Cat fight in Sutton over who owns lost moggy

8:00am Thursday 19th July 2012 in News Exclusive By Matt Watts

Lauren Terry wants her family cat back Lauren Terry wants her family cat back

A feud over ownership of a lost-and-found family moggy could leave two pet lovers having a catfight in court.

Lauren Terry, 18, of Sutton, is considering taking legal action to reclaim her cat Podge, which was rehomed by the RSPCA after being picked up as a stray after going missing from near her family home.

Her two-year-old tom has been renamed as Mr Darcy, and is living with a new owner, who has refused to give him back.

It has left the two cat lovers on a collision course for county court, if they cannot agree who should look after him.

Miss Terry, who is hoping to study law at university this September, states under English Law that a cat is property, and only ceases to be if you give the rights away.

But the new owner can claim the RSPCA takes on the ownership once a cat is ruled as stray, and passes on that ownership when the cat is rehomed.

The new owner has made it clear to the animal charity they do not want to give up the pet, after it made a strong bond with their other cat.

A RSPCA spokesman said: "Both can claim a legal right to the cat and if they cannot settle it between them, it will be a matter for the courts."

Miss Terry said: "I did everything I could to look for Podge when he went missing.

"To be told I can't not have him back is awful."

"We want to make a public appeal to whoever him to please return him to his loving, family home where he is sorely missed."

Podge went missing around mid-march. Miss Terry, a former student put up posters around her local area.

She also followed the advice on the RSPCA's website, reporting the animal missing, checking their lost pet register; putting up posters and contacting local animal welfare centres and vets in nearby and surrounding areas.

But her search turned up nothing. It was only checking the RSPCA website for rehomed strays that she found a photo of Podge.

An RSPCA spokesman said: "Clearly, the local branch rehomed the cat in good faith but if Lauren can prove ownership of the cat then we can go back to the adopters and again ask them to return the cat to the original owner.

"This is a very sad situation, but the RSPCA does find loving new homes for more than 34,000 animals a year and situations like this are thankfully extremely rare."

Comments(43)

sfocata says...
9:26am Thu 19 Jul 12

Horrible situation... I really feel for Lauren, who is losing out despite doing nothing wrong. We lost a cat nearly three years ago, and I've often pondered scenarios like this.

If we found he was living with a caring family now, it'd be fine... if anything, it'd be more unfair to him to take him back and force him to adapt to the siblings he's long forgotten. But for the first few months, when the cat's old home would still be familiar, it's a nightmare situation.

In the end, I think the most pragmatic solution would be for Lauren to have her cat back. The new owners will be disappointed, but they don't have quite the emotional investment. The RSPCA ought to have a basic rule-of-thumb guideline for this sort of thing... 6 or 9 months, maybe?

Report this post »

Crease2000 says...
10:50am Thu 19 Jul 12

What a very difficult situation when all procedures have been followed properly. I'm inclined to think that because Lauren hadn't had the cat chipped, she didn't demonstrate the full responsibility that could have secured her case in this matter. I think that Mr Darcy should stay with his new owner.

Report this post »

sfocata says...
11:01am Thu 19 Jul 12

Good point - hadn't occurred to me about the lack of chip.

Report this post »

Krissi says...
2:31pm Thu 19 Jul 12

well we had a 'stray' living on our allotment- I fell in love with him and was hoping I could take him home- but he was chipped- and a friend of mine has a cat sanctuary so could read it he was returned to his family that afternoon- turned out he'd been missing 6 months- he'd only been with us around 2, many tears were shed- but he had a family who loved him- and if ever I had another cat- or dog, or any other creature which could escape maybe a bird even I would have it chipped- at least then I would know what has happened to it as I believe even council workers who remove casualties from road accidents have the ability to scan them so you would find out

Report this post »

Angela M says...
2:52pm Thu 19 Jul 12

It's sad for the first owner - but at least the cat wins either way. If he's happy where he is, it could be unfair to move him.

The only way to avoid this is to get your cat micro-chipped. As it's too late for that, there's only one solution:
CAT FIGHHHHHHT!

