Hilary Benn and Alan Johnson are today announcing plans to review the Dangerous Dogs Act and this could mean that anyone who keeps a dog, even a docile miniature breed will have to take out an insurance policy in case their pet attacks anyone. Specialist pet insurance firm Petplan have a basic insurance giving £1million worth of cover and third-party liability for £15 per month but their maximum plan giving £3million worth of cover costs between £40 & £50 per month. Could you afford that?
Summer-Rain – the coffers are empty, it’s just more revenue.
What about those people, my daughter included, who deliberately rehome the rejects? She pays insurance for vets bills for these now happy, well adjusted dogs but how many more will she be able to rescue?
Lol! Jess, i’ll be round with a bag of steak for the dogs later – what can i take in exchange? You’re right though one of our friends had a visit from the roadside encampment people last year at around three in the morning. One of them was just removing his caravan from the barn when Stella very quietly stepped up behind him and gave him a gentle massage with her lovely pearly whites. She’s ex Police, a beautiful and very loving Alsatian. As long as he didn’t move, she didn’t break the skin on his ar*e. This one was jailed, caught red bummed!
you’d be able to get liability only insurance for less than that, surely that covers other pet costs, such as treatment for the dog.
the max liability going from 1 to 3 million shouldn’t triple the premium since the chances of such a large claim are extremely small.
Also home insurers will rush to put pet liability on their policies, if it isn’t on there already.
#1 by Deighton on November 30, 2010 - 2:02 am
you’d be able to get liability only insurance for less than that, surely that covers other pet costs, such as treatment for the dog.
the max liability going from 1 to 3 million shouldn’t triple the premium since the chances of such a large claim are extremely small.
Also home insurers will rush to put pet liability on their policies, if it isn’t on there already.
References :
get a cat, it can never incur liability, whatever it gets up to!
#2 by slice264 on November 30, 2010 - 2:17 am
i have had dogs for 6 years and always had insurance…..for their vets bills, and a hundred other things besides.
it has not occurred to me to not have insurance. it is not just for 3rd party compensation claims made from the public
if that was the case, then the illegal breeders of dangerous dogs are hardley likely to get insurance anyway which sort of negates the issue.
References :
#3 by eli on November 30, 2010 - 2:53 am
id rather the government did something about getting these irresponsable people who insist on owning these dogs to take their dogs to training lessons.
i have a golden and she will be a year old next week. its not fair on people like me who have taken time to train and solicalise her.
she is already insured and i have trained and solicalised her since i got her at 8 weeks old… but i do know people who had got a dog and not done any type of training with it appart from toilet training. these people need to be made to take their dogs to a class as its their fault their dogs havent been trained.
References :
also when i looked for pet insurance for my pup petplan was actually the most expensive for what you got back.
#4 by Duirmuid on November 30, 2010 - 3:07 am
I am sure the youth who use dangerous dogs to protect their drugs supplies will have no problem in funding such an insurance but the little old lady who owns a tiny yorkie for company will have a hell of job funding that.
References :
#5 by Summer Rain on November 30, 2010 - 3:28 am
I got the impression it only applied to certain breeds….listed as dangerous. Not toys or Labs for example.
Another thing is its all a farce anyway….does anyone really think a thug who keeps a ‘dangerous’ dog, liable to attack is really going to get it insured..and if he does what does that prove.?If you get attacked its small consolation that you get compo, especially if the dog kills or permanently maims.
Its like you need a gun licence…..yes but it doesn’t stop you shooting anyone. The Hungerford gunman had a licence!!!!
Carajlll; Oh come on a bit of paper..ie dog licence wont stop a dog biting ….fgs
Exactly…..I gree… yet more money to pay out…little to do with dogs biting…I bet the insurance companies are clapping their hands and booking holidays abroad!!
References :
#6 by Carajillo on November 30, 2010 - 3:44 am
We all know the problems with dangerous dogs, but the vast majority of dog bites come from peoples pets. I used to be a postman. I had to have emergency treatment 8 times. Those bites were all from peoples pets. Most people said that it wasn’t the dogs fault as it wouldn’t hurt anyone, but even though I was only delivering mail I still got badly bitten. A colleague of mine lost his finger to a pet dog. Something needs to be done. People who own pets have a responsibility to the rest of us. I’m not sure insurance is the best way. We could bring the dog licence back like we had years ago, that would be affordable.
References :
#7 by Alana C on November 30, 2010 - 4:16 am
I think the answer is on the tin.
References :
#8 by NutstersChick on November 30, 2010 - 4:22 am
I think this is another indirect way for the government to make money.
The insurance premiums incur tax, that tax goes to the government so it’s a win-win situation for them, inventing a new money-spinner & another worry for dog owners.
I notice there’s no mention yet about what about those chavs, thugs, gang-members who will NOT buy insurance, they don’t bother with car insurance so why bother with dog insurance?
Suppose that will be another hike on top of the premiums we pay, same as the uninsured drivers clause, which see the insurance companies add 15 % to our policy.
We pay while the establishment does not do enough to remove these uninsured drivers from our roads.
Will they be removing the uninsured dogs?
Not unless someone else pays for it, I suppose!
This is one of the hidden taxes that will hit us all.
Come what may, I will keep my dog & get him covered for licking the postman to death insurance.
Damn government make me so cross.
References :
#9 by BarrieG on November 30, 2010 - 4:45 am
No and of course the people that will not pay are the people that should not be allowed to keep dogs, the drug dealers and criminals.
Dog owners should be licenced and if the police believe you to be unsuitable you don’t get one in the same way that shotgun licences are authorised.
Pensioners and certain other groups should be allowed them for free but even these groups should be subject to controls, eg, if a pensioner has a licence for a dog which is actually owned and /or controlled by another member of the family the pensioner should be refused or lose a licence.
References :
#10 by Jess on November 30, 2010 - 5:32 am
We keep ”outside” dogs as I call them and included in our petplan cover if a clause in case they attack.
They are attack dogs so we had to have that before we could license them.
Petplan also came out before they would insure us to check the premises to ensure they were secure and dogs cant get out
Our pet insurance is astronomical—-it would be cheaper to get burgled
References :
#11 by lavender on November 30, 2010 - 5:41 am
sounds very unfair against responsible dog owners, though i agree something needs to be done.i believe it would be much better if they made it law that all dogs must be chipped,attend dog training and neautered unless having a breeding licence.our pet is part of our family so yes i would have to find the money to pay insurance
References :
#12 by reggie on November 30, 2010 - 5:54 am
My household insurance already covers my dogs on a third party basis and I bet a lot of other peoples’ household policies do the same. What’s the betting that the Government will still insist on a separate policy though.
References :
#13 by McDodgy digits has green thumbs on November 30, 2010 - 6:32 am
My pet insurance already has public liability cover. Petplan are one if not the most expensive insurance companies around. No amount of legislation will make the nut job chav owners buy insurance unless they can claim for the premiums from the DSS, even then they would spend it on sausage rolls for the kids. They could not enforce the dog licencing when we had that so there is no way insurance will become compulsory. There is sufficient legislation in the DD Act, it just needs to be enforced with proper penalties for stupid owners.
References :
CARRAJIL: The dog licence was scrapped many yers ago because it was totally inneffective as in very few people bothered with it and 7/-6p was a lot of money back then. Actually it cost the same for a marriage licence as it did for a dog one mmm.
#14 by Michelle on November 30, 2010 - 7:13 am
it will probably be expensive for me. i have a German Shepherd who is 7 years old, and insurance for them has always been on the higher side due to hip problems in later life. as he is older now, the premium will be high. and i couldn’t afford £40 to £50 a month but i would have to find it from somewhere. i don’t know why they don’t just bring back dog licences instead. the way pet insurance works now, is if your pet needs treatment or surgery, you have to pay it out of your own pocket and then send the bill to the insurance company afterwards. if i was going to be paying up to £50 a month i would expect to not have to pay anything in the event of treatment needed, and the vet do whatever is needed on the basis that i have proof of insurance.
References :
#15 by Bear on November 30, 2010 - 7:54 am
Have they worked out,how much it will cost to round up all the abandoned dogs!?
This government couldn’t organise a c*ck-up in a brothel.They’d probably tax by the inch anyway!
References :
#16 by MamaBas on November 30, 2010 - 8:03 am
Well I currently have two dogs – and previously had anything up to half a dozen in our small show/breeding set up (imagine that for a cost!). And this would hurt us big time (we are on a fixed income)
This is only at the consultation stage, but it is extremely worrying, if only because it’s going to be yet another flawed piece of legislation. One can but hope that by the time this all goes through due process, this lot will be out on their ears.
I appreciate the concern about dog attacks (but it doesn’t need to be ‘dressed up’ by purporting to be stopping abuse to dogs fgs) here, but as a responsible dog owner (for over 37 years now) I resent strongly having to ‘pay’ for the actions of the irresponsible minority – who this sort of law isn’t going to reach in any case.
I would say that a lot of basic Household Insurance policies do cover 3rd party damage caused by a pet – it would be worth checking to see what your policy actually covers!!
I’ve already written elsewhere on Yahoo that I have to congratulate the RSPCA for the ability to lead this Government by the nose – and advise them to clear their pens because there’s going to be a huge influx of dogs headed their way, from people who simply cannot afford to carry this sort of insurance!!
References :
#17 by Rosina on November 30, 2010 - 8:24 am
We already have the £1M Pet Plan Insurance so it won’t make any difference.
I do think though that, before the Govt start penalising everyone they, they should actually enforce the Dangerous Dogs Act. A novel idea perhaps for these idiots but the only sane first approach.
What is the point of all this legislation if it is not policed? If the Dangerous Dogs Act had been correctly enforced it would have saved quite a few lives and serious injury by dangerous dogs owned by feckless owners.
As it is, how many poor dogs are now going to be abandoned, dangerous ones included?
References :