Well I have to admit I've not been around the dog world so much since my move in 05, full house renovation has kept me busy, but now I'm back and totally gobsmacked by the conduct of the KC.

Can any of you tell what you would expect if you signed a transfer of ownership doc with a friend for joint ownership of a dog?  Like me you would probably expect everything to go thru as normal no worries.  However what would you expect the KC to do if said document arrived with your name obviously obliterated with the now alleged new owner claiming in writing that you had signed in the wrong place? Me I'd expect a letter requesting clarification from the KC to ensure that said animal was indeed to be transferred to the new single owner as would say your bank if you failed to sign a cheque with an error on to show that you were aware of the error and approved the transaction.

Would appear that the kc is happy to transfer dogs with a letter from the potential NEW SINGLE owner with an explanation regarding the removed name - ie breeder/partner/previous owner signed in the wrong place!  How on earth is this right as to my mind this is infact condoning theft if the breeder/previous owner/partner has no knowledge of said letter or subsiquent transfer!  Am I wrong to think this is not acceptable surely they would want to clarify the explanation at the very least with the other party especiall if it is a known breeder who's details are available to them on the document concerned?

Well the explanation given was  a reasonable one so no I don't see why they should have doubted it as most pups are transfered from the breeder to new owners so no reason for them to think anything untoward was going on.

I would expect them to do something once you got in touch with them.  Personally if I was keeping a pup in joint names I would have handled th transfer myself and used my address for the KC records, keeping the registration document myself or keeping a copy and passing it on to the other owner in due course for health testing stamps etc.

After all with them having the dog in their physical possession, having the documents yourself is the only way you would have to keep them adhering to a partnership agreement.

Sorry should have clarified this was an adult dog not a puppy, nor is it my dog just someone asking why this has happend to her.

As in any document, if you signed in the wrong place (which you didn't ;-) ) then I would at least expect you to initial the mistake, and possibly attach a letter stating you'd done it wrong. I think that I would seek legal advice on this one. The new owner, in my eyes, has broken a contract in the first place, and tried to defraud you in the second. I would expect the KC to look into it after you complained.

as far as i;m aware because they put it in writing it complies with the data protection act (really not sure though so you should check it out)- if it doesn't then they didn't have the right to change the details without the owners permission (i think).

At one time the KC would refuse to accept a transfer of ownership that had bee altered in anyway & would return the document with a transfer of ownership form so that it could be completed correctly, I didn't know that this had changed

I'm sorry, but yes the KC should have checked.  I also know of someone else who had a dog in partnership and the bitch has been bred without their knowledge and a litter been registered!

See this is the sort of issue this caller was concerned about today, she has only found out about this transfer when she tried to get her dogs back for breeding, the terms state that any breeding is to take place at her property as the other part hasn't paid anything towards the dogs but was supposed to be showing hence the partnership.  Seems this person wanted said dogs for free as she's now claiming they are her animals is ringing round other breeders with claims of how awful the true owners husbandary, property etc is.  I had already advised the true owner that a registration document without a bill of sale doesn't give legal ownership as I found when I took a puppy buyer to court and won my case.

This is such a terrible mess all down to the kc allowing the registration to go thru without clarifing the error with the original owner, she is going to find herself a lawyer come monday to start proceddings to get her dogs back and to see what can be done about the kc's role in this sad episode.

Has you friend actually written to the KC to complain. The whole registration system is taken on trust (and you have to remember that these forms are processed by admin staff not doggy people) but the KC does act when they have evidence of fraud. Did your friend draw up a partnership agreement?

Im surprised as I know when I wrote them a letter re: change of address they wrote and said they wouldnt do it without the signature of my OH as only I had signed the letter

> ringing round other breeders with claims of how awful the true owners husbandary, property etc is

well at least ther is the slander option if she goes down a legal route

She was told about the issue a couple wks ago when the 'new single owner' ranted to her about not having the dogs back for breeding as they were HER dogs and she had the kc docs to prove it!  This came as a great shock to the owner as she thought they'd had a great friendship over many years so had no reason to mistrust the individual, so she wrote to the kc asking for clarification re the docs and what had happened.  They responded that indeed her name had been crossed off with an accompanying letter from the new register owner to say breeder had signed in the wrong place so she had crossed it out, the kc have since advised the 'true owner' that as a trust issue they have to take it as read - which I think personally is a big cop out as I'm sure a simple letter of notification would have dealt with this situation some 18 mths ago!