Report this post »

I hope not says...
3:24pm Thu 19 Jul 12

Simple answer, chip your cat in future. I'm in two minds as to who the cat should live with as I sympathise with both sides. It's no one's fault to be honest, just an unfortunate set of circumstances. However, if the cat is happy where it is, perhaps it should be allowed to stay . . . . the new owner is now going to have to fork out legal fees to defend a case that is not their fault :-(

Report this post »

piglet2011 says...
6:34pm Thu 19 Jul 12

Lauren is clearly an irresponsible teenager because she failed to get the cat chipped which would have solved this issue.

The cat should remain in its new home.

Presumably as Lauren is in receipt of benefits she is looking at Legal Aid funding for her case?

Report this post »

piglet2011 says...
6:34pm Thu 19 Jul 12

Lauren is clearly an irresponsible teenager because she failed to get the cat chipped which would have solved this issue.

The cat should remain in its new home.

Presumably as Lauren is in receipt of benefits she is looking at Legal Aid funding for her case?

Report this post »

Crease2000 says...
6:43pm Thu 19 Jul 12

I wouldn't say that she's irresponsible. Lots of people probably overlook the fact that people can get their pets chipped. It would've made things easier, that's all.

I don't think that her personal/financial situation comes into this. She clearly loved the cat dearly to want to fight to get it back.

Report this post »

LaurenBabiiieee says...
7:03pm Thu 19 Jul 12

I am the owner of the cat - Lauren.
I am not an irresponsible teenager and am certainly not claiming benefits. I work full time at the moment for your your information - how dare people be so judgemental.
It happened to be that podge was in fact a house cat until the end of last year and yes it may have been a mistake on mine and my mums behalf however I don't think this is a reason to not be able to have my cat back as it does not mean I love him any less.
I clearly would not go to all this trouble to get him back if I didn't care.

Report this post »

Shaymarie123 says...
7:22pm Thu 19 Jul 12

Piglet2011;
You cannot say that Lauren is an irresponsible teenager. For one; you do not know her, for two; 18 makes you an adult.
Also to suggest she is claiming benefits is disgusting, just because she's a "teenager" as you put it. Finances has nothing to do with the love Lauren has with her cat Podge.
If she was irresponsible as you say, surely she wouldn't be responsible enough to go through all this and even take the legal route.
I believe that the cat Podge should be returned to its rightful owner; Lauren. Especially if she can prove she bought the cat. Podge "Mr Darcy" has only been with the new owners for a short period of time, however has been brought up by Lauren. It's like stealing someone's baby/family member.
The RSPCA should have contacted Lauren too, when a familiar cat had been taken in.
The dispute about the microchip should end as Lauren has clearly stated that Podge was a house cat therefore did not need to be chipped at the time. Just because the cat was not chipped does not mean Lauren and her family didn't love/care about the cat. If they didn't, why would they take this so far?
Think about it.

Report this post »

Crease2000 says...
7:45pm Thu 19 Jul 12

I believe that the rightful owner is now the new owner. He or she has adopted the cat legitimately through the correct channels and must've chosen the cat because they felt the love for it.

The micro-chipping argument is valid because even though it was a house cat, there was a potential for it to get outside. And. . . . oh look what happened! :o)

Report this post »

Michael Pantlin says...
9:20pm Thu 19 Jul 12

The law may call a cat property but in reality cats are their own masters and if they decide to move on there's no stopping them.

Report this post »

LaurenBabiiieee says...
9:29pm Thu 19 Jul 12

A cat can't choose to come back home if someone isn't letting them. If you were to put him in a room with his owner (me) and the 'adopter' - there would be no doubt in who he would choose to go with.
He simply got lost and hasn't been able to choose to come home.

Report this post »

hollielm says...
10:42pm Thu 19 Jul 12

As the owner of a cat myself i understand how Lauren must be feeling. I find it sickening that someone could be so heartless as to not give a poor lost cat back to its rightful owner. I agree with the previous comments stating that weather podge was chipped or not it doesnt effect how much lauren clearly loved her dear cat. If people are going to expect that lauren is on benefits and is short for money how could they expect her to pay to have her cat chipped anyway?

Report this post »

sfocata says...
10:54pm Thu 19 Jul 12

piglet2011 - There was a perfectly reasonable adult discussion going on, without the need for the reasoning of an eight-year-old. Thanks for that.

