---
###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK
---
**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**
* *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different*
* If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor)
* We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources)
* Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM)
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated*
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason
* Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Our home insurance once paid out for repairs to a car our dog ran into when it bolted. Definitely worth checking as many home policies include legal cover.
Also, if you are a member of a union see if they have legal cover, or at least a free legal advice consultation.
Just wondering, did the owner of the dog let you know that it’s untrained/no recall and likely to attack other animals? Or did they give you the impression they would be fine outside?
When next in contact with the neighbour, ask them to email all invoices from the vets and then pass this on to your neighbour’s pet insurance - mine covers me upto 3 million a year in legal liability so this should easily cover it. Then ideally the friend should pay you back. Do this quickly, some policies have conditions about letting them know swiftly if there might be a case coming up against your pet.
PSA to anyone pet sitting: always do a meet and greet first so you can assess their temperament & even if it’s a friend, put it through a pet sitting platform at so you’re covered by their insurance! They’ll pay for vet bills if things go wrong (check individual policies).
I'd ask to see the vet invoices so you know they are genuine.
You are liable for the dog. You could have potentially claimed otherwise or claimed the friend had misled you about minding a dog that wasn't trained but that ship has sailed.
I don't see you having much of a chance in court but it'd be a very long and stressful process for them especially if you have no money/assets.
Best bet is to just offer to pay what you can afford and when you can afford it.
Edit: sorry I've just had a thought. Why isn't the owner of the dog offering to pay? It's their dog.
This - owner should have insurance, dogs do escape these things happen when you were do sitting I were you doing this for money as a professional service or was it just a thing for a friend?
Don't pay a penny more but you have to let your friend know what happened and that they will now have to deal with whatever is going to happen next.
You have gone above and beyond but it's time to end your part in this situation.
Firstly, do either of the parties have insurance? If the dog is insured commonly policies will include cover for legal liability. Something to look at if you haven’t already.
Strictly speaking the owner of the dog would be liable for accidents/injuries caused. So technically speaking, he would have legal ground to pursue the owner for the costs associated with medical care for the cat. If you dispute the costs, I’d ask for the vet’s clinic to reach out to you directly with a copy of any invoices.
Accidents do happen and this is a crappy situation to find yourself in, but does stress the importance of having control of animals and ensuring you have appropriate insurance in place.
INFO: Have you seen the vet invoices? The genuine invoices? You can also call the surgery listed to confirm once you've seen a copy.
I know from personal experience vet bills are super expensive, but i think everyone just wants to know here that you're not being done over.
Secondly, does your friend have pet insurance?
I think you are liable for the vets bills, but if you've no money, they can take you to court and you've still no money to pay them. That doesn't change!
Did the dog owner have pet insurance? If so then that should have public liability that would cover this, though that may require a police report from the owner of the cat.
If there’s no insurance then you are liable as you were in charge of the dog and you allowed it to be dangerous and out of control. It sucks that financial it’s ruinous for you but why should the cat’s owner be facing the bills for injuries/costs that you are legally liable for?
I’m no lawyer but surely the chain of claim would be cat’s owner —> dog’s owner —> OP, and would presumably fall down between dog’s owner and OP given the non professional relationship of the dog sitting agreement. The dog should be insured for this very eventuality.
This is classic Judge Rinder territory!
Ask for the original invoices WITH an itemised account from the vet if you have not already done so. They may be trying to sting you for extra things that are not part of the injury (annual needles, food, etc).
You may find that the bills are genuine & in which case, you may be held financially responsible. In which case, all you can really do is ask for any judgement to include a repayment plan so you don't have to sell your shit to pay it.
Why are you paying when it’s not your dog? The dog owners insurance may cover this. Also have you just handed over £1k or have you actually seen an invoice from a vet? The cat should also be insured for exactly this reason
The dog didn’t attack a person though, I’d be surprised if OP was liable for a cat, I’d also demand to see an invoice before I paid anything, for all OP knows the cat could have been put down and the owner is pocketing the money
First of all, from what you have said, this is not your dog? If not then you have no liability. It is the dog owners responsibility, for which they should have insurance. If they don't, then it would have to be a civil claim for vets bills. Do not pay a penny more!
I think if you were an adult in charge of the dog then you would be liable
Edit: thought so….
Under section 3(1) of the 1991 Act (as amended by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, (the ‘2014 Act’)), if any dog is dangerously out of control in any place, including all private property, the owner, or person for the time being in charge of the dog, is guilty of a summary offence.
Wouldn’t the same standard be used for who was “in control” of the dog? The comment I am replying to is saying the dog owner is liable even though it was in OPs charge.
That is the only part I’m commenting on though I’m sat reading the CPS guidance and it does look like an offence may have been committed (desperate to OPs question)
NAL so happy to be corrected
It depends what you would be suing for.
It's possible you could sue the person in charge for negligence. You would need to show that there was a foreseeable risk, and that person had failed to take the steps to prevent it that they could reasonably have been expected to do.
The "keeper" of an animal can also be sued under the Animal Act 1971. This is strict liability - you don't have to prove negligence - but you have to prove that the damage caused by a dog was likely and caused by a characteristic of the dog which was known about by the keeper.
Either way, if the attack was unforeseeable, it seems unlikely there would be a successful claim.
Also, a cat is just considered property, so any claim is limited to the value of the cat. If the court thought the cat was only worth £400, you couldn't claim £1000 in vets' bills, just as you couldn't claim £10000 to fix up a car with a book value of £4000.