It is now in the hands of the KC, with holds put on all dogs concerned which isn't the best as my friend has waiting a long time to breed from these animals as its her first own bred of the breed. The kc seem to want to ignor it until my friend has taken legal action - yet their own papers on the docs do say that any tampering could result in the registrations being voided - which is exactly what has been requested in this instance but they are unwilling to do so as the 'new single owner' maintains her false claim, but then I would expect her to do nothing else who wouldn't when you are getting quality show/breeding stock for free courtesy of the KC.

She has also written several letters advising the true owner not to contact her as she was the dogs owners and wanted nothing more to do with this person, then she rings and leave message on the answer service, followed by a letter setting out NEW breeding terms - why on earth the kc can't void this registration is beyond me as the evidence is there in the 'new single owners' handwritten letters.

This is definately something that needs addressed by a solicitor. If the senario is as exactly as in the thread then real rights cannot pass to the joint owner.  

I am confused when you say the person who has the dog just now has not contributed finacially when they clearly have to have somehow as they have kept the bitch and fed it an d looked after it all this time. 

The query I believe should have been checked by the KC as "real rights" are passed over from the breeder or registered owner not the other way around.   Had the mistake been the new owner I can understanding them not checking but not the other way around.

As said many times it is semi skilled admin girls doing the job within the KC that is why "We" have to be very careful doing these types of things for all parties.

This happened to us, We got a dog that was being given up as the owner didn't "like" it any more had used it at stud and now thought it sterile,and wanted shot of it, The papers where signed at a Champ show infront of witnesses. The dog came to us in a poor condition and spent months getting healthier, We used the dog to one of our bitches and he produced a litter, We then realised we hadn't sent the papers off so sent them with the litter registration, To our shock got a letter back from the KC to say the owner is contesting his signiture on the papers and wanted his dog back, Then claimed that he had loaned the dog to us for the mating, !!!!!!!!! He contacted us demanding £1600, for a stud fee so we could register the puppies, I contacted the KC and they informed me that we could never register the pups and they keep the papers forever as they are indispute, What a nightmare. should add they the exowner also gave us the pets passport and all the relevent paperwork
Terry

Blue when I say not contributed finacially I mean they'd not put any monies towards the purchase of the dogs, obviously if both parties had agreed their terms ie return for breeding then I am assuming the monies would be covered pretty evenly if the litter is in the care of breeder/owner and all expenses accompanying said breeding activities soley covered by said person.

I see.

It is just a bit of a strange one sometimes these agreements. I am guessing your freind bred them which would probably make some sense her attachment to them, is there more dogs involved.

Maybe someone has planted a seed in the other person head that they are having to keep the dogs and look after them but hand them back for breeding.  Right or wrong you can see how these contracts all go wrong.  People seem to agree to things and then think it through later and that is where trouble happens.

Yeah indeed - there are 3 dogs I believe involved, its very odd the way things have worked out because the 'new single owner' sent the stud male back to friends for a breeding last yr but was upset at how long it took for the bitch to be ready, whilst the breeder/owner was very upset that she couldn't get the stud dog to work which I have to say is well out of character for this particular boy he was a very keen male.  It also amazes me that the new person had already changed the details on the registrations before this time yet carried on as if the agreement was intact with no problems, she knew the only reason they were put into joint ownership was for her to be allowed to show the dogs!

This is one reason why I just don't go there with folk, I have dogs in joint ownership with my friend but as she lives at the bottom of my garden with us sharing facilities I feel there's little chance of us bickering about the dogs --------------- well it would probably be more along the lines of 'YOU'RE having them I don't want them they're YOUR dogs' rather than fighting over who's NOT going to get the dogs lol.