# Compulsory Dog Insurance



## peedee

A news item indicates compulsary dog insurance is being considered.

see this story http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8556195.stm

Another tax raising scheme to boot.

peedee


----------



## GerryD

And compulsory chipping. Both excellent ideas and the sooner the better.
As for tax revenue???? How does that equate? surely the insurance will be with an insurance company and the chipping will be with a vet.
Gerry


----------



## zulurita

For those of us that take our dogs abroad they are microchipped anyway.

As for compulsory insurance, depends how much and what it covers. 

As usual it is the minority that are not responsible when looking after their dogs that have led to this :evil:


----------



## peedee

GerryD said:


> As for tax revenue???? How does that equate? surely the insurance will be with an insurance company and the chipping will be with a vet.
> Gerry


I recall the government introducing a tax on insurance policies, I assume it applies to all policies?

peedee


----------



## rayc

I am not a dog owner but it sems to me that all this will do is cause hassle and costs to the vast majority of dog owners, who have a well behaved dog. Those with dangerous dogs will not bother or not let it worry them and they will carry on as before.
It is typical of laws that have been bought in by this Government such as the number plate rules. Instead of targetting the people who obtain false plates they brought in a law which that effects everyone, whilst those who want dodgy plates will have ways and means of getting them.


----------



## ratporchrico

*Compulsary Dog Insurance*

Here we go again. When the self-basting Kenneth Baker introduced the Dangerous Dog legislation way back in the day, all this was supposed to stop. Did it? Again we'll get legislation for a 'problem' that is already adequately covered by current rules on dog ownership. Again the law abiding majority will be penalised both financially and in terms of personal freedom. All because the Government is pandering to the baying media pack. Remember when you were at school and, rather than identifying a culprit your teacher penalised the whole class. It's lazy legislation which will ultimately achieve little because those who register and chip their dog aren't the target and the actual targets are well aware of the infinitesimal chance of being caught by an already overstretched police force and of the diversions available to them to avoid the rules.

Already the BBC have nailed their colours to the mast by interviewing two dipsticks from Hackney who are still wandering around with 'dangerous dogs' unleashed and unmuzzled. Current laws allow the confiscation and destruction of such dogs but, even though they've been 'spoken to' by the police, they still have illegal dogs out of control in a public place. How will new rules change this?


----------



## thieawin

All dogs are descended from wolves

Any dog can have its day

Anyone who does not insure their dog against third party and public liability claims is stupid and putting us all at risk that if something goes wrong we will not be compensated

Of course it ought to be compulsory

Owners should be licensed as well

Chipping of dogs goes without saying also

NB we still have dog licences here in IOM and have discounst for sa payed dogs and chipped dogs, but not yet insured dogs. Further because our law is different, there is strict liability for dogs ie they are not allowed one bite as in England, they are covered on our household Insurance


----------



## 91502

Compulsory for law abiding citizens, optional for the rest. 
Saturday night I seized 9 American Pitbull's, do you think the owner would have registerd them? 
JP


----------



## Kelcat

As with anything you can't legislate for those that intend to ignore the law. The very simple comparison of car tax was used on the BBC this morning.
However I would have thought that all responsible (& financially aware) god owners would already have their dog insured & the chipping is hardly expensive.


----------



## Rosbotham

IMHO any responsible owner would have their dog chipped and have 3rd party liability insurance, so not a problem.

Paul


----------



## loughrigg

I am extremely relieved to hear on the BBC that dogs deemed a problem will be served with a dog control order.

On the basis that a good number of the dogs involved are probably more likely than the owners to read and understand a control order, I think this is an innovative approach. :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Mike


----------



## rft

Your household insurance policy usually includes third party liability in respect of dogs as a standard part of the policy wording - so no additional cost there. Breeds classified as 'dangerous' are excluded - their owners are the only ones that will have problems.


----------



## Jezport

Doesn,t house insurance cover your dog? I called my insurers to see if I was covered if my parrot bit anyone and they said that I was fully covered.


