CharityVoice.co.uk|Giving charities a voice

What follows is my personal and independent review and experience of what happened to David and Heather when they fostered a Dog with the Blue Cross. It is my personal opinion based on the involvement I have had throughout this process. It is not hearsay, it is based on facts and hard evidence that I have seen, most of which has already been presented on the main story located here. I have worked for 10 years assisting charities with a variety of duties including dog walking, fund raising, adverting and a variety of technical projects which is how I met David and Heather.

As they were not experienced dog trainers, they requested assistance from the Blue Cross as they had been promised training. After many broken promises, David and Heather contacted the fostering project development officer (Denise Young) insisting that they required the training they had been promised. The only available trainer that the Blue Cross had in the area had been fired because they didn’t like her attitude. Again it was promised that as soon as a new trainer was appointed, they would be able to talk to the trainer. Again nothing happened and again they contacted the fostering project development officer (Denise Young) only to find that the Blue Cross had re-hired the trainer they had just fired.

The problem with the trainer was that she refused to offer any advice over the phone and would only assist with training in person during Monday to Friday while her children were at school as she claimed she could not find a babysitter.

Without warning, Denise Young went on holiday but first contacted the local coordinator and instructed her to get the fostered dog transferred to a Blue Cross kennel before she returned from holiday. David and Heather were furious that this had been done behind their back and they contacted the Blue Cross head office.

The Blue Cross held a meeting with Denise Young when she returned from her holiday and she told them that she had told David and Heather to arrange their own training and could not understand why they had not done this and continued to request training. This was an out and out lie. David and Heather not been told to arrange their own training.

When I heard about this I had assumed it was a case of one rotten apple within the charity who was lying to save her job and integrity within the project. I already knew a lot about the Blue Cross and was confidant that they would resolve this problem quickly and fairly.

Instead the Blue Cross set up a sting operation. They invited David, Heather and their fostered dog for one day of training. What was kept secret was that the whole thing was a farce. Before they even arrived at the training, the Blue Cross had already arranged storage and transfer of the fostered dog to their main kennels.

After a very short training exercise where David and Heather learned all they had been asking for since the start and the fostered dog had shown signs of improvement, they were taken inside and told that they should hand over the dog.

Denise Young offered the opportunity for David and Heather to adopt the dog. All they would need to do is complete the paperwork, no checks would need to be done at all as they had already been assessed as foster carers.

David asked if they could have time to think about it. Denise Young wanted them to make the decision in the car park giving them only 20 minutes to decide. David asked for extra time as it was no small decision. There was a lot to check and confirm before David and Heather could make their decision. The behaviorist who attended the training session agreed with David and suggested one week to think about it. Denise refused and offered a maximum of 12 hours.

During this 12 hour period, David and Heather were unable to contact the Blue Cross head office as the people they needed to talk to were not at work during the weekend. There was also the added problem that most businesses David and Heather needed to contact to confirm training prices, food costs, bedding and all the other accessories that would be required were closed during the weekend.

David made the decision that he would do nothing until he could talk to the person who had arranged the sting operation so that he could find out why this had been done and why they had not been kept informed.

On Monday David talked to the Blue Cross head office and they confirmed that they had planned the whole thing, however they refused to accept that it was done behind their backs (despite the fact that it was not done in front of them, nor had they even been informed of it). They demanded that the Dog be transferred on Tuesday morning and refused to provide any more time even though their own behaviorist had advised one week.

This gave David and Heather just one business day to gather all the information they needed to decide if they could properly afford to keep the dog and provide everything that the dog could possibly need. It simply could not be done in the one available business day.

Again the Blue Cross refused to extend the deadline despite the recommendation of the behaviorist. The Blue Cross confirmed that if David and Heather could adopt the dog, all they would need to do is complete the required paperwork and would not need to be assessed as they had already been assessed.

By the time Tuesday morning came, David and Heather had been unable to gather all the of the information required to make the decision of adopting the dog. Although all they wanted to do was adopt the dog, they understood that it was a big decision that should not be taken lightly. The Blue Cross on the other hand had only offered 20 minutes to 12 hours for the decision to be made.

