I need some advice please. We purchased a "groenendael bitch" in April 2010. We went to well known breeders, one who is also a judge. We paid cash for her and were given her pedigree, she was not kennel club registered. A previous litter of puppies from the same dog and bitch were registered. Thirteen month on it is eveident that she is not a pure groenendael but a groenendael/ laeknois cross. We contacted the breeders, sent photographs and even offered to take her so they could see her for themselves. (The breeder in question breeds all four types of belgian shepherd dog.) We have asked for half the amount we paid for her back. The letter we sent requesting that has been returned. We feel that we have been let down very badly and would appreciate any advice on what steps we can take next. Do all breeders act like this or have we just been unlucky with the breeders we are dealing with?

Do all breeders act like this or have we just been unlucky with the breeders we are dealing with?

NO they do not. I am so sorry you have had such a problem. The good breeders would never do something like this...You have been  unfortunate with your breeder. Did they give you any reason as to why they have not KC reg the litter? I assume as a litter previous was registered that this was a back to back mating for the bitch, thats having two litters one after the other with no break inbetween. Is the breeder a Kennel Club Accredited breeder? if so and you can prove (It would need DNA testing ) that you pup is not pure bred and that the pedigree is falcified then you may have a comeback under the sale of goods act.
I susspect it will be very hard to prove. It would involve great cost.
Where did you see the litter advertised? if you still have the advert and it states that she is pure bred then again you may have a comeback IF and it's a huge IF you can prove it.
I feel you are just going to have to love her for what she is and be much mor carefull with your next pup. Being a BIG breeder and a Judge unfortumatly does not make someone honest.
Aileen

Did the breeder say why he/she wasn't intending to register the puppies from this mating?  It sounds to me as though they might have known, or guessed, that the parentage was a question mark or that the bitch might have been caught by a second male

I would imagine that without the necessary paperwork, even a handwritten or typed pedigree, then attempt to defraud would be hard to prove.  I expect that as they own both the dog and bitch then DNA won't be forthcoming either.

If the breeder had been open to the possibility that it was a mismating he/she could have had the pups DNA tested to establish which dog sired the pups.  It's possible that the price of the puppies could have been same too so I expect they won't think a refund a due.  Did you send the letter registered mail?

It may be worth contacting a solicitor or the KC for further advice but it has to be said that buying an unregistered pup is a risk whichever way you look at it.  Hope you get some answers that help you but in the meantime I expect you don't love her less :-)

Well there are only 2 breeders of all 4 BSD varieties in the UK so it obviously has got to be one of those and both are reputable. What reason was given for the pup not being registered? (I.e. was it perhaps a mismating and they didn't realise at the time what dog had accidentally got to the bitch, for instance?) Why do you want half the money back? Buying an unregistered pup in the first place you obviously had no plans for showing or breeding, and the dog is still the same dog, it's still a Belgian Shepherd, is still the same pet and/or working dog, so I'm a bit confused. Yes the breeder should have acknowledged your letter and spoken to you but I don't understand the money issue at all.

Just to back up what Merlot said most definitely all breeders do not act like this. Responsible ones put more care and thought into their puppies and propective owners than most of us none breeders can imagine.
Hope fully you will be able to sort the situation out somehow,and that you can still enjoy your dog  

Yes the breeder should have acknowledged your letter and spoken to you but I don't understand the money issue at all

I do Reguardless of the cost the buyer would seem to have been sold something that did not comply with what was advertised. If so then I feel she has some reason to expect a refund. If you went to purchase a  VW car and it grew up into a ford (Lets just suppose they look similar to start with and grow up different !) You wouild be annoyed, they are both cars but look different, the OP wanted a dog to look like the breed she purchased not a cross. (I do realise they are all in the same frame but the 4 breeds are deffinatly different to look at.) I feel the OP has reason to feel hard done by, pet show brood or whatever. I would happily pay more for a pure bred dog and being KC reg (although we know this is the best) is not really the issue. The OP expected and was promised one breed and has (We assume) got a cross breed. Not good breeding practices no matter who bred it.
Aileen

. If you went to purchase a  VW car and it grew up into a ford (Lets just suppose they look similar to start with and grow up different !) You wouild be annoyed, they are both cars but look different, the OP wanted a dog to look like the breed she purchased not a cross. (I do realise they are all in the same frame but the 4 breeds are deffinatly different to look at.)

It is not 4 different breeds, it is ONE breed but 4 varieties -therefore the dog is still a Belgian Shepherd. I assume what has happened is they have a black coat with a slightly wavy, shorter coat, the first generation Laekenois outcrosses tend not to be very curly. (Allowed matings have been done with Malinois, and the Laekenois coat is dominant.) Therefore it is more akin to buying a black Volvo V70 but ending up with a blue one. :) And chances are it was a genuine mistake, a litter of black pups born, needn't have been obvious at all when sold something was out of the ordinary. And yet again there has to have been a REASON for the pups not being registered. I still wonder why buy an unregistered pup if looks were that important? But again yes, the breeder SHOULD talk to the buyer of course.