----------



## Spacerunner

If insurance is made law then I can imagine thousands of homeless dogs roaming the streets. That will be an even worse problem than now.


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS

Get you heads out of the sand.

Chips and insurance will not, I repeat not prevent any dog biting.

A simple muzzle will.

Chipping a dog will be charged Plus VAT

Insurance will attract 5% insurance tax.

A tax raising scheme thats all .

I own five dogs, live in a rural locality and the dogs are walked twice a day.
If I come across another person once a month during the walks it is a record. Dogs never allowed off a lead.
To escape from my garden they would have to open four doors and a locked gate. 
I am not a weak drug pusher that needs an agressive dog to frighten people.
Why do i need Bite Insurance.

Next we will have to insure our offspring against growing up to be thieves, fighters, shed robbers, granny bashers, rapists, and murderers.

dave p


----------



## peedee

DTPCHEMICALS said:


> Insurance will attract 5% insurance tax.
> 
> A tax raising scheme thats all .
> 
> dave p


Thanks for the confirmation, it does sound as if the law needs tightening to allow removal of banned dogs from private property, but insurance ...... NO.

peedee


----------



## monkton

DTPCHEMICALS said:


> Get you heads out of the sand.
> 
> Chips and insurance will not, I repeat not prevent any dog biting.
> 
> A simple muzzle will.
> 
> Chipping a dog will be charged Plus VAT
> 
> Insurance will attract 5% insurance tax.
> 
> A tax raising scheme thats all .
> 
> I own five dogs, live in a rural locality and the dogs are walked twice a day.
> If I come across another person once a month during the walks it is a record. Dogs never allowed off a lead.
> To escape from my garden they would have to open four doors and a locked gate.
> I am not a weak drug pusher that needs an agressive dog to frighten people.
> Why do i need Bite Insurance.
> 
> Next we will have to insure our offspring against growing up to be thieves, fighters, shed robbers, granny bashers, rapists, and murderers.
> 
> dave p


Well said, Sir. 
I did smile when I read your quote "I am not a weak drug pusher that needs an agressive dog to frighten people" particularly as you look so placid in your photograph :wink: .


----------



## Rosbotham

Jezport said:


> Doesn,t house insurance cover your dog? I called my insurers to see if I was covered if my parrot bit anyone and they said that I was fully covered.


Wouldn't like to say about house insurance, but certainly my dog health insurance provides 3rd party liability insurance.


----------



## Rockerboots

As a Postman and health & safety rep with Royal mail my thoughts about this latest idea about dog insurance & chipping has given me something else to consider (the pros & cons).
Those of you who follow the news may remember a Postman attacked by two dangerous dogs at Girton on the outskirts of Cambridge a couple of years ago, recently the court case was thrown out by the judge on the grounds that the attack happened on a Private lane leading to the dog owners property. The dogs were distroyed but the owners basically got away without even a compensation order. The Postman underwent 15 hrs surgery on his arm but he`ll never be able to use it again properly & he will be on sick payments until retirement as his employment prospects until retirement age are very close to nil.

Now the big Question would an insured dog owner have made any difference? 

Maybe a compensation payout may have eased the dog owners conscience but wouldn`t have helped the man so insurance. N0

Chipping a dog? N0

I think if the dog laws were enforced more firmly & the owners punished more harshly no matter where the attacks take place the responsable owners wouldn`t pay for the laps attitude of the few,
however if i had a pound for everytime i`ve heard the line "don`t worry it won`t bit you " but have taken a nip i could retire. :lol:


----------



## charlieivan

Why not bring back "dog licenses". At least then a dog owner has to have a record of their dog and if subsequently found with illegal dog or no license then they can be dealt with by a fine or banning order.


----------



## Spacerunner

charlieivan said:


> Why not bring back "dog licenses". At least then a dog owner has to have a record of their dog and if subsequently found with illegal dog or no license then they can be dealt with by a fine or banning order.


