other wants the dog to come to you. Reach and compromise and buy the dog back.

Clauses in contracts won't hold much water.

If they have a reciept from you for buying the dog that is the proof of ownership.

Proof of payment by receipt or proof of payment is the strongest proof of ownership.