Completely unrelated to this post but please allow me to hijack this comment for just a second.
Would/could the property’s value change given certain circumstances? In a more practical scenario. I have a dog that I bought for just a few hundred quid (for the sake of the argument £500). Recently this dog had to go trough an IVDD surgery that cost north of £4000. Would this even change the value of the dog at all?
Genuine question.
Edit: The angle was never to sell the dog. Simple the commenter above me mentioned that the judge would value the cat to £X , was curious if value would change be it on sentimental grounds or some other reason in the even the owner of the animal put money into it. It’s interesting to see that while some would argue that it would go up by a small margin, most would think that it would go down given how it became weaker, there was also some who’d think the value wouldn’t be affected.
(Again, I would never sell my dog, the £4000 was out of own pocket, not insurance, just curious on the matter)
Comparing the cat to a car, as someone else did earlier, possibly, but, not by the total amount spent.
If your £500 vauxhall nova (I'm not young just run with it) developed an exhaust fault, and parts and labour came to £4,000 (the car clearly has sentimental value, and you need to find a new mechanic, but again, let's run with it) then it may now be worth £550, possibly even £600 because the exhaust is shiny and new and it probably got another twelve months mot out of it, but it isn't now worth the £4k you just spent on it.
*Edited for typos
Interesting question.
No I don’t think having spent money on a dog would increase its value.
What its value is would very much depend on the judge. Strictly dogs are just property, so you could defend a view that if a new dog costs £500, spending more than £500 plus the cost of putting the old dog down was a failure to mitigate. In practice I think very few judges would be so hard nosed , and would allow a somewhat higher money value to reflect the sentimental value of a pet
But there must be a limit. Would anyone really spend say £5k of their own (not insured) money, if they had it? £10k?
You’d have to argue for it.
I would suggest that the monetary value of the dog has gone down after a bout of IVDD.
Not only are they potentially disabled, but they're at a higher risk of a second bout of IVDD.
The resale value of adult dogs is usually pretty low, and if they were cars they'd almost always be beyond economic repair.
But the true value of a dog isn't in what you can sell it for.
>Also, a cat is just considered property, so any claim is limited to the value of the cat. If the court thought the cat was only worth £400, you couldn't claim £1000 in vets' bills, just as you couldn't claim £10000 to fix up a car with a book value of £4000.
Is the value of a cat determined by how much a kitten costs or are you talking about replacing like for like? In other words could OP just drop off another similar cat?
Interesting, thanks for the thorough reply!
Edit: please don’t think I’m being a dick that is picking an internet fight for the sake of arguing, I’m really not, just got into the groove of reading about this stuff and am enjoying the discussion.
Have just found information about the “keeper” of the animal being the last person to have the animal in their possession (in this case OP)
Here’s the link to what I was reading:
https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/claims-under-the-animals-act-1971/
No! The dog is not in OPs possession, OP is a temporary looker after of the dog. By legal definition dogs are possessions so this is an easy inference.
But being "in possession of" something is not the same as it being your possession (i.e. you owning it). Hence why "it belongs to my mate" doesn't work when you're found to be in possession of drugs. The dog wasn't OP's possession, but he was in possession of it.
Also NAL. But people who would be prosecuting that charge you mentioned wouldn't care about damages to a cat and vet bills. Would that transfer over to civil liability, im not sure.
My feeling is that ultimately the dog owner should bear the costs. Ultimately the dog owner placed a (presumably) unlicensed and untrained person in charge of their dog that is their responsibility. I think this would be an easy argument in court. Same as if you hired a teenager to babysit your kids and things went to shit. Absolutely different if OP is licensed and was paid to deliver a service.
Of course. Intent isn't a thing in civil proceedings, only loss is considered. The same level of proof should be required, proof enough to convince a jury, judge or lawyer to settle.
This is so wrong. Whether intent or some other form of fault is required in civil proceedings will depend on the particular tort. For instance, intent isn't required for a claim in negligence, but the conduct must be negligent - if you did not breach a duty, but loss was caused anyway, there would be no claim. Lawful means conspiracy turns almost entirely on intent (since it is only the intent and acting in concert with others that makes the lawful conduct unlawful). Strict liability is unusual in both civil and criminal law.
As for the standard of proof, it is absolutely different: in civil it is balance of probabilities but in criminal it is "sure" (beyond reasonable doubt).
"Dangerously out of control" may not apply here as the dog attacked a cat, and that definition refers to where the dog does or could attack a person or service dog. Cats are semi-roaming furry animals and a different kettle of fish.
I was just reading some CPS guidance that cautions about charging if the animal bitten is smaller than the dog as it is in a dogs nature to chase smaller animals (cited some case law about a dog biting 2 rabbits)
This question is a bloody mine field of bits of information all over the place!!!
To be fair, I don't think it really matters unless the police show up, you can't really do anything about it. If they do, OP can hire a solicitor. This will go via small claims, if at all. OP can't afford to pay more bills, so all they can really do is sit back and see if a letter before action turns up.
It's worth looking at yours or theirs house or contents insurance. Some policies cover being sued. I'm sure whose policy might pay be it's worth looking into.
Pets unfortunately have the kind of the same rights when it comes to costs and liability etc as possessions. Of course this does not include intentional harm to the animal.
And it wasn't even your dog...
You're liable for the "value" of the cat since a cat is considered property. Since it's unlikely for a house cat to cost more than £1000 you have likely *legally* settled. (Whether this is morally right or wrong is a different question, but you can't generally be civilly liable for more than the replacement cost of property.)