Better to introduce dog owner licences. Charge a substantial fee to be registered, might make people think twice before becoming a dog keeper.


----------



## locovan

Dog License's were stopped because they said it cost to much to run.
I hate to say this (as I know it annoys owners of well behaved dogs) but wouldnt the answer be to have all dogs on leads in public places now as they are clamping down on all dogs.
They are saying on Alan Titmarsh show that they want us dog owners to pay £600 per year thats £12 per week. then there is the cost for Vet Insurance on top.
It will cost more to insure than the cost to feed them.


----------



## charlieivan

Spacerunner said:


> charlieivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not bring back "dog licenses". At least then a dog owner has to have a record of their dog and if subsequently found with illegal dog or no license then they can be dealt with by a fine or banning order.
> 
> 
> 
> Better to introduce dog owner licences. Charge a substantial fee to be registered, might make people think twice before becoming a dog keeper.
Click to expand...

Dog owner licences would only licence a person to own a dog, but a dog licence would involve having to declare what dog was owned!!


----------



## erneboy

Keeping dogs on leads in public places would mean that many healthy young dogs would never get enough exercise. We have an 8 year old lab cross, if we walk her for two miles I bet she does 10 running to fetch her tennis ball. It would break her heart if she could not run. She is very well trained and under complete control at all times, she comes as soon as she is called and leaves other animals and people alone when told to do so. Legislation aimed at badly behaved dogs and owners should not impinge on good owners with well trained dogs. 

I would not keep a dog in the UK under restrictions like that, Alan.


----------



## Spacerunner

_Dog owner licences would only licence a person to own a dog, but a dog licence would involve having to declare what dog was owned!!_

Not at all. All the dogs details would have to be entered in a logbook. And dogs would have to be chipped or tattooed with an appropriate ID.


----------



## thieawin

Do not be too sure about the cover which a household policy applying in England and Wales will cover for a damages claim by your dog(s)

Under the Dogs Act 1971 (of England + Wales) every dog is allowed one bite. To claim damages you have to show the owner knew it ws dangerous and had bitten before. Your insurers will defend that 1st claim. If it has bitten before it will be excluded from cover as it is defined as dangerous in propensity

This does not cover diogs covered by the Dogs Act 1975 or the dangerous Dogs Act to which other rules apply

http://www.simpsonmillar.co.uk/serv...ogle-ppc-dog&gclid=CKGc4LS1rKACFc9k4wodUDsnqw


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS

So who will police the proposals if they become law.

Police = police vehicles in my area carry "Crimestoppers" stickers.
Should read Crime solvers.

Dog wardens= Not enough of them

If you were bitten, and asked the owner for his name and address do you really think you would get it.

Costly exercise that will not prevent one dog bite.

Dave p


----------



## camper69

As a non dog owning I do not want them around me person I think the proposal are a load of twadldle.

As has been said earlier the people they are aimed at will just ignore the rules and it will only affect those who are law abiding in the first place. 

I have no problem with dogs off the lead running around as long as they are under control and the owner understands that not everyone wants their dog jumping up at them. Unfortunately it is this point that a lot of owners find had to grasp.

Derek


----------



## roamingsue

Intelligent debate on radio 4. A policeman pointed out that currently enforcing dog laws are impossible because their is no registered owner. A dog breed representative agreed with policeman that the way forward was chipping and registration.

At the moment days huge resources are needed to prove ownership.

They both also thought the matter needed to be thought through carefully without any rushed reactive decisions.

Registration seems sensible to me! No chip... a fine or dog rehomed or put down. If there is an incident the registered owner is responsible....No arguement...


----------



## camper69

Why do we want tho register every thing that moves.

Surely the person that is with the dog is responsible for it.

Derek


----------



## roamingsue

camper69 said:


> Why do we want tho register every thing that moves.
> 
> Surely the person that is with the dog is responsible for it.
> 
> Derek


There is a huge problem in cities with people breeding dogs as weapons and yes there are huge problems apparently in establishing ownership. The policeman explained it tooks weeks of work and investigation!

