Written on: 30/06/2012 by snooper (1 review written)
Sadly I find myself after many years of using this kennel issuing a recommendation that at present pet owners avoid this establishment.
My dog was boarded there on 25/02/2012 to 27/02/2012.On collecting my dog I was asked whether he had a limp when he arrived at the kennels.Obviously he had not.No responsible dog owner would board their dog if it was not in good health.
Two hours after collection the dog was at the local vet.He had injured himself during his stay at the kennel which has led to months of vet care ,the amputation of a toe and a fusion operation at the Glasgow Vet School.This involved a bone graft from his shoulder and a steel plate secured by thirteen screws.He is still attending the vet.The next appointment being 02/07/2012.The report from the kennels insurance company states he must have tripped over his own feet !!.Both the vets and the Vet School dispute this.The surgeon compared the injury to a dog being thrown over a cliff.Neither the insurance company (NFU)or the kennels have taken veterinary advice or even inspected the dog.
I know that there are stone steeps down to the yard that land on a concrete area.I cannot comment on any other areas.The severity of the injury would indicate that it must have been witnessed by a member of staff.
The kennels are aware of the ongoing saga but have not once contacted us re the dogs condition.Sadly the dog will be lame for the rest of his life.
Until the integrity of the kennels insurance policy is verified and found to be suitable and the health and safety issues addressed preventing another catastrophic injury to a dog in their care I can only advise dog owners to look elsewhere.
Once again I am very disappointed with Mr.Smith's apparent total lack of interest in this matter.
As rated by real users
"Peace of mind from a professio..." Read More
"Woofs Open Day" Read More
"Happy customer" Read More
"Excellent aftercare service,ve..." Read More
"The best there is in Ashford" Read More
Snooper's Response to snooper's Review
Written on: 04/07/2012
Since this review was written the owners (name removed) have visited us to discuss this review.They were unaware of the on going saga and had not been updated by the NFU on what was happening.From our correspondence with the insurers we were led to believe that they had made further enquiries at the kennels.It appears that the NFU had made no further enquiries.They have stated that veterinary opinion is just that --an opinion.
I now have written evidence from the veterinary surgeon at Glasgow University Vet School who operated on the dog which should help all concerned.I appreciated (name removed) apology for not being in touch re the dog.He has also stated that we may never know the truth about what happened that day in the kennel.
They have undertaken action to try and resolve this situation which is appreciated.
Guest's Response to snooper's Review
Written on: 18/07/2012
I feel we must respond to this very misleading review. Our kennel business has been running for over six years now without any complaint of this nature. We have very many satisfied repeat customers. Mr.M.(name withheld) was one of these until the sad injury to his dog.
It is correct that the dog had a limp when he was collected and as dog owners ourselves, we are saddened this injury has turned out to be so serious.
However, it is simply untrue that we are not interested in this matter. We had no inkling that the limp had required any treatment until about three weeks after the dog was collected when Mr.M.(name withheld) contacted us requesting details of our insurance company. He explained that he wished to recover the vet fees for which he had not arranged any insurance personally. He was at pains during that discussion to explain that he was not holding us liable for the injury. We informed him of our insurer and counter-signed a claim form once he had completed it. We then heard no more about the matter and assumed the dog had recovered until the above review was brought to our attention on 3rd July 2012 - more than four months after the dog had been collected.
Mr.M.(name withheld) states that the severity of the injury indicates that it must have been witnessed by a member of staff. This proposition is illogical. There are thousands of severe accidents to people, animals and motor vehicles every year which are not witnessed. All the dogs in our care are fully enclosed twenty four hours a day but this does not mean a member of staff is watching each dog all the time. I do not know of any kennels where that level of service would be provided and the cost of such provision would be commercially unacceptable to any customer I can think of! It is also worth pointing out that supervision itself would not have prevented the injury - it would merely have established how the injury took place.
The "integrity" of our insurance policy does not need verification. It is arranged with a reputable insurer in standard terms for a business such as ours. Mr.M.(name withheld) seems to misunderstand the nature of that insurance. We are insured against negligence claims. As he has not been able to demonstrate any negligence on our part, the insurers are declining to pay him. He seems to feel that we should have some kind of "no-fault" cover for veterinary fees, although he does not have any such policy himself.
It is quite misleading for him to suggest that there are "health and safety issues". The kennels are inspected on a regular basis by East Ayrshire Council in the normal course of our business. Nobody, including Mr.M. (name withheld) himself, has ever identified to us any specific risk which requires to be addressed. I can assure anyone reading this review that if we knew of any "health and safety issue", appropriate repairs would already be under consideration.