Report this post »

Crease2000 says...
10:55pm Thu 19 Jul 12

The Blue Cross or the PDSA do it for free, or at least for a small donation. It doesn't take much effort for a responsible owner? :o)

Report this post »

LaurenBabiiieee says...
11:35pm Thu 19 Jul 12

They only do it for free if your claiming benefits. Which as clearly stated before I am certainly not.

Report this post »

Crease2000 says...
11:48pm Thu 19 Jul 12

So, why didn't you have your cat chipped then? Moving home for cats can be very distressing to them. What is your point?

You had a house cat, it got out. He was fortunately picked up by the RSPCA who looked after him and re-homed him. Did it not even occur to you to pop a collar on him with a phone number?

Report this post »

LaurenBabiiieee says...
11:53pm Thu 19 Jul 12

Because I was a student - and could not afford to pay out £30 for a microchip on both of my cats at the time.
The point of the article is not to do with a microchip - the point is I registered him as lost with the RSPCA and was told I would be contacted if a cat matching the description was found. Unfortunately I wasn't contacted when he was found.
Anyhow. The cat was not microchipped - which I have already stated was a mistake, and I am appealing to get my cat back to his loving home.

Report this post »

Crease2000 says...
12:07am Fri 20 Jul 12

I'm sorry, but how could you expect the RSPCA to contact you when they had no contact details or anything to identify your cat?

This whole process must've taken longer than a couple of days. I'm a cat lover and I would be distraught in your situation. However, someone has come along, adopted your cat and loves him so much that they don't want to give him back.

Take it from a law graduate. You don't stand a chance. Sorry.

Report this post »

LaurenBabiiieee says...
12:14am Fri 20 Jul 12

I reported the cat missing with an exact description including my address; excetra which goes on a national database. - I was also told if a cat matching the description was found in the area I would be contacted The cat was found round the corner from my house - and somewhere along the line some information was not matched up.
I appreciate your opinion but there have been similar cases and the original owners have in fact got their cat back.
So I certainly will not stop persuing the matter.

Report this post »

Crease2000 says...
12:22am Fri 20 Jul 12

You're welcome and I wish you the best with your avocation :o)

Report this post »

LaurenBabiiieee says...
1:27am Fri 20 Jul 12

Thankyou.

Report this post »

surrey-L says...
9:56am Fri 20 Jul 12

i wish you all the luck in the world!
If i was in your position i would be absolutely heartbroken!

Is there no option of shared custody? As silly as it sounds? That way everyones a winner.

Report this post »

I hope not says...
2:26pm Fri 20 Jul 12

I am really sorry that you have lost him Lauren, but I do not think pursuing it through legal channels is fair on the people that have him, they haven't done anything wrong and if you do take it further, then they will have to pay to defend themselves, when in actual fact what has happened is an error. . . a heartbreaking one at that . . the RSPCA rescue thousands of animals each year and sometimes mistakes DO happen. I do feel for you, but I don't agree with cats not being allowed to roam freely (Michael Pantlin - spot on) and if you could not afford the £30 to chip him, would you have been able to afford the hundreds of pounds on vet bills if he had been hit by a car ? If you could not afford to do that, could you genuinely afforded to keep him if anything went wrong ? Sorry, I am playing devil's advocate and I do not mean to add to your pain, but I really do feel that he should be left with his new owners now and you should remember the great time you had with him and close that chapter in your life. The new owners should not be made to suffer for this mistake either . . .

Report this post »

Caris1301 says...
9:11am Sat 21 Jul 12

It's a heartrending situation to be in, and I feel for both Lauren and the new owner... Having had a cat go missing permanently (both current cats are now chipped, and only let out under supervision!) I'd give my eye teeth to know that she was safe and with a loving family, rather than wondering even now, 7 years later, what her fate was. I think if I were in Lauren's shoes, I'd be gracious and accept the outcome - and look to rehome another cat from the RSPCA. Goodness knows, there are enough in need of a furever home...

Report this post »

TheEverardedbutt says...
1:11pm Sat 21 Jul 12

Angela M wrote:
It's sad for the first owner - but at least the cat wins either way. If he's happy where he is, it could be unfair to move him.