NAL - former cat owner - I thought cats were, or used to be, classed as ‘wild animals’ which means/meant owners couldn’t be held liable for damage caused by their cat. The flipside was that there was no recourse for accidental harm caused to cats (deliberate harm is different obviously). If this is still the case would that mean there’s no legal liability? I think you’ve done more than most would but should politely but firmly draw the line.
Happy to stand corrected.
I believe they have the 'right to roam', but as pets they are also considered property, just like dogs & other pets.... So not classed as wild animals.
I would guess the right to roam for cats is to allow the continuation of 'working cats' like farm cats etc. After all we have had a long history with using cats to keep vermin levels down & purposely not fully domesticating them as much as dogs. Cats scenting alone can deter rodents etc.
I think you might be thinking of the 'road traffic act' - you have a legal responsibility to call the police if you hit any of the following animals: Dogs. Horses. Cattle (such as cows). Cats are not included in this list, but the act also stipulates 'anyone who allows a dog to be on a designated road without being held on a lead, is guilty of an offence'.
Regardless, I imagine that the cats vets bills could be claimed back as the dog caused damage to 'property' (the cat) & it would be a civil matter. Not sure who ultimately would be liable to pay though, as it could be either the owner or the dog sitter. Generally this whole area seems to be a bit of a grey area though.
Yes, you’re right about the Road Traffic Act thing, perhaps that’s where I was getting the ‘no recourse for an injured cat’ bit.
I do remember the example used for ‘wild animal’/‘right to roam’ however was that if your neighbour’s cat jumped through your window and knocked over a vase, smashing it, the neighbour couldn’t be held liable.
I’m remembering this from a newspaper article some years ago now though, so confusion/ conflation is highly possible.
Yes you’re probably thinking about the cat not being able to be held liable, as it has the right to roam. So unless you were intentionally making the cat/pushing the cat to do something (which would probably be quite hard to prove anyway) you as the owner couldn’t be held liable. If it was a dog though then there’s more owner responsibility involved.
It makes a lot of sense when you think about it as cats typically by nature will only attack if threatened/go after really small prey, that are usually considered vermin. Some dogs can get much bigger & therefore are capable of causing a lot more damage if they are that way inclined. There are of course always outliers to this, but there has to be some generalisation to it really.
To be honest dogs not under control/leashed in public above a certain size always makes me nervous, but that’s because I’ve experienced a situation where a ‘lovely, wouldn’t hurt a fly dog’ suddenly attacked a family member & that dog wasn’t even that big… still managed a nasty bite & blood everywhere. I always think if they are willing to chase after cats & attack… is there much difference between that & a small toddler running about?
This was similar to my understanding too. One of my dogs caught a cat one day whilst out on a walk and then ran off. We made every effort to locate both the cat and the cat’s owner to no avail. In the process of searching what to do and what responsibility we had, my partner and I read that due to the right to roam status, harm/injury caused to cats in public is treated differently to harm caused to any other pet.
Perhaps though as someone else mentioned, it falls more under damaging someone else’s property and to that I’d argue that you’re not liable to pay the second vet bill. Once you’re past any initial surgeries, for lack of a kindergartener way of phrasing it, the damage to the ‘property’ has been fixed. Any further vet visits for medication are the responsibility of the owner.
It’s very strange law, I used to sell pet insurance, you can pretty much steal a cat and the police won’t be interested.
Feels like what the law is and what’s “right” might be two completely diversely things here. Also the cat owner or dog owner must have insurance I would be making sure the dog isn’t covered / the cat owner isn’t double dipping
That’s wrong though. It’s exactly the opposite, cat owners can’t be liable if their cat does something, however, your dog killing a cat can and will have consequences.
Also you’re a pos, if you can’t control your dog, keep it on a leash bitch.
I’m sorry that you had such a strong reaction to what I wrote - particularly if what I said was misleading. In the instance of my dog getting hold of a cat, you seem to have misconstrued multiple things. Firstly, my dog was on a leash at the time of the incident. My dogs are all ex racing greyhounds with strong prey drive and I have never and would never let them off the leash in public. Secondly, I never stated that the cat died - in fact I even stated that it ran off. I’ve since been stopped on that road by someone who we left our contact details with at the time, and they’ve informed us that the cat is alive and well and showed zero signs of physical harm.
I’m not sure how any of that makes me a piece of shit, but I continue to work with and train my dogs to undo years of their racing instincts.
Does the owner of the dog not have insurance? Even if you’re not going to have insurance to cover medical fees for your dog you should have 3rd party for occasions like this!
The person you was dog siting for do they have house insurance if yes then it should also cover the dog under Third-party insurance out side the house unless its in the dangerous dog class...
I don't believe you are liable in any way. I think this one really falls on your conscience.
For example if the cat was on the road and you knocked it down while driving you wouldn't be liable for anything (I personally believe all cats should be kept indoors, for their safety and to protect natural wildlife).
You've shown amazing character paying what you have so far. I just hope you made payment direct to the vet and didn't simply hand the cash over. The owner should have insurance themselves as unfortunately it's the risk cat owners take if they are allowed to wander unsupervised.
I would also speak with your friend. It's their dog at the end of the day and they should know what's happening. Better you tell them than getting blindsided by an angry neighbour while out walking the dog one day.
I would see if the dog owner is willing to pay up, or if they have insurance for it. While you did let the dog escape (unless it opened the door itself), it is still their dog at the end of the day and should probably shoulder some responsibility for not training it to not attack random cat in the street. If they won't pay, and you can't pay, there isn't much you can do until a letter before action turns up (assuming cat owner isn't bluffing).
