8:00pm Tuesday 11th May 2010
By Flora Drury
THE widow whose dog was given away by a dogs’ home resorted to legal action to get her back.
Liz Hiorns, aged 72, was the victim of a bizzare mix-up when her dog, Penny, was given to new owners by Danemere Animal Rescue Shelter, near Droitwich.
The 11-year-old Jack Russell bitch went missing on Monday, April 12, and – despite numerous calls to the police, local vets and the dog wardens at both Stratford-upon-Avon and Warwick district councils – Mrs Hiorns, who lives on a farm near Ashorne, Stratford-upon-Avon, could not find her pet.
A mix-up in communication meant Mrs Hiorns was not told Penny had been taken by the Stratford dog wardens 30 miles to Danemere, where she had been kept for 12 days before being re-homed.
When Mrs Hiorns, who was widowed last year, finally found out where her dog had been taken she was told she could not have her back. Mrs Hiorns and her family then resorted to legal action to compel Danemere to tell them the whereabouts of Penny – and have now been reunited with their beloved pet.
Danemere stand by their original assertion that Penny arrived with an eye infection, flea infestation and had to have more than 20 ticks removed.
A spokesman for Danmere said: “Penny was also filthy dirty and found to have a skin complaint that required treatment with a medicated shampoo. Before returning Penny to her original owner, Mrs Hiorns, the dog warden returned Penny to the vet that had seen her when she was a ‘stray’. The vet now gave Penny a clean bill of health.”
Danemere also questioned why a dog who regularly wanders had not been tagged. “As a known wanderer a collar and tag would have been advisable,” the spokesperson said.
Stratford-upon-Avon District Council has apologised unreservedly and said they were acting in good faith on this occasion, but clearly there were lessons to be learned. A spokesman said: “Unfortunately on this occasion the missing dog, Penny, had no form of identification and was found with an eye infection covered in fleas and ticks. Although the District Council does try to match up stray dogs with their owners who have reported their dogs as lost, on this occasion due to a clerical error and the length of time between the dog being picked up and being reported missing by its owner, this was not the case.”
But the Hiorns family believe that, while there was a “major clerical error”, the council’s statement was misleading in inferring there was any delay in the dog being reported missing.
A family spokesperson said: “We should be interested to know whether the council will be making any contribution towards our legal costs, incurred when trying to compel Danmere Animal Rescue Centre to reveal the whereabouts of our missing dog.”
© Copyright 2001-2012 Newsquest Media Group
http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/trade_directory/