Heartrendingly, David and Heather handed over the dog on Tuesday morning. By Tuesday evening, they finally had all the information they needed to make a decisive decision and could confirm that by adopting the dog, they could afford and obtain everything they needed to make her a permanent part of their family. They called the Blue Cross who gave a flat out “NO”. They argued the decision based on what they had been told in the past, but the Head of Companion Welfare refused to reply to their e-mails. Undeterred, they contacted the CEO of the Blue Cross who finally agreed that she would let David and Heather have first refusal after they had assessed the dog.

The dogs behavior deteriorated dramatically as soon as she was put in a kennel. David had endlessly warned the Blue Cross about this, but they had refused to listen to him demanding that kenneling the dog was in the dogs best interests. (ask your local vet if a home or kennel is the best place for a dog during training)

Finally, David and Heather were told that they would need to be put through an assessment to make sure they could look after and handle the dog despite everything that the Blue Cross had previously said about not needing an assessment.

The assessment day arrived. David and Heather traveled to the opposite end of the country for the assessment. The Blue Cross CEO, Press Officer, Kennel Manager, Handler and Behaviorist attended the assessment.

In my view, the “review” process was a complete sham. The blue cross said that they would be assessed like anyone who tries to adopt an animal, but it is hard to believe that the Press Officer, CEO, Kennel Manager, Handler and a hired “independent” behaviorist is used for every single adoption application they process.

Before the assessment began, they read the dogs 7 day report which covers their review of her over the first 7 days. Both David and Heather were deeply shocked by the serious problems the dog had produced as soon as she was in the kennel. Over the 7 days her behavior had deteriorated and she currently had a lot more problems than she had ever had when living with David and Heather. I found it very hard to understand why they thought that putting a dog in a kennel and away from the home that she had lived for most of her life was the best thing for the dog. If this were true, it would completely defeat the whole point of adopting the dogs. Why not just keep them locked up in a kennel if that is better for them than a home they have known for most of their life.

Among the things that the dog was no longer good with were groups of people and other dogs. She had never been good with a gentle leader and had always been much better with a normal lead. However, David and Heather were taken with the dog to a fenced in area. On one side of the area was all the people who had turned up for the assessment (6 in all) and on the other side was a barking dog. Still wearing her gentle leader, it would have been very hard to conrol her as she would have spent most of her time trying to get the gentle leader off as she had always done when living with David and Heather. This is exactly what happened and they were marked down by the behavioralist for this. It seems to me like the Blue Cross had put David and Heather into a situation where no experienced dog handler would have been able to pass the assesment. If done on purpose this is what Princeton University refer to as a “Set up” or to “ensnare”. When I heard about this I assumed that any self respecting and professional behaviorist would have taken this into account, however it is as if the behaviorist never read the 7 day report.

The report that was generated from this assessment marked David and Heather down for things that never happened as well as using parts of their conversation with the behaviorist to advise that the dog needed more experienced owners. David and Heather instantly disputed the entire report as being inaccurate and misleading. They requested the name and qualifications of the behaviorist so that they could verify the qualifications and experience of the behaviorist. The Blue Cross refused to look into the blatant inaccuracies and misleading content of the report. They also refused to provide the name or qualifications of the behaviorist.

All the way through this entire process, I had been 100% sure that the Blue Cross would resolve this problem. Instead, they have backed up the Fostering Project Development Officer, despite knowing that she has lied on at least one occasion. There has been a complete opposite between what the Blue Cross said they would do and what they did. David and Heather have given up their time, money, home and life to assist the Blue Cross while the Blue Cross lied to them and operated behind their backs, paying no attention whatsoever to the feelings of the people involved.

When the Blue Cross press office was contacted, they confirmed the party line saying that everything had been done in the best interests of the dog, yet it is clear to everyone that the only thing this has done is made the dogs behavior deteriorate to the point that it became a serious concern. The dogs behavior only became a serious concern once they had put her in a kennel.

The Blue Cross clearly thinks that the easiest way out of this situation is to get the dog in their property, refuse to give her up and block all attempts made even if this damages their public image revealing them to be two faced liars. The Blue Cross has point blank refused to answer our questions. They have also done exactly the same to supporters who contacted the Blue Cross on our behalf and have since pledged to never support the Blue Cross again. After all, why should anyone support a charity that believes it can act in this devious manner, get away with it and never have to answer any questions about their actions.