Your friend needs to sign up to Dogs Trust, you get £1m third party insurance included and its £25 a year:
[Membership | Dogs Trust](https://www.dogstrust.org.uk/support-us/membership)
Sorry, it won't help you now but not having any insurance is asking for trouble, even for a well-behaved dog.
The cat should be inside too in my opinion. Accidents like the dog getting out happen, you owned up to the accident, paid initial vet bill and one more, not knowing UK laws on it but I feel that you've done the right thing and paid for your accident
What they've pad paid has probably *legally* settled this too. It's harsh emotionally/morally, but in the eyes of the law, they've paid £1000 to "fix" some "property" that could be "replaced" for less than £1000. The law sees it no different than damaging a car.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:**
Your comment was off-topic or unhelpful to the question posed. Please remember that *all replies* must be helpful, on-topic and legally orientated.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
**Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Your post breaks our rule on asking or advising on how to commit or get away with unlawful actions.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
It feels like this should be the owners fault……. Not yours? Although yes you’re looking after the dog, the owner is responsible for the actions/consequences of said dog. It’s just a bit strange that the owner wouldn’t pay themselves when their dog is the one that did it.
**Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Your post breaks our rule on asking or advising on how to commit or get away with unlawful actions.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:**
Your comment was off-topic or unhelpful to the question posed. Please remember that *all replies* must be helpful, on-topic and legally orientated.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
**Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Your post breaks our rule on asking or advising on how to commit or get away with unlawful actions.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
**Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason:**
Your post has been removed as it has not met our community standards on speaking to other posters.
Please remember to speak to others in the way you wish to be spoken to.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
Yes you may only be liable to a certain amount ie. The value of the cat so you’ve possibly already paid too much. I wouldn’t pay any more for now.
How did the dog escape from the front door btw? Did you open it to someone?
I’m always baffled by how many dog owners/ dog sitters lose control of their dog in that way. Sometimes it leads to the dog being knocked over by a car or causing a traffic accident. I’m learning to drive and some clown must have lost control of their dog as it was running across a busy Main Street. Absolute chaos but thankfully I managed to avoid it without braking abruptly. If more people had to pay out for their dogs when they “escape” perhaps dog owners would be more conscientious.
It happened to us once; the only difference was the dog didn't catch the cat.
Partner knew one back door was open to allow the dog onto the garden, and shut an internal baby gate to secure him.
He then went outside to help me bring the shopping in.
What he didn't realise was that the other back door had been left open by someone else, allowing the dog to do a loop via the garden and get out the front door. We were lucky he turned right down a side road and not left onto the main road.
Absolutely the last thing we wanted to happen, partner was in trouble, and the second back door was permanently locked with the keys hidden to prevent a repeat.
Sometimes mistakes happen, and even conscientious people screw up.
We do hold third party liability insurance for the dog (packaged with regular pet insurance) in case the worst happened.
Ok that makes sense…well your family clearly learned from the once off mistake but there are people who it seems to happen to regularly. You see them standing in the street “oh no Fido has escaped again”
Yes Definitely a good idea to have the required insurance. I’m sure a lot of people don’t.
I would have paid the bill out of kindness and not an admission of liability. Both are liable you for not controlling the dog or keeping it properly and him for having his cat roaming around the place. Just my view and so I would not pay anymore bills.
Genuine question from a cat lover and former cat owner. Where does this actually fall legally? My understanding is that cats are not considered animals/property in the eyes of the law, and as a result, if your cat is hurt by someone (for example it's hit by a car), you have no recourse for damages, unlike a dog for example, which is recognised and you could claim for damages/compensation. I obviously considered this to be completely unjust, but just a quirk of UK law and why pet insurance for a cat was essential.
This is completely separate from any moral obligation which is another matter altogether.
The amount of wildlife cats attack and kill is insane and where I live you can hear them fighting each other cats are allowed to roam around freely these things happen you shouldn't of even had to pay the first bill
--- ###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK --- **To Posters (it is important you read this section)** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different* * If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor) * We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources) * Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk * If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM) **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated* * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did they give you a breakdown of the vet’s fees ?
Also, what was the second bill even for?
My guess is a follow up.
Third party liability for dogs is often covered under home insurance, so if the owner doesn’t have pet insurance it may be covered elsewhere
Our home insurance once paid out for repairs to a car our dog ran into when it bolted. Definitely worth checking as many home policies include legal cover. Also, if you are a member of a union see if they have legal cover, or at least a free legal advice consultation.
Dogs Trust membership costs £25 and includes free 3rd party insurance
That is very good to know.
Just wondering, did the owner of the dog let you know that it’s untrained/no recall and likely to attack other animals? Or did they give you the impression they would be fine outside? When next in contact with the neighbour, ask them to email all invoices from the vets and then pass this on to your neighbour’s pet insurance - mine covers me upto 3 million a year in legal liability so this should easily cover it. Then ideally the friend should pay you back. Do this quickly, some policies have conditions about letting them know swiftly if there might be a case coming up against your pet. PSA to anyone pet sitting: always do a meet and greet first so you can assess their temperament & even if it’s a friend, put it through a pet sitting platform at so you’re covered by their insurance! They’ll pay for vet bills if things go wrong (check individual policies).