The only way to avoid this is to get your cat micro-chipped. As it's too late for that, there's only one solution:
CAT FIGHHHHHHT!
or do a Damien Hurst, cut the cat in two, preserve in formaldehyde and give both women a half each.
They both get to keep the cat and get a modern art installation into the bargain.
Win Win!!!


In all seriousness though, a cat chooses its owner not the other way round.
It would appear that by the cat disappearing on the first owner it has done exactly that.

Report this post »

Whatyousaying says...
1:47pm Sat 21 Jul 12

Stop hating on lauren just coz she's a teenager if she wasn't a responsible owner she wouldn't be going threw so much trouble to get her poor cat bk I hope this problem is resolved for you and you dnt have to explain yourself to other people : )

Report this post »

Crease2000 says...
2:22pm Sat 21 Jul 12

No-one is hating on Lauren? It's a logical discussion. Next time you are in class, please ask your English teacher to clarify the difference between the words "threw" and "through". Perhaps afterwards you can come back and join the grown-ups without looking like an idiot :o)

Report this post »

piglet2011 says...
3:25pm Sat 21 Jul 12

Shaymarie123 wrote:
Piglet2011;
You cannot say that Lauren is an irresponsible teenager. For one; you do not know her, for two; 18 makes you an adult.
Also to suggest she is claiming benefits is disgusting, just because she's a "teenager" as you put it. Finances has nothing to do with the love Lauren has with her cat Podge.
If she was irresponsible as you say, surely she wouldn't be responsible enough to go through all this and even take the legal route.
I believe that the cat Podge should be returned to its rightful owner; Lauren. Especially if she can prove she bought the cat. Podge "Mr Darcy" has only been with the new owners for a short period of time, however has been brought up by Lauren. It's like stealing someone's baby/family member.
The RSPCA should have contacted Lauren too, when a familiar cat had been taken in.
The dispute about the microchip should end as Lauren has clearly stated that Podge was a house cat therefore did not need to be chipped at the time. Just because the cat was not chipped does not mean Lauren and her family didn't love/care about the cat. If they didn't, why would they take this so far?
Think about it.
So who is paying the legal fees?

Lauren or the Legal Aid coffers?

Answers on a postcard me thinks.

Report this post »

piglet2011 says...
3:28pm Sat 21 Jul 12

I hope not wrote:
I am really sorry that you have lost him Lauren, but I do not think pursuing it through legal channels is fair on the people that have him, they haven't done anything wrong and if you do take it further, then they will have to pay to defend themselves, when in actual fact what has happened is an error. . . a heartbreaking one at that . . the RSPCA rescue thousands of animals each year and sometimes mistakes DO happen. I do feel for you, but I don't agree with cats not being allowed to roam freely (Michael Pantlin - spot on) and if you could not afford the £30 to chip him, would you have been able to afford the hundreds of pounds on vet bills if he had been hit by a car ? If you could not afford to do that, could you genuinely afforded to keep him if anything went wrong ? Sorry, I am playing devil's advocate and I do not mean to add to your pain, but I really do feel that he should be left with his new owners now and you should remember the great time you had with him and close that chapter in your life. The new owners should not be made to suffer for this mistake either . . .
If you can't afford the vet you can't afford the pet.

Lauren was too lazy and greedy to get her cat chipped so she is irresponsible and should not be given a teddy bear to look after let alone a sentient being!

Report this post »

piglet2011 says...
3:29pm Sat 21 Jul 12

sfocata wrote:
Good point - hadn't occurred to me about the lack of chip.
A chip would have solved the problem but Lauren decided going to the papers would be more beneficial to oil her ego.

Silly woman.

Report this post »

LaurenBabiiieee says...
5:43pm Sat 21 Jul 12

You are seriously giving the reasoning of an 8 year old. Vet bills are covered by insurance.
If you have nothing sensible to write then don't write it.
Your simply trying to get thrills out of being a highly ridiculously opinionated person.
Keep your nasty comments to yourself.

Report this post »

sfocata says...
6:34pm Sat 21 Jul 12

I think you can safely ignore the troll, Lauren :)

Report this post »

Shaymarie123 says...
6:51pm Sat 21 Jul 12

I'm getting the impression that piglet is the new car owner or has something to do with them.
If not theyre just a horrible human being who judges a book by its cover.

