Thursday 19 May 2016

Why Can’t Bailiffs Recover The Costs?

Police were called at 8.55am on Friday November 20 when a light brown dog was allegedly thrown from the back of a fourth floor Steamer Street flat into Island Road on Barrow Island.
The dog, a former rescue dog called Clyde, suffered internal and chest injuries and was later taken to Grove Vets in Rawlinson Street where he was treated and spent a number of days.
Clyde was later taken to kennels in another part of Cumbria while police investigated the incident.
And initially, it seemed that this case was progressing:
A 30-year-old man from Barrow was arrested on suspicion of animal cruelty. He was then further arrested on suspicion of an offence under the Dangerous Dog Act, which was later withdrawn.
Police have since confirmed to the Evening Mail that the man will face no further action in connection with the alleged incident and because of this, he was given 28 days to claim the dog back.
Naturally, he didn’t.
That time period has now lapsed and after receiving no response from the owner, police have said that Clyde will now be rehomed by an animal charity.
Which is good news for the animal, but not so much for the taxpayer:
The Evening Mail understands Cumbria Police has paid for all costs associated with Clyde's care at Grove Vets.
Actually, unless the station had a whip-round, it means that we – the taxpayer – did.

Why has the cost of this animal’s treatment not been recovered from its owner? The usual answer is ‘because he doesn’t have any money’. But he must have something. Remove it, sell it, and put whatever it fetches to the bill.


Anonymous said...

I would suggest that he has a car, a latest model mobile phone, and one of those mega huge TV's that only people on benefits can afford to buy. Remove one or all of them and he might reconsider his actions. Doubt it though.

Greencoat said...

If he can’t pay in money or goods this scumbag should be put to hard manual work for 3 months on minimal rations. Any complaints or backchat adds on another week.

Sgt Albert Hall said...

Seems like a case for "restorative justice" as the PC Police like to call it. Chuck the twat out his fourth floor window on his head.

Ted Treen said...

Sgt Hall is spot-on.

JuliaM said...

"Remove one or all of them and he might reconsider his actions. Doubt it though."

I've got a better idea. Pitch him out of a window.

"...hard manual work for 3 months on minimal rations."

It's against 'elfinsafety, innit?

"Seems like a case for "restorative justice" as the PC Police like to call it. "

Great minds, Sgt, great minds... ;)

"Sgt Hall is spot-on."

He is indeed.

Bloke in Germany said...

Well, the costs aren't (initially) recoverable from the owner, they are recoverable from the person responsible for the damage. And if the cops don't have enough evidence to press charges, we will never find out who that is. To the extent the costs are recoverable from the owner, I guess you could say the former owner abandoned ownership by throwing said property out of the window. At which point said property is without an owner thus no costs are recoverable.

So, good luck in court with all of this - and as you say, if the guy you accuse has no recoverable assets anyway (absent insolvency the law doesn't leave people without their means of communication and transport), no point in bothering. Greencoat's suggestion of indentured servitude isn't (largely rightly, obviously somewhat wrongly) an option under English law (unless you are incarcerated). The lawyers and judges will dine out in style on it (mostly at the taxpayer's expense), but the innocent party (the dog) won't.