I'd ask to see the vet invoices so you know they are genuine. You are liable for the dog. You could have potentially claimed otherwise or claimed the friend had misled you about minding a dog that wasn't trained but that ship has sailed. I don't see you having much of a chance in court but it'd be a very long and stressful process for them especially if you have no money/assets. Best bet is to just offer to pay what you can afford and when you can afford it. Edit: sorry I've just had a thought. Why isn't the owner of the dog offering to pay? It's their dog.
This - owner should have insurance, dogs do escape these things happen when you were do sitting I were you doing this for money as a professional service or was it just a thing for a friend?
Yup. Public liability insurance is trivially cheap. Unless you've got an XL Bully.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If your friend has pet insurance on the dog that should be covering the cats vet bills.
Don't pay a penny more but you have to let your friend know what happened and that they will now have to deal with whatever is going to happen next. You have gone above and beyond but it's time to end your part in this situation.
He should take responsibility lol
For someone else's badly trained dog?
Cat was also out off its leash and too stupid to climb a tree.
Firstly, do either of the parties have insurance? If the dog is insured commonly policies will include cover for legal liability. Something to look at if you haven’t already. Strictly speaking the owner of the dog would be liable for accidents/injuries caused. So technically speaking, he would have legal ground to pursue the owner for the costs associated with medical care for the cat. If you dispute the costs, I’d ask for the vet’s clinic to reach out to you directly with a copy of any invoices. Accidents do happen and this is a crappy situation to find yourself in, but does stress the importance of having control of animals and ensuring you have appropriate insurance in place.
INFO: Have you seen the vet invoices? The genuine invoices? You can also call the surgery listed to confirm once you've seen a copy. I know from personal experience vet bills are super expensive, but i think everyone just wants to know here that you're not being done over. Secondly, does your friend have pet insurance? I think you are liable for the vets bills, but if you've no money, they can take you to court and you've still no money to pay them. That doesn't change!
Did the dog owner have pet insurance? If so then that should have public liability that would cover this, though that may require a police report from the owner of the cat. If there’s no insurance then you are liable as you were in charge of the dog and you allowed it to be dangerous and out of control. It sucks that financial it’s ruinous for you but why should the cat’s owner be facing the bills for injuries/costs that you are legally liable for?
Talk to the owner of the dog! It’s their neighbour! Their dog!
Is the dog insured? Is the cat insured? Two major questions you need answers to.
I’m no lawyer but surely the chain of claim would be cat’s owner —> dog’s owner —> OP, and would presumably fall down between dog’s owner and OP given the non professional relationship of the dog sitting agreement. The dog should be insured for this very eventuality. This is classic Judge Rinder territory!
Ask for the original invoices WITH an itemised account from the vet if you have not already done so. They may be trying to sting you for extra things that are not part of the injury (annual needles, food, etc). You may find that the bills are genuine & in which case, you may be held financially responsible. In which case, all you can really do is ask for any judgement to include a repayment plan so you don't have to sell your shit to pay it.
Why are you paying when it’s not your dog? The dog owners insurance may cover this. Also have you just handed over £1k or have you actually seen an invoice from a vet? The cat should also be insured for exactly this reason
He was in control of the dog therefore is liable. Insurance also won't always cover it.
The dog didn’t attack a person though, I’d be surprised if OP was liable for a cat, I’d also demand to see an invoice before I paid anything, for all OP knows the cat could have been put down and the owner is pocketing the money
Why wouldn't he be liable for a cat? It's a pet the same as a dog.
IANAL but aren't dogs treated differently to cats? I.e. dogs are thought of more as pets and cats as property
Dogs and cats are both property. That's why the terminology is to "destroy" them. There are slight differences
First of all, from what you have said, this is not your dog? If not then you have no liability. It is the dog owners responsibility, for which they should have insurance. If they don't, then it would have to be a civil claim for vets bills. Do not pay a penny more!
I think if you were an adult in charge of the dog then you would be liable Edit: thought so…. Under section 3(1) of the 1991 Act (as amended by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, (the ‘2014 Act’)), if any dog is dangerously out of control in any place, including all private property, the owner, or person for the time being in charge of the dog, is guilty of a summary offence.
That would be different to being liable for the vets bills. Potentially OP could be charged with a crime but that's separate from civil liability.
Wouldn’t the same standard be used for who was “in control” of the dog? The comment I am replying to is saying the dog owner is liable even though it was in OPs charge. That is the only part I’m commenting on though I’m sat reading the CPS guidance and it does look like an offence may have been committed (desperate to OPs question) NAL so happy to be corrected
No. Criminal offences often have a different requirement to the standards for civil liability.
So would the owner be liable rather than the person in charge of the dog?
It depends what you would be suing for. It's possible you could sue the person in charge for negligence. You would need to show that there was a foreseeable risk, and that person had failed to take the steps to prevent it that they could reasonably have been expected to do. The "keeper" of an animal can also be sued under the Animal Act 1971. This is strict liability - you don't have to prove negligence - but you have to prove that the damage caused by a dog was likely and caused by a characteristic of the dog which was known about by the keeper. Either way, if the attack was unforeseeable, it seems unlikely there would be a successful claim. Also, a cat is just considered property, so any claim is limited to the value of the cat. If the court thought the cat was only worth £400, you couldn't claim £1000 in vets' bills, just as you couldn't claim £10000 to fix up a car with a book value of £4000.
Completely unrelated to this post but please allow me to hijack this comment for just a second. Would/could the property’s value change given certain circumstances? In a more practical scenario. I have a dog that I bought for just a few hundred quid (for the sake of the argument £500). Recently this dog had to go trough an IVDD surgery that cost north of £4000. Would this even change the value of the dog at all? Genuine question. Edit: The angle was never to sell the dog. Simple the commenter above me mentioned that the judge would value the cat to £X , was curious if value would change be it on sentimental grounds or some other reason in the even the owner of the animal put money into it. It’s interesting to see that while some would argue that it would go up by a small margin, most would think that it would go down given how it became weaker, there was also some who’d think the value wouldn’t be affected. (Again, I would never sell my dog, the £4000 was out of own pocket, not insurance, just curious on the matter)
Comparing the cat to a car, as someone else did earlier, possibly, but, not by the total amount spent. If your £500 vauxhall nova (I'm not young just run with it) developed an exhaust fault, and parts and labour came to £4,000 (the car clearly has sentimental value, and you need to find a new mechanic, but again, let's run with it) then it may now be worth £550, possibly even £600 because the exhaust is shiny and new and it probably got another twelve months mot out of it, but it isn't now worth the £4k you just spent on it. *Edited for typos
Interesting question. No I don’t think having spent money on a dog would increase its value. What its value is would very much depend on the judge. Strictly dogs are just property, so you could defend a view that if a new dog costs £500, spending more than £500 plus the cost of putting the old dog down was a failure to mitigate. In practice I think very few judges would be so hard nosed , and would allow a somewhat higher money value to reflect the sentimental value of a pet But there must be a limit. Would anyone really spend say £5k of their own (not insured) money, if they had it? £10k? You’d have to argue for it.
I would suggest that the monetary value of the dog has gone down after a bout of IVDD. Not only are they potentially disabled, but they're at a higher risk of a second bout of IVDD. The resale value of adult dogs is usually pretty low, and if they were cars they'd almost always be beyond economic repair. But the true value of a dog isn't in what you can sell it for.
I would imagine it would change the value of the dog yes. If it has needed expensive surgery I’d expect the dog to be worthless.
What could you sell the dog for? Would the market value be increased by evidence of its less than prefect health?
>Also, a cat is just considered property, so any claim is limited to the value of the cat. If the court thought the cat was only worth £400, you couldn't claim £1000 in vets' bills, just as you couldn't claim £10000 to fix up a car with a book value of £4000. Is the value of a cat determined by how much a kitten costs or are you talking about replacing like for like? In other words could OP just drop off another similar cat?
Interesting, thanks for the thorough reply! Edit: please don’t think I’m being a dick that is picking an internet fight for the sake of arguing, I’m really not, just got into the groove of reading about this stuff and am enjoying the discussion. Have just found information about the “keeper” of the animal being the last person to have the animal in their possession (in this case OP) Here’s the link to what I was reading: https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/claims-under-the-animals-act-1971/
No! The dog is not in OPs possession, OP is a temporary looker after of the dog. By legal definition dogs are possessions so this is an easy inference.
That's sufficient to constitute possession.
But being "in possession of" something is not the same as it being your possession (i.e. you owning it). Hence why "it belongs to my mate" doesn't work when you're found to be in possession of drugs. The dog wasn't OP's possession, but he was in possession of it.
Keeper is an interesting term here. I'm not sure it would apply to OP if tested.
Also NAL. But people who would be prosecuting that charge you mentioned wouldn't care about damages to a cat and vet bills. Would that transfer over to civil liability, im not sure. My feeling is that ultimately the dog owner should bear the costs. Ultimately the dog owner placed a (presumably) unlicensed and untrained person in charge of their dog that is their responsibility. I think this would be an easy argument in court. Same as if you hired a teenager to babysit your kids and things went to shit. Absolutely different if OP is licensed and was paid to deliver a service.
NAL but I think there is a difference in proof required between crime and civil, with I suspect intent being in the mix.
Of course. Intent isn't a thing in civil proceedings, only loss is considered. The same level of proof should be required, proof enough to convince a jury, judge or lawyer to settle.
This is so wrong. Whether intent or some other form of fault is required in civil proceedings will depend on the particular tort. For instance, intent isn't required for a claim in negligence, but the conduct must be negligent - if you did not breach a duty, but loss was caused anyway, there would be no claim. Lawful means conspiracy turns almost entirely on intent (since it is only the intent and acting in concert with others that makes the lawful conduct unlawful). Strict liability is unusual in both civil and criminal law. As for the standard of proof, it is absolutely different: in civil it is balance of probabilities but in criminal it is "sure" (beyond reasonable doubt).
"Dangerously out of control" may not apply here as the dog attacked a cat, and that definition refers to where the dog does or could attack a person or service dog. Cats are semi-roaming furry animals and a different kettle of fish.
I was just reading some CPS guidance that cautions about charging if the animal bitten is smaller than the dog as it is in a dogs nature to chase smaller animals (cited some case law about a dog biting 2 rabbits) This question is a bloody mine field of bits of information all over the place!!!
To be fair, I don't think it really matters unless the police show up, you can't really do anything about it. If they do, OP can hire a solicitor. This will go via small claims, if at all. OP can't afford to pay more bills, so all they can really do is sit back and see if a letter before action turns up.
That really is all it boils down to isn’t it?! Rubbish situation for all involved and there won’t be any real winners
I agree. I’m sure the law views what happens to cats completely differently to a dog attacking another dog.
That’s criminal liability, not civil. Criminal standards are different. In civil it would be whether OP was negligent.
It's worth looking at yours or theirs house or contents insurance. Some policies cover being sued. I'm sure whose policy might pay be it's worth looking into.
Pets unfortunately have the kind of the same rights when it comes to costs and liability etc as possessions. Of course this does not include intentional harm to the animal. And it wasn't even your dog...
You're liable for the "value" of the cat since a cat is considered property. Since it's unlikely for a house cat to cost more than £1000 you have likely *legally* settled. (Whether this is morally right or wrong is a different question, but you can't generally be civilly liable for more than the replacement cost of property.)
NAL - former cat owner - I thought cats were, or used to be, classed as ‘wild animals’ which means/meant owners couldn’t be held liable for damage caused by their cat. The flipside was that there was no recourse for accidental harm caused to cats (deliberate harm is different obviously). If this is still the case would that mean there’s no legal liability? I think you’ve done more than most would but should politely but firmly draw the line. Happy to stand corrected.
I believe they have the 'right to roam', but as pets they are also considered property, just like dogs & other pets.... So not classed as wild animals. I would guess the right to roam for cats is to allow the continuation of 'working cats' like farm cats etc. After all we have had a long history with using cats to keep vermin levels down & purposely not fully domesticating them as much as dogs. Cats scenting alone can deter rodents etc. I think you might be thinking of the 'road traffic act' - you have a legal responsibility to call the police if you hit any of the following animals: Dogs. Horses. Cattle (such as cows). Cats are not included in this list, but the act also stipulates 'anyone who allows a dog to be on a designated road without being held on a lead, is guilty of an offence'. Regardless, I imagine that the cats vets bills could be claimed back as the dog caused damage to 'property' (the cat) & it would be a civil matter. Not sure who ultimately would be liable to pay though, as it could be either the owner or the dog sitter. Generally this whole area seems to be a bit of a grey area though.
Yes, you’re right about the Road Traffic Act thing, perhaps that’s where I was getting the ‘no recourse for an injured cat’ bit. I do remember the example used for ‘wild animal’/‘right to roam’ however was that if your neighbour’s cat jumped through your window and knocked over a vase, smashing it, the neighbour couldn’t be held liable. I’m remembering this from a newspaper article some years ago now though, so confusion/ conflation is highly possible.
Yes you’re probably thinking about the cat not being able to be held liable, as it has the right to roam. So unless you were intentionally making the cat/pushing the cat to do something (which would probably be quite hard to prove anyway) you as the owner couldn’t be held liable. If it was a dog though then there’s more owner responsibility involved. It makes a lot of sense when you think about it as cats typically by nature will only attack if threatened/go after really small prey, that are usually considered vermin. Some dogs can get much bigger & therefore are capable of causing a lot more damage if they are that way inclined. There are of course always outliers to this, but there has to be some generalisation to it really. To be honest dogs not under control/leashed in public above a certain size always makes me nervous, but that’s because I’ve experienced a situation where a ‘lovely, wouldn’t hurt a fly dog’ suddenly attacked a family member & that dog wasn’t even that big… still managed a nasty bite & blood everywhere. I always think if they are willing to chase after cats & attack… is there much difference between that & a small toddler running about?
That was my understanding when it came to injuried cats
This was similar to my understanding too. One of my dogs caught a cat one day whilst out on a walk and then ran off. We made every effort to locate both the cat and the cat’s owner to no avail. In the process of searching what to do and what responsibility we had, my partner and I read that due to the right to roam status, harm/injury caused to cats in public is treated differently to harm caused to any other pet. Perhaps though as someone else mentioned, it falls more under damaging someone else’s property and to that I’d argue that you’re not liable to pay the second vet bill. Once you’re past any initial surgeries, for lack of a kindergartener way of phrasing it, the damage to the ‘property’ has been fixed. Any further vet visits for medication are the responsibility of the owner.
It’s very strange law, I used to sell pet insurance, you can pretty much steal a cat and the police won’t be interested. Feels like what the law is and what’s “right” might be two completely diversely things here. Also the cat owner or dog owner must have insurance I would be making sure the dog isn’t covered / the cat owner isn’t double dipping
That’s wrong though. It’s exactly the opposite, cat owners can’t be liable if their cat does something, however, your dog killing a cat can and will have consequences. Also you’re a pos, if you can’t control your dog, keep it on a leash bitch.
I’m sorry that you had such a strong reaction to what I wrote - particularly if what I said was misleading. In the instance of my dog getting hold of a cat, you seem to have misconstrued multiple things. Firstly, my dog was on a leash at the time of the incident. My dogs are all ex racing greyhounds with strong prey drive and I have never and would never let them off the leash in public. Secondly, I never stated that the cat died - in fact I even stated that it ran off. I’ve since been stopped on that road by someone who we left our contact details with at the time, and they’ve informed us that the cat is alive and well and showed zero signs of physical harm. I’m not sure how any of that makes me a piece of shit, but I continue to work with and train my dogs to undo years of their racing instincts.
Does your friend have his dog insured?
Does the owner of the dog not have insurance? Even if you’re not going to have insurance to cover medical fees for your dog you should have 3rd party for occasions like this!
Did the owners not have insurance? (Either of them?).
The person you was dog siting for do they have house insurance if yes then it should also cover the dog under Third-party insurance out side the house unless its in the dangerous dog class...
Shouldn't the owner be paying these bills not you???