If there is chip and reg system easy to do raids and conviscate unchipped dogs!


----------



## camper69

roamingsue said:


> camper69 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we want tho register every thing that moves.
> 
> Surely the person that is with the dog is responsible for it.
> 
> Derek
> 
> 
> 
> There is a huge problem in cities with people breeding dogs as weapons and yes there are huge problems apparently in establishing ownership. The policeman explained it tooks weeks of work and investigation!
> 
> If there is chip and reg system easy to do raids and conviscate unchipped dogs!
Click to expand...

I find it hard to belive that it is difficult in most case not to know who is responsible for the dog, not owner but responsible at a point in time.

If it is in a building/garden its the owner/tenant/vistitor. if it out in the open surely they can observe who is with it.

Derek


----------



## TR5

charlieivan said:


> Why not bring back "dog licenses". At least then a dog owner has to have a record of their dog and if subsequently found with illegal dog or no license then they can be dealt with by a fine or banning order.


Only 50% of dog owners held a licence when they were compulsary before being abolished in 1987. Policing is far too expensive unless a fine matches the cost of prosecution for those ignoring the law.


----------



## roamingsue

Suspecting who is responsible for the dog is different to Proving and according to the police this is a problem.

Registration has its problems but with the advent of chipping and computers solutions are more likely. The point is that all these things have to be carefully considered.

As I say the debate between the dog breeder and the policeman surprised me because they were both agreeing with each other. I hear tonight the RSPCA are backing registration as well!


----------



## thieawin

apart frominsurance tax on additional policies or increased premiums this is not a revenue raising question

It is a fair to victims point and a clean up the strees ts of problem dogs

Leads, breed or muzzles accidents can happen so every one must insure

Identification of owner yes its difficult at present but with chip and registration it becommes simple and in the private sector

Dog on loose, caught, scanned, no chip its destroyed

dangerous dogs the vet woud decide at time of chipping what is and is not to avoid argumensts and if noy found not neutered etc not insured then destroyed and registered owner fined

Chipped its owner is identified an insuarnce check run and he is fined for letting loose and possibly no insurance

The cost to the state is minimal, the benefit to society great, the cost to responsible owners next to nothing

It would take about 10 years to have full effect and get most dangerous dogs off the streets

Also for animal cruelty chipping would identify owners

This would help police RSPCA and victims of bites

One final thing get rid of every dog having its day and follow the IOM with strict liability for bite one.


----------



## patp

There is some other legislation being considered by DEFRA. It is to do with all the health problems in pedigree dogs but will, if implemented, have more far reaching effects. 

It is proposed that breeders would become liable for what they breed. All puppies would be microchipped and then subject to the sale of goods act. So if, for instance, a puppy is sold as healthy and free of heredity defects, the owner will have redress in law if it can be proved that the breeder did not take sufficient steps to prevent the disease being inherited by the puppy.

There will be other clauses, hopefully, i.e. that the puppy was reared and socialised properly etc. It may even be possible to point the finger at the breeder if the dog is aggressive. If, for instance, the puppy was reared in kennels with little, or no, human interaction.

If this becomes law then most of the bad breeders will be forced into early retirement. The good breeders that are left will have the pick of all the good owners out there. They will not, unless they are stupid, sell a puppy to someone who is not going to socialise and train the puppy.

Bring it on


----------



## peedee

thieawin said:


> The cost to the state is minimal, the benefit to society great, the cost to responsible owners next to nothing


I don't have a problem with chipping dogs and perhaps it should be the breeders responsibility on sale of the dog a bit like a car dealers responsibility on sale of a new car. However an insurance company spokesman on our local news last night was against insurance saying it would also be expensive.

peedee


----------



## sallytrafic

My house insurance covers dog related third party claims, whether for biting or causing a road accident or similar. Chipping is such a small cost and has reunited lost dogs with their owners so for that reason alone must be worth it for all responsible owners.


----------



## roamingsue

To switch a little to the opposing view.....

The problem is the 'man/woman with hat syndrome' and the overinterpretation/ rigid hard implementation or interrpretation never meant by the people that drafted it! The council that sees the money making opportunity.... the heavy penalties imposed on the dog owner whose dog slipped the lead, or had a misadventure. Completely not the target of the original legistation.

This fear from dog owners is understandible, which is why I think it should be carefully considered before any draft is drawn up.

But at the moment responsible dog owners are being penalised because of the behaviour of irresponsible owners. Surely it is time to target dangerous owners?


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS

Would you like to see your offspring chipped and insured.
Lose them they can be returned. If you do not want them back they will be destroyed.

Insured against, Fighting, shed robing, granny bashing, stealing cars,theft and murder.
Of course you don`t.


people are worse than dogs.

Dave p


----------



## Waggy

Another Knee jerk proposal from the 'we must be seen to do something' politicians. We have seen the same with everything from binge drinkers to gun ownership. In every case it is the responsible who is the easy target whilst the real culprits are unscathed. 

Most responsible owners already have their dogs chipped and also have third party insurance if only as an extension to their house insurance. It would however be naive to think that costs would be minimal as with compulsion comes administration and bureaucracy and the costs go through the roof. 

Compulsory chipping would need a new government computer 8O and a small army of civil servants to administer and keep up to date. They could of course defray some of the cost by selling the data to anyone who will buy it :roll: 

Compulsory insurance would require every dog to be assessed and it would rest with an insurance official to decide on a commercial basis if a dog can be legally owned and at what cost. Once cover is issued they would not be able to avoid any claim. As we have seen with car insurance, the undesirable would simply take the probably small risk of getting caught and paying a fine no doubt much less than the insurance premium. A fund would have to be set up to pay claims against against uninsured owners supported by a levy on all policyholders. 

All this would not prevent one dog bite :!: 

Strict liability on owners regardless of circumstances would delight the compensation lawyers, presenting an open goal and just a matter of how much? Insurance premiums would reflect this 

After all this we would still be left with law enforcement against the the dangerous dog owner which is where we are at the moment with precious little evidence that the existing law is being applied


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS

What bad news has this item hidden  

Dave p


----------



## zulurita

sallytrafic said:


> My house insurance covers dog related third party claims, whether for biting or causing a road accident or similar. Chipping is such a small cost and has reunited lost dogs with their owners so for that reason alone must be worth it for all responsible owners.


Yes, but only when on your property, NOT when you are out walking your dog or travelling around the country.

I have just been in contact with Comfort insurance about this as we have our house insurance with them as well.


----------



## rft

zulurita said:


> sallytrafic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My house insurance covers dog related third party claims, whether for biting or causing a road accident or similar. Chipping is such a small cost and has reunited lost dogs with their owners so for that reason alone must be worth it for all responsible owners.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but only when on your property, NOT when you are out walking your dog or travelling around the country.
> 
> I have just been in contact with Comfort insurance about this as we have our house insurance with them as well.
Click to expand...

Rita, this is complete nonsense, you have been misinformed, probably by a junior member of staff. Which insurance company is your home insurance with?


----------



## locovan

My Insurance Company have just sent me an email in answer to our query:-

Good afternoon Mr Nye,

Thank you for your email attached.

I am writing to confirm your household policy covers you in respect of Public Liability as owner and occupier of the property with a limit of indemnity of £2,000,000.

The liability includes the ownership of dogs unless the dog is described in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

If I may be of any further assistance please let me know.

------------------------------------------------------------

*This isnt actually on our policy and we have had to email to find out but we are happy now and our dog is Chipped so we have a legal dog :lol: :lol: *


----------



## zulurita

rft said:


> zulurita said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sallytrafic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My house insurance covers dog related third party claims, whether for biting or causing a road accident or similar. Chipping is such a small cost and has reunited lost dogs with their owners so for that reason alone must be worth it for all responsible owners.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but only when on your property, NOT when you are out walking your dog or travelling around the country.
> 
> I have just been in contact with Comfort insurance about this as we have our house insurance with them as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rita, this is complete nonsense, you have been misinformed, probably by a junior member of staff. Which insurance company is your home insurance with?
Click to expand...

Well I spoke to Ben Cue from Comfort Insurance. So unless I completely misunderstood him then we are covered for accidents on our property only.


----------



## zulurita

I have also emailed the Prime ministers office re 3rd party insurance.

Looks like I will have to get written confirmation from Comfort Insurance as to 3rd party liability cover, if other insurance companies are covering Pets outside of their home.


----------



## rft

zulurita said:


> rft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zulurita said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sallytrafic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My house insurance covers dog related third party claims, whether for biting or causing a road accident or similar. Chipping is such a small cost and has reunited lost dogs with their owners so for that reason alone must be worth it for all responsible owners.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but only when on your property, NOT when you are out walking your dog or travelling around the country.
> 
> I have just been in contact with Comfort insurance about this as we have our house insurance with them as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rita, this is complete nonsense, you have been misinformed, probably by a junior member of staff. Which insurance company is your home insurance with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I spoke to Ben Cue from Comfort Insurance. So unless I completely misunderstood him then we are covered for accidents on our property only.
Click to expand...

He's wrong. But who is the insurance company and I will quote you chapter and verse. Comfort are brokers, not insurers.


----------



## locovan

zulurita said:


> I have also emailed the Prime ministers office re 3rd party insurance.
> 
> Looks like I will have to get written confirmation from Comfort Insurance as to 3rd party liability cover, if other insurance companies are covering Pets outside of their home.


Rita mine says
The liability includes the ownership of dogs unless the dog is described in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. -------

So it covers my ownership-- so we are covered as owners of that dog wherever that dog is.


----------



## rft

zulurita said:


> rft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zulurita said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sallytrafic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My house insurance covers dog related third party claims, whether for biting or causing a road accident or similar. Chipping is such a small cost and has reunited lost dogs with their owners so for that reason alone must be worth it for all responsible owners.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but only when on your property, NOT when you are out walking your dog or travelling around the country.
> 
> I have just been in contact with Comfort insurance about this as we have our house insurance with them as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rita, this is complete nonsense, you have been misinformed, probably by a junior member of staff. Which insurance company is your home insurance with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I spoke to Ben Cue from Comfort Insurance. So unless I completely misunderstood him then we are covered for accidents on our property only.
Click to expand...

1) Talk to Peter Cue.

2) Ben has confused the liability arising as 'occupier' with the part that says the incident is covered within the British Isles, or the rest of the world when on temporary visits.

3) See the attached pdf that illustrates the terms contained in the Aviva Home Plus Policy. This may not be your policy, but it is fairly typical.


----------



## Spacerunner

Don't put up with troublesome dogs.


----------



## zulurita

rft said:


> zulurita said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zulurita said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sallytrafic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My house insurance covers dog related third party claims, whether for biting or causing a road accident or similar. Chipping is such a small cost and has reunited lost dogs with their owners so for that reason alone must be worth it for all responsible owners.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but only when on your property, NOT when you are out walking your dog or travelling around the country.
> 
> I have just been in contact with Comfort insurance about this as we have our house insurance with them as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rita, this is complete nonsense, you have been misinformed, probably by a junior member of staff. Which insurance company is your home insurance with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I spoke to Ben Cue from Comfort Insurance. So unless I completely misunderstood him then we are covered for accidents on our property only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's wrong. But who is the insurance company and I will quote you chapter and verse. Comfort are brokers, not insurers.
Click to expand...

Aviva I believe.


----------



## zulurita

rft said:


> zulurita said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zulurita said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sallytrafic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My house insurance covers dog related third party claims, whether for biting or causing a road accident or similar. Chipping is such a small cost and has reunited lost dogs with their owners so for that reason alone must be worth it for all responsible owners.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but only when on your property, NOT when you are out walking your dog or travelling around the country.
> 
> I have just been in contact with Comfort insurance about this as we have our house insurance with them as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rita, this is complete nonsense, you have been misinformed, probably by a junior member of staff. Which insurance company is your home insurance with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I spoke to Ben Cue from Comfort Insurance. So unless I completely misunderstood him then we are covered for accidents on our property only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) Talk to Peter Cue.
> 
> 2) Ben has confused the liability arising as 'occupier' with the part that says the incident is covered within the British Isles, or the rest of the world when on temporary visits.
> 
> 3) See the attached pdf that illustrates the terms contained in the Aviva Home Plus Policy. This may not be your policy, but it is fairly typical.
Click to expand...

Is it section M that covers us?

1. I am owner & occupier.

Doesn't mention dogs (domestic animals). Other than exclusions: dangerous dogs.

I have emailed Comfort Insurance as mine is an Aviva Home Plus Insurance.


----------



## rugbyken

quote from a policeman talking about a certain housing estate that officially isn't a no go area [ tongue firmly in place]. 
" they dont bother insuring their motor's what makes you think they're going to insure their dogs"

the point about dog's on a lead is true ,but when we were at amboise last year i watched part of the obedience trials, and one particular large dog was being taken round by a lady of mature years who could not keep up,and the dog was stopping and waiting between obstacles looking back and almost saying "where next come on " 
we would all end up very fit dog owners if we had to walk every mile our dog's needed for exercise, i used to reckon my setter did about 8 miles to every one i did, a constant figure 8 with us as the center 
barbara always said no bad dogs only bad owners


----------



## patp

Spacerunner said:


> Don't put up with troublesome dogs.[/]
> 
> No dog speaks English
> 
> On a more serious note be very careful about "confronting" troublesome dogs. It all depends on the dogs intentions. If it is enjoying chasing you then stopping and standing still will be effective.
> If it is intent on driving you away, and you do not go, then it may become frustrated and think that it has to take further steps to make you go 8O
> 
> On the subject of insurance has anyone heard of an insurance company paying out on a household policy for an incident involving a dog? Moi sceptical? Noooo :roll: It is a serious question though.


----------



## rft

patp said:


> Spacerunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't put up with troublesome dogs.[/]
> 
> No dog speaks English
> 
> On a more serious note be very careful about "confronting" troublesome dogs. It all depends on the dogs intentions. If it is enjoying chasing you then stopping and standing still will be effective.
> If it is intent on driving you away, and you do not go, then it may become frustrated and think that it has to take further steps to make you go 8O
> 
> On the subject of insurance has anyone heard of an insurance company paying out on a household policy for an incident involving a dog? Moi sceptical? Noooo :roll: It is a serious questOion though.
> 
> 
> 
> More importantly have you heard of an insurance company failing to pay out when the dog owner was insured through their home insurance and it was not an excluded animal. I think the problem animals are not insured to begin with.
> 
> Posted from my iPhone.
Click to expand...


----------



## zulurita

I had an email from Richard Brewster (Ben had passed my email on to him).

Yes we are covered but also states if the new proposals re 3rd party insurance become law then the Insurance company will be looking at the wording again!


----------



## locovan

It is being said that this will come into force before the Election so if that is in May then it is soon to come into force.
I have now read this --I know it is in the Daily Mail but does it mean we will have to carry our Insurance papers with us at all times??

The massive impact of the plan became clear yesterday as it emerged there will be a 'dog MOT' with annual checks by officials on every family dog to make sure it complies with the law. 
Tory deputy London mayor Kit Malthouse said: 'The proposals go a bit too far. We think that insurance and mandatory chipping is a bit crackers.' 
He told BBC Radio: 'It will just create a huge bureaucracy. They will have to produce a kind of DVLA for dogs.

'We are going to see police officers stopping perfectly innocent dog owners in the streets and asking to see their papers and documents.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...enalise-responsible-owners.html#ixzz0htZAnawL


----------



## Rosbotham

I'm not sure where some of the numbers for insurance comes from. My Tesco pet medical insurance covers 3rd party liability (including injury) up to £2M as a bonus to the core medical cover, and is only approx £100 a year altogether. £100 for 3rd party alone (DM's assertion) seems outrageous next to that. Obviously the medical insurance will rise as Rudy gets older, but that's down to increased medical risk rather than increased risk of him getting vicious.

And mandatory annual visits to the vets...would any reasonable owner _really_ object to that?

Paul


----------



## SpeedyDux

Dog licenses were abolished because the requirement was widely ignored and almost never enforced. A bit like marriage licences, I suppose.

Does anyone outside Parliament seriously believe that a compulsory dog registration and insurance scheme will be an effective solution to the perceived problem of dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners? 

I can't see enough resources and Police time being made available under any new scheme. They haven't exactly made a roaring success of the ban on fox hunting with dogs. Nor have laws stopped protected birds of prey from being killed by farmers, gamekeepers and (allegedly) minor Royals. The Dangerous Dogs Act isn't being enforced anyway. Only the French seem to be taking enforcement of their corresponding law seriously.

If or when a compulsory scheme is brought in, the pit bull breeders will carry on their clandestine trade as usual. The drug dealers and thugs will still keep dangerous dogs as weapons because they carry less risk of a jail sentence for keeping a dangerous dog than they would for carrying a knife or firearm. :roll: 


SD


----------



## locovan

Above everything else what Insurance Company will Insure these dangerous dogs.
If they cant get Insurance then it defeats the object so they might as well leave things as they are as they already have a Dangerous dog act now and they should be on a lead and muzzled or shouldn't even being breeding the Pit Bulls etc etc.

It like Motoring Offensives isn't it chase the motorist and not the criminals :roll:


----------



## zulurita

I'm not against microchips (needed for pets passport anyway) and most countries have some form of dog ID. In France they have their ears tattoed.

I'm not against 3rd party insurance if it was reasonable and something like the Dog Trust at £20 a year (£10 if oap).

I'm not against MOT if it can be done at the same time as the dogs annual vaccination.

But as far as I'm concerned the government need to ban dangerous dogs, period!

If not then it should be law for these dogs to wear a muzzle in a public place.

Likewise any dog that has been noted to be snappy at people or other dogs should also wear a muzzle.

Our dog is gentle but previously we had Heinz 57 varieties that we rescued and one was set upon twice by a GSD on our fields! Some people just don't care what their dogs do.


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS

When we get down to the nitty gritty it is not the dogs that are the problem .
Its people.

dave p


----------



## peedee

I see the Government has dropped the idea

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8570830.stm

peedee


----------



## chasper

This just shows the Government is barking mad! :lol:


----------



## zulurita

That's a relief  Still we did get 3rd party cover via Dogs Trust just in case and don't mind my money going to the Dogs Trust.

I also emailed the Prime Minister with my view regarding any compulsory insurance.


----------



## locovan

Rita I think he listened to your email :wink: 
We found a lot out though as so many didnt know they were covered through House Insurance and yes I joined the dog trust as well.


----------



## zulurita

:lol: :lol: More likely he binned my email!

However I just had to write. Why should those unable to afford inflated insurance policies have to be without their dogs, thinking of the elderly pensioners etc. Also all the abandoned dogs that would inevitably happen etc

And whilst the responsible people paid, those that the law would have supposedly targeted would of course simply not have bothered.


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS

It was all a smoke screen so that they could slip out some bad economic forecasts unnoticed. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 
Wait whist 1/4/2010

Dave p


----------



## erneboy

It was just the usual ill considered nonsense, trouble is a lot of twaddle like this has become law, Alan.


----------

