Hello to all,

I have a seemingly unique scenario, and thought it would be best to ask for opinions:

Background:
A German Shepherd puppy was purchased from an unlicensed breeder.
All vet visits and documentation was kept up to date by daughter after purchase.
There was an unexpected issue with the puppies living arrangements.
One side of family wanted to keep the puppy (moving ownership from daughter to grandparents), the 'other side' of family wanted to 're-home' by giving the puppy away to their friends for free.
The 'other side' accelerated transfer against daughter's wishes, unlawfully taking ownership.
Police called etc. Daughter asks breeder for assistance in getting puppy back.
'Other sides' friends agree to return the puppy.

Now this is where it gets bizarre:

The breeder intercepts return of puppy.
Breeder states they will have puppy checked at vets the next day and will arrange collection.
Breeder then declares they are keeping the dog, and states (having allegedly contacted Police and RSPCA) they only have to merely 'offer' a refund - sending 55% of the total value back to daughter's account.
My daughter didn't want the refund, and certainly wants the puppy.
Whilst arguing for puppies return, the breeder then sells the puppy to the other side's friends for 20% more than the original price.

I'm at a loss to find justification the breeder's actions.  The breeder claims she has a right, but I cannot find evidence of it.

Opinions, questions and advise are greatfully received.
It is edging remorselessly towards a 'civil dispute' in court between daughter and 'other side's' friends.  Is there anyway the breeders conduct can be reported?

IMHO absolute rubbish. The dog belongs to whoever paid for it and then housed, fed and looked after it day to day. The breeder has no legal right to take the dog unless this is
what the owners want.

It all sounds very odd tbh. In your shoes I would seek legal advice from someone like Trevor Cooper whose outfit runs pay as you go phone lines.

Thank you freelancerukuk.  I appreciate you taking the time to respond, and reaffirming my beliefs.
I have looked at Trevor Cooper, but the hourly costs initially seem a little eye-watering - particularly as it would be a struggle to recoup that from the new 'owners' via court.  I may well give the pay-as-you-go aspect a try though - thanks.

It's definitely worth a phone call to Trevor Cooper just to give you some direction and info on where you stand, even if you're not going to use his services as a lawyer...

I have spoke. To Trevor cooper about a couple of things using their helpline.
Can't remember exact cost but it is under £30 and he is brilliant at getting to the point and giving the advice without u needing to incur massive costs in most cases. I would give him a ring

Thanks furriefriends and onetwothreefour - your guidance is much appreciated.  It seems no one is backing up the breeders course of action, which is promising - I will ring Mr Cooper tomorrow

I would have the lot of them charged with theft and selling stolen property.

Thanks jogold, but unfortunately the police were all too keen to declare it a 'civil matter'.  It is a bleak situation, even after consulting Mr Cooper.

One way to view it is to translate events. The breeder becomes a car manufacturer and seller. One of the outlets cars is sold to a family, someone in the family decides to take sole control of the car and then to hand it over for free to some friends - do they then re-register the car or is anything signed?

Another member of the family asks for the help of the manufacturer to get the car back. The friends agree but the manufacturer intervenes and takes the car in for a service and inspection and then sells it to the ‘friends’ for more than it originally cost, having first offered 50% of the price to the first owner.

The only possible issue, in the real case of the dog, was either that the friends had something in writing that would stand up legally or that there were welfare issues.

What did Trevor Cooper advise? I cannot understand how the breeder could sell the same dog twice if the original owner had not relinquished ownership. What is the argument/evidence to show ownership was relinquished? If the dog stayed at the friends for enough time that might be enough. Is it possible a deal has been done between breeder and friends to make ownership irrevocable, in that money has changed hands?

Thanks freelancerukuk.
TC's expertise considers that initially agreeing and then being present when the dog was taken constitutes relinquishing ownership.  However she did change her mind at the point of transfer, and was physically assaulted in her attempt to stop it (police aware, but TC not) - so I still believe we have a case that she is the rightful owner.
Breeder, on the other hand, gets away scott-free...in effect she sold the new 'owners' own dog back to them.  Literally couldn't make this up.

And, freelancerukuk, that is exactly how I equated the whole scenario to dog owners too...imagine buying a car, having a slight issue which a garage may resolve but then your other-half decides to give it to the neighbour for free.  In the process of getting the car back from the neighbour, the dealership turns up, tows your car away, tells you can't have it, refunds you 55% and then sells it back to your neighbour for more than what you paid...and, because you apparently 'let it happen', there's not too much you can do.
My head spins at how so many wrongs can appear to be legally 'right'.