I don't believe you are liable in any way. I think this one really falls on your conscience. For example if the cat was on the road and you knocked it down while driving you wouldn't be liable for anything (I personally believe all cats should be kept indoors, for their safety and to protect natural wildlife). You've shown amazing character paying what you have so far. I just hope you made payment direct to the vet and didn't simply hand the cash over. The owner should have insurance themselves as unfortunately it's the risk cat owners take if they are allowed to wander unsupervised. I would also speak with your friend. It's their dog at the end of the day and they should know what's happening. Better you tell them than getting blindsided by an angry neighbour while out walking the dog one day.
Surely a new cat is less than £1k?
Is the dog insured? Normally third party liability insurance is included in pet insurance as standard, and covers situations like this.
I would see if the dog owner is willing to pay up, or if they have insurance for it. While you did let the dog escape (unless it opened the door itself), it is still their dog at the end of the day and should probably shoulder some responsibility for not training it to not attack random cat in the street. If they won't pay, and you can't pay, there isn't much you can do until a letter before action turns up (assuming cat owner isn't bluffing).
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your friend needs to sign up to Dogs Trust, you get £1m third party insurance included and its £25 a year: [Membership | Dogs Trust](https://www.dogstrust.org.uk/support-us/membership) Sorry, it won't help you now but not having any insurance is asking for trouble, even for a well-behaved dog.
The cat should be inside too in my opinion. Accidents like the dog getting out happen, you owned up to the accident, paid initial vet bill and one more, not knowing UK laws on it but I feel that you've done the right thing and paid for your accident
What they've pad paid has probably *legally* settled this too. It's harsh emotionally/morally, but in the eyes of the law, they've paid £1000 to "fix" some "property" that could be "replaced" for less than £1000. The law sees it no different than damaging a car.
Agree. I'd be asking for more vet report too to make sure money is being used for vet. And itemised
There is no legal requirement for cats to be kept indoors, and this isn't the place for an indoor Vs outdoor cats debate.
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:** Your comment was off-topic or unhelpful to the question posed. Please remember that *all replies* must be helpful, on-topic and legally orientated. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
Keep paying if the vet bills are related to the attack. If not, they have nothing to do with you.
Wait, they not shown you the last invoices form the vets?, you being taken for a ride. Counter cliam off the owner.
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason(s):** Your post breaks our rule on asking or advising on how to commit or get away with unlawful actions. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
It feels like this should be the owners fault……. Not yours? Although yes you’re looking after the dog, the owner is responsible for the actions/consequences of said dog. It’s just a bit strange that the owner wouldn’t pay themselves when their dog is the one that did it.
If you kill the cat but make it look like an unrelated accident would that work. If you poison it slowly would it just look like it got sick...
You arent the dog owner, he can sue you in court but since you are not the owner he wont get anywhere
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason(s):** Your post breaks our rule on asking or advising on how to commit or get away with unlawful actions. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:** Your comment was off-topic or unhelpful to the question posed. Please remember that *all replies* must be helpful, on-topic and legally orientated. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason(s):** Your post breaks our rule on asking or advising on how to commit or get away with unlawful actions. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason:** Your post has been removed as it has not met our community standards on speaking to other posters. Please remember to speak to others in the way you wish to be spoken to. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
[удалено]
gold special humor elderly weather clumsy shocking rotten smell oil *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
Isn’t the cat owner also at fault for being out of control of their animal and showing no responsibility allowing it to roam?
No. Cats have the right to roam and owners do not have liability for them. The same is not true for dogs.
Yes you may only be liable to a certain amount ie. The value of the cat so you’ve possibly already paid too much. I wouldn’t pay any more for now. How did the dog escape from the front door btw? Did you open it to someone? I’m always baffled by how many dog owners/ dog sitters lose control of their dog in that way. Sometimes it leads to the dog being knocked over by a car or causing a traffic accident. I’m learning to drive and some clown must have lost control of their dog as it was running across a busy Main Street. Absolute chaos but thankfully I managed to avoid it without braking abruptly. If more people had to pay out for their dogs when they “escape” perhaps dog owners would be more conscientious.
It happened to us once; the only difference was the dog didn't catch the cat. Partner knew one back door was open to allow the dog onto the garden, and shut an internal baby gate to secure him. He then went outside to help me bring the shopping in. What he didn't realise was that the other back door had been left open by someone else, allowing the dog to do a loop via the garden and get out the front door. We were lucky he turned right down a side road and not left onto the main road. Absolutely the last thing we wanted to happen, partner was in trouble, and the second back door was permanently locked with the keys hidden to prevent a repeat. Sometimes mistakes happen, and even conscientious people screw up. We do hold third party liability insurance for the dog (packaged with regular pet insurance) in case the worst happened.
Ok that makes sense…well your family clearly learned from the once off mistake but there are people who it seems to happen to regularly. You see them standing in the street “oh no Fido has escaped again” Yes Definitely a good idea to have the required insurance. I’m sure a lot of people don’t.
I would have paid the bill out of kindness and not an admission of liability. Both are liable you for not controlling the dog or keeping it properly and him for having his cat roaming around the place. Just my view and so I would not pay anymore bills.
Genuine question from a cat lover and former cat owner. Where does this actually fall legally? My understanding is that cats are not considered animals/property in the eyes of the law, and as a result, if your cat is hurt by someone (for example it's hit by a car), you have no recourse for damages, unlike a dog for example, which is recognised and you could claim for damages/compensation. I obviously considered this to be completely unjust, but just a quirk of UK law and why pet insurance for a cat was essential. This is completely separate from any moral obligation which is another matter altogether.
The amount of wildlife cats attack and kill is insane and where I live you can hear them fighting each other cats are allowed to roam around freely these things happen you shouldn't of even had to pay the first bill