The letter we sent requesting that has been returned.

Going back to this again -have you phoned or e-mailed when the letter came back? Do you know they have received any of the contact from you so they are aware? Or could it just be Royal Mail playing up?

Was she reduced price? That coupled with being unregistered would have had alarms bells ringing with me.

I guess asking for half the money back is more of a statement of upset rather than you really feeling you should only pay half price.

I agree with Goldmali that the pup is not worth half the price paid, no doubt being unregistered a lesser price was paid anyway. The dog is still an unregistered pedigree, (well as far as we know) and if the breeder had been honest with the strains perhaps mixing I dare say the price would still have been the same, but your choice of taking the pup may well have been different.

I fully understand your upset I would be gutted if I bought a Lab and it turned out to be a GR.

I guess apart from trading standards, the only thing you can think of is some money back to make up for it, but, have you checked the dogs on the pedigree you were given is it the pedigree of all groenendael is there a laeknois ancestor there, could there be a throwback? If the pedigree is all groenendael then you have been lied to, which is disgraceful. And to be honest I would go to trading standards, I would not take too kindly to a breeder lying to me.

However, if I were the breeder of a knowing possibility of this happening or even if completeley in the dark and it is a genuine mistake, rather than face trading standards I probably would give you a full refund.

But.............check that pedigree first, there could be a genuine throwback somewhere in those lines.

> But.............check that pedigree first, there could be a genuine throwback somewhere in those lines.

I'm not sure that's possible, since the Wire-haired gene is dominant to long-hair (and short hair) and therefore can't be carried hidden. the exception would be if there is more than one gene for curly coat, but it would have to be a recessive gene to be a throwback.

What I find interesting is that apparently the curl in a Laekenois puppy is evident from a very young age, certainly before age of sale, according to this article: http://www.ozbsd.com/our-dogs/LaekenoisCoatArticle.htm

have you checked the dogs on the pedigree you were given is it the pedigree of all groenendael is there a laeknois ancestor there, could there be a throwback? If the pedigree is all groenendael then you have been lied to, which is disgraceful.

A Groenendael pedigree will most likely have Tervueren in it somewhere, but not a Laekenois. Also like I said before the coat is dominant so cannot be carried. :) But I still reckon it is most likely a genuine mistake, we are NOT talking dodgy breeders here, which is why I am asking whether the OP ever did speak to the breeder or if all it was was the returned letter which could have been the mistake of Royal Mail for all we know.

Not quite same, I know, but similar: quite a few years ago I had a queen in call break out of the room she was locked in. I had no less than 3 entire male adolescent cats at the time. Two were pedigree breeds, one was a rescued moggy. The queen got pregnant and there was no way on earth to tell who the father was until the kittens were born. Cutting a long story short when the kittens were born there were four of them. Three of them looked like they could have just been poor examples of the right breed, but the fourth had white paws which proved without a doubt it was the moggy who was the father. As they all grew up the looks became more apparent, very moggy like. Had there however not been a kitten with its father's white paws, as kittens it would have been very difficult indeed to tell whether I just had 3 poor quality purebred kittens or three crossbreeds. So I can see how a mistake COULD happen.And we still don't know why the pups were sold unregistered, what reason was given.

What I find interesting is that apparently the curl in a Laekenois puppy is evident from a very young age, certainly before age of sale

Have you seen any of the Laekenois *** pups that were sired by a Malinois? One of them was the cover photo of Your Dog magazine and I didn't even realise it wasn't a Malinois pup on the cover when I bought the mag. Not until the breeder told me! The difference is nowhere near as obvious when only one parent is a Laekenois.

I too understand that the OP wants some re-dress. The fact is she hasn't got what she paid for - it really is that simple. The reason she wanted it, showing or pet, is not relevant - she wanted a pure Groenendal puppy, nothing more, nothing less, and that is what she paid for.

The breeder is not behaving well, and should accept that there has been a 'mistake' and compensate for it.  I personally would pursue the breeder for redress if it had happened to me.

The breeder is not behaving well, and should accept that there has been a 'mistake' and compensate for it

So far that is nothing but assumptions because we don't know if there has been any contact apart from the letter that was returned.

The OP was given a pedigree so either this pup is the result of that pedigree or it is not. If it is then there is nothing to answer if it is not then the goods (pup) can be returned but you would need DNA tests to prove one way or the other so one assumes the agreement of the breeder will be needed to do these tests.

