Last edited by shri; 22-05-2010 at 10:14 AM. Reason: Removing the quote... I'd rather not have comments from other sites posted here....
Terence was't in court, the SCMP reporter was and the SCMP reporter recorded the proceedings accurately. Yes, the defendents had requested an adjournment, it had been turned down and they had been notified. They were aware of the court date and chose not to turn up.
The judgement was that the defendent was negligent and in breach of contract.
Stacey is IPATA's agent in HK. If anyone thinks that is a conflict of interest due to the fact that she runs pet boarding / relocation services they should take that up with IPATA's head office in the US. The contact details can easily be found on IPATA's website. Stacey is not the person who makes the judgement on complaints. That is handled in the US. This can be verified with IPATA head office.
If any customer has an issue with an IPATA member they should contact the head office with details. They will only take complaints from the customers themselves.
If anyone feels that they have been slandered or otherwise treated in breach of the law they should be taking legal action. We are lucky to have a great legal system in HK.
Guys, why are you going after Ferndale and Stacey here? (I had heard rumors of the alleged incident in the past and it was in no way similar to what Relopet did AND Ferndale took full responsibility from the beginning...) But, what does that have to do with what Relopet did? Not sure who this Terence guy is, but his notes don't accurately summarize the small claims court findings (or proceedings - he thinks maybe the court didn't "notice" the change request for change of date, are you kidding me? The request was filed with the court clerk and turned down with a doc signed by the court!) and by his own admission he is not legally trained. A customer asks you to do something that doesn't jive with good business practices (and its not clear at all that Claire asked for the dog's crate to be opened in an unsecure area!) the business can perfectly easily (and nicely) decline the request. I can't imagine a dog owner who would be upest if they were told by a pet relocation company ' we're sorry, but we didn't put the toy in the dog's crate because it was unsafe (area was unsecure, dog looked unsettled, whatever) to do so at the time.' Bottom line was that these Relopet guys exercised very poor judgment, with sad consequences, and a small claims court did find them to be legally responsible.
Last edited by hello_there; 21-05-2010 at 10:09 AM.
Can we just put this issue to rest ...
I'd rather have this dirty linen washed somewhere else, as I have little or no desire to get involved in what Hemlock calls the canine cults (I know.. I've been at the receiving end of their angry emails more than once..).