[Jemma M]

My cat was 15 and not very well he had a tumour but was on medication, he was'nt in any pain as we know when he was, he would cry alot if he was. One night he went out to do cats business but did'nt come home my nan was frantic with worry thinking he had gone somewhere to die. Well in fact a woman who constantly fed him gravy (he was only allowed to eat dried food) took him in knowing he lived in the area if she just asked around she would've found the owner, or would've come home when my nan called him. anyway she thought he might've been chucked out and called cat protection who took him to a vet to get seen to. They never bothered to check that he had a hip with our name and address on it, so which we wouldve told him that he was on medication. So the vet put him to sleep. My nan is devastated. I there any legal action i can take against both of these people for neglection or something?
Also they tell us to get our animals chipped well why bother when they dont check them!

[catloverme123]

ultimately, this would never have happened if this cat was inside your house, so I don't think that you really have a leg to stand on with this.

[spongebobrogers]

Should have been on a leash, sorry.

[Amykins]

I'm stunned that you're a "top contributor", Sponge, when that's the only advice you have to offer. You should be ashamed. On a leash, indeed. It's an elderly cat, not a terrier, and it's clear that Jemma loved the cat very much.

Granted, it's always a risk when you have a cat that is indoor/outdoor, especially at that age, and make that double when they have a medical problem that requires them to be on daily medications. If the vet did in fact have access to a scanner, then they are negligent and sure, you could sue them. Doesn't mean you'd win, but I've heard of much more frivolous lawsuits than that. Another issue is, sometimes the microchips migrate to another part of the body, and most vets only scan the back, where the chip is implanted, and won't get a reading if the chip has moved to, say, the thigh or chest area.

I'm sure you're grieving and I don't mean this to be admonishing in any way, but my cats are also chipped, AND they're indoor only, but I still have them both wear collars with i.d. in case one should ever get out, if a naive little old lady finds him, she'd see that he had a collar on and probably wouldn't feed him gravy, that's for sure.

What I would do is confront the woman and gently talk to her, telling her that he was your cat and that she should have asked around to see if he had an owner (a.k.a. you) before taking it to the vet and having him put down. Anyone would be able to see that your cat was probably well-fed and taken care of, and I think she at least owes you an apology, and she should learn that although she had the best of intentions, she needs to think twice next time she decides to take in a pet when she's not sure if it's really a stray or not.

[JME]

If your cat was not wearing identification, she did what she was legally supposed to do. She found a stray animal and turned it into a local vet, animal control, or humane society. If she had rehomed the animal without looking for the owner, that would be a different story. But she didn't, she surrendered it to an appropriate party.

Not all vets are required to scan for chips.

If your cat was not wearing a collar, I don't believe you have much recourse. It's actually illegal in most counties to have a pet roaming without identification. You can and will get fined for it in my city.

I'm really sorry for your loss. Unfortunately I don't believe there's much you can legally do.

[Bozema]

Well the woman obviously lied to cat protection if she knew who you were. And yes, they should have checked for a chip - most agencies have a policy to always scan every animal.

The issue would be with the woman and with cat protection (not the individual vet). But it would only cover replacement cost of your cat, since that's all the law provides for.