IMHO you would be best to forget the whole matter and just get on loving your pup, it would be a long and painful job to prove one way or another and in the end the only answer may be to return your dog and have a refund, I would guess something you would not wish to do.

A Groenendael pedigree will most likely have Tervueren in it somewhere, but not a Laekenois. Also like I said before the coat is dominant so cannot be carried.

It makes even less sense, what about the rest of the litter Laekenois must have been evident in some of the other pups if dominant. The breeder must know, all pups surely could not have come out looking Groenendael? It doesn't make sense to me if this is a respected breeder, surely other owners of this litter have questioned too.

I'm wondering if the breeder had this accidental mating and advertised the pups as just Belgian Shepherd (and wouldn't this make sense as to why papers may not have been given) and our OP on seeing the pup just thought Groenendael? As our OP is thinking 'cross' and 'not pedigree' due to the strain mixes I wonder if it is a misunderstanding?

Of course if the breeder insisted it was a Groenendael that is different.

Confused????

If the OP wanted a pedigree Groenendael puppy then why buy an unregistered puppy?

The case really hinges on what the pups were advertised as, whether KC registration was implied and whether if the OP bought an unregistered pup what was the reason given, and was the price what one would expect to pay for a KC registered pup.

If not then the OP got an unregistered Black Belgian shepherd puppy, and paid accordingly.

> The OP was given a pedigree so either this pup is the result of that pedigree or it is not.

But even the KC is giving out pedigrees for Labradoodles!!!

Think that perhaps the OP should PM a Belgian specialist on here with the pedigree and that would or may throw some light on the matter, if the OP has the product of that pedigree be it a coat mix or not they have what they paid for. As has been said it is a Belgian Shepherd and it was not bought as a show dog or for breeding so it should not really matter if it is a mix of types to the owner providing it is the product of the pedigree given.

But even the KC is giving out pedigrees for Labradoodles!!!

But every dog born has a pedigree surely even the most 57 variety mongrel. It is just with most mongrels and cross breeds it is not known.

Think some may be mixing pedigree with pure bred - very different.

> It makes even less sense, what about the rest of the litter Laekenois must have been evident in some of the other pups if dominant.

Unless it was a dual mating, and only one or a few pups had the Laekenois sire.
BUT I fully agree about the lack of registration papers, if the OP knew they were buying an unregistered dog. After all, that is one part of what registration is for - the confirmation that one does, indeed, have a specimen of the breed registered.

> The difference is nowhere near as obvious when only one parent is a Laekenois.

Ah, I wasn't aware of that, thanks. But it does make sense, as many other dominant genes express differently when heterozygous for a recessive trait.

Throwing another spanner in....... OP why do you believe Laekenois is in your dogs coat? Apart from the obvious look, Has it been confirmed? I'm wondering what the coat change is like in a neutered Groenendael (If the bitch is neutered) some breeds coats do change an awful lot, could this be a possibility?

Good point Carrington. All in all we don't know nearly enough to be able to advice.

Yes, I wondered that - no idea at all with a BSD, but I've groomed a lot of neutered Cavaliers and Westies with terrible fluffy curly coats over the years!

The KC does not give out pedigrees. They issue registration certificates to dogs who are registered on their pedigree register.

> The KC does not give out pedigrees. They issue registration certificates to dogs who are registered on their pedigree register.

Well no, they have to be bought but they can be pruchased

would be nice if the OP came back with a responce.

Marianne I'm going to disagree with you here - I'm pretty shocked that someone from 'our' breed would not register their litter in the first place - I don't know the facts so am not going to speculate but I'd advise the original poster to send all the details to our breed club  http://www.bsdaofgb.co.uk/ so that we can find out what really happened here.

Yvonne

Not registering rather does imply unregistrable, a cross between parents not of the same breed/permissible variety.

Marianne I'm going to disagree with you here - I'm pretty shocked that someone from 'our' breed would not register their litter in the first place -

I'd have guessed it was a question of not being able to eg. an accidental inter variety mating not approved in advance by the KC. But we kept asking the OP to tell us WHY the pups were sold as unregistered etc and they never came back with a reply. I didn't mention the breed club as of course the breeder in question is on the committee  and I'd hate to see somebody reported for something that could have been a misunderstanding -we need more info before being able to advice like I said a few days ago.

Does make you wonder if the owner bought it for a lot less and without papers and that is why they are not coming back and they knew that there was a chance of them not being of one type.  If not then I don't understand why they have not been able to come back and post on here.

> If not then I don't understand why they have not been able to come back and post on here

I wonder if the OP thought that posting on here would be a totally anonymous process, then realised that someone on here knows (or could guess) the breeder concerned?

Well I suppose with it being a fairly rare breed that that could happen.