Lauren's age, job, finances etc has nothing to do with this.

If she was a little child everyone would feel sorry for her, just because she is a teenage now all of a sudden she's irresponsible ?!
Stop being so stereotypical.

Lauren; just ignore the negativity. You love your cat, you fight for it :)

Report this post »

JPR says...
7:01am Sun 22 Jul 12

Lauren, please fight for your cat it desserves it.

Report this post »

TheEverardedbutt says...
9:37am Sun 22 Jul 12

LaurenBabiiieee wrote:
You are seriously giving the reasoning of an 8 year old. Vet bills are covered by insurance.
If you have nothing sensible to write then don't write it.
Your simply trying to get thrills out of being a highly ridiculously opinionated person.
Keep your nasty comments to yourself.
If your vet bills were covered by insurance then the cat would have been required to be micro chipped (Often in return for a sizeable discount)
I suspect you had no insurance and now know you have no chance of getting your cat back and are simply trying to use the papers to shame the new owners into handing the cat back.

Micro Chipping has always been the case with any animal I have insured (there have been a few, believe me)

As I have said before a cat chooses its owners not the other way round, if the cat was truly happy then it would have found it way back to you (As many cats have done in the past when displaced from the owners they clearly had some affection for) or not disappeared in the first place.
It looks to me like the cat didn't want to stay with you and disappeared at the first available opportunity

You made the mistake in not micro chipping your pet. The excuse that it was an indoor cat does not wash, a cat can get out of a letterbox if it so desires.
A cat is notoriously difficult to keep indoors and if anything this incident will ensure you microchip any future pet to avoid such a situation occurring again!

Report this post »

TheEverardedbutt says...
9:44am Sun 22 Jul 12

LaurenBabiiieee wrote:
They only do it for free if your claiming benefits. Which as clearly stated before I am certainly not.
The PDSA and RSPCA run regular events where anyone (regardless of benefit entitlement) can get their pet chipped for a tenner. You have no excuse for not having your pet micro chipped.
One more thing trying to come across as intelligent and erudite while posting under the moniker LaurenBabiiieee betrays that pretence.

Report this post »

piglet2011 says...
10:33am Sun 22 Jul 12

sfocata wrote:
piglet2011 - There was a perfectly reasonable adult discussion going on, without the need for the reasoning of an eight-year-old. Thanks for that.
An 18 year old who is lacking attention should have been smacked with a slipper when she was younger.

Report this post »

emelem says...
11:06am Sun 22 Jul 12

should have had a chip.

study all the law you want, animals are not property or possessions.

let it go.

Report this post »

sfocata says...
12:03pm Sun 22 Jul 12

TheEverardedbutt wrote:
LaurenBabiiieee wrote:
They only do it for free if your claiming benefits. Which as clearly stated before I am certainly not.
The PDSA and RSPCA run regular events where anyone (regardless of benefit entitlement) can get their pet chipped for a tenner. You have no excuse for not having your pet micro chipped.
One more thing trying to come across as intelligent and erudite while posting under the moniker LaurenBabiiieee betrays that pretence.
Where was the pretence? Where does a jokey nickname make any claims on the actual person behind it? Where does Lauren claim to be anything but an 18-year-old student?

Report this post »

emsy2000 says...
10:16am Mon 23 Jul 12

I really feel for Lauren, I have two cats and would be frantic if one went missing.
However, I have one cat who is a house cat due to health reasons and I still had her chipped because you never know when they may escape. Even more reason to get them chipped as if they are a house cat and escape they are unlikely to have any outdoor skills or find their way back!
The RSPCA didn't do anything wrong, they were just trying to re-home what they believed was a 'stray' cat, and the new owners have not done anything wrong.
Although, as I said before, I feel sorry for Lauren, I think this is just a very unlucky situation for her and don't think the courts will rule in her favour...
Hopefully she can take comfort in the fact that Podge was lucky when he went missing and that he was found and rehomed to a family who love him. I'm sure she would be more upset to think he was still out there, not knowing what happened to him, thinking he may have been run over or was wandering around without a home...

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree