Whose dog

Couple split after 5 years, own 3 dogs between them.
Usual things like debts, mortgage etc but the issue is the dogs.
One is being rehomed and is the lucky one, the other two are the worry. They are still with one partner but are living in one room, have no exercise or stimulation. The other partner wants to take one of the dogs and has more time, land for dog to run and be happy but this is where the arguments start. Although they are their dogs they are chipped to one owner and this is the issue, does the person they are chipped to have legal right.

From what I remember about a thread about microchips. The person named on the microchip actually only owns the microchip - I think

Are they KC registered?

No they are crossbreeds, my son bought them but when they were microchipped his partner took them to be done and just put her name on simply because she took them, now its causing issues because who has the right to them.

Shame being registered with KC think it would have been easier to sort out.

Not sure on the microchip side of things - sorry.

Hope it gets resolved and whatever is best for the dogs!
xx

Gosh, interesting question.

Don't have any legal knowledge of this, but I would have thought that the chipping might be a good indication of ownership.

However, aren't dogs classed as chattels? If so, even if they did technically belong to one of the partners, wouldn't the other still have rights just as anything else that either one of them may own 'individually' (e.g. if one had bought the 3 piece suite, does it automatically follow that that person is the one to keep it)?

I believe there is a solicitor that specialises in dog related law? I heard of him through his work helping owners where dogs have been caught by the DDA, but can't remember his name, though someone else might be able to tell you - or you could try googling.

I know its an expense, but would be worth it if your son wants the dog(s) back - perhaps just being able to quote the relevent law would be enough to put his ex off fighting it.

what a shame,seeing there 2 dogs left they should be split,never mind the chip.If only dogs could talk it would make it alot easier.I would assume the person whom chipped the dog would be the owner but whose name is their injections in.If it is your sons this would be great as he could explain he had to work the day they got chipped.But it would be easier if both had one each.Lets hope it works out right personally i would wait till the dogs were walked shout on the one i wanted and keep it.What can the other person do take your son to court,can she afford the price of the court fees as i dont think you can get legal aid for this kind of case.Good luck.

My ex and I had this fight over our birds. In the end, we kept one each, although both birds were registered in my name, and I was the one who did all the vet appointments, bought their feed, etc. When we registered the owl, I jokingly said to my ex that if we ever split, he couldn't have her, as there was masses of red tape to get through.
My ex was apparently well within his rights to take me to court for both birds and I was told that there was no reason at all why he shouldn't win although you cannot get Legal Aid for this, so my ex would have had to pay whatever the court fees are.

In the end, it was settled between us because he caught me on a bad day and harrassed me until I just told him to take one of the birds and f%$8 off. So I've no idea how it works in a courtroom situation to prove ownership.

I hope that a resolution presents itself for the dogs. It's such an awful situation to be in, especially if the person they are with can't give them the exercise and mental stimulation that they need.

The solicitor is Trevor Cooper. I would get some advice.

http://www.doglaw.co.uk/

If chipping is proof of ownership then Cheshire Dog's home is still Ben's owner. We are still waiting for it to be altered (6months)
I think you own the chip not the dog