I am starting a petition which we will be passed to the Charities Commission as well as every member of government, member of the house of commons and member of the house of lords who has had their name on any animal rights or associated acts. The Blue Cross may be refusing to answer any questions on this matter from David and Heather as well as other supporters, but we will not stop talking about this or pushing it until there is a resolve. Be it that the dog (if still available) be offered to David and Heather with a sincere apology, or we will do all that we can to tell everyone about this story, pushing for a change within the Blue Cross which can be either voluntary or forced. After all, the Blue Cross is knowingly employing someone that has lied and acted in an underhand manner on at least one occasion bringing the charity into disrepute.

I have never, nor would I ever allow anyone involved with CharityVoice.co.uk to selectively accept users comments. You can view all of the comments that users have left on the main story and its content here.

To sign our petition, simply add your name and e-mail address. We will send a confirmation e-mail to you within a few minutes.

Petition

[[petition-1]]

You can click on an image to enlarge it and then navigate through the images by using the arrows on the left and right of the enlarged image.
Letter from Kim Hamilton, Blue Cross CEO (2 pages)

Behavioral report (6 pages)

We have identified some comments in this report to be false or misleading and we have sent these to Kim Hamilton for her response. We will of course post her response as soon as we get one.

Below are the comments we find incorrect:

1) In the cover letter, it is mentioned that although training classes are good, that training had to happen at all times. We are concerned that there is an incorrect perception of us. We had planned to take Nala to formal training classes in order to help us train Nala, not to do the job for us. We both fully understand that training needs to take place at all times. As with the minor teething problems we mentioned to the Blue Cross (which resulted in them taking Nala from us and putting her in a kennel where she clearly developed a lot more problems than she ever had while in our care), it is a case of knowing. A minor problem is easy to overcome when you have support from training classes where they can suggest ways to overcome training problems that will work. The Blue Cross gave us some great suggestions that overcame the problems we were having at the time, but they had already arranged Nala’s transfer before we even arrived at the training session.

2) With regards to the recall comments made, we had never let her off the lead in the past and we had done recall training in our own garden which was successful, however we were unable to work on it properly outside of the home as the expendable lead that we had was not very long and we were waiting for a training line. When we were in the field there were many distractions for nala and that affected her recall to us as not only had the recall training not progressed due to lack of training materials but there had also been a few weeks between the time nala was in our care and the time of the assessment.
The Blue cross had prepared a 7 day assessment of Nala as soon as she arrived at the kennel. In this 7 day report they told us that since arriving at the kennel they had found that she was not good at all with people she didn’t know or other dogs. When they assessed us we were able to recall Nala a few times, but the times we couldnt were because she was too interested in the 5 people in the pen and all the people stood outside the pen watching. Plus, in the pen next to us there were 2 more people and a dog that was constantly jumping up at the fence and barking at Nala. We had assumed that they would have taken all this into consideration as they had just told us that this was the exact situation that she would be worst in. Yet they did not take this into consideration or even mention it in the report.

3) There is a comment made about Heather dropping treats for nala and that it showed nervousness. The trainers comments didnt reflect this as she mentions that she never asked her for a reason as to why she did that. Had she asked she would have been told that the treats dropped from her hand accidentally and nala, being the food hoover that she is, got to the treat before heather could pick it up again.

4) It was mentioned that we did not manage Nala well, but we were expecting some guidance or instructions so that  they could assess how we managed each instruction. However, we were given no guidance on what we were required to do. The behavioralist mentioned that Nala seemed more interested in her than she did in us. This was because she had been the one holding the dog toy and she was stood with her hands closed, making it look like she was hiding a toy or treat. When Nala went to see what was in her hands, the behavioralist moved her hands up and away from Nala, exactly the same action that she told us not to do.

5) There are also connotations made about us walking nala, that studies show that when walking a dog is not a good experience then people are less likely to walk them. We can agree with this statement in theory but we are the exception to the statement. Nala was never much of a problem for us to walk and we enjoyed our walks. If she proved not to walk well, we would have spent more time and effort in trying to train out any bad behaviour by walking her more, or spending more time getting her used to her lead in the back garden, walking to heel, so she would walk better when we took her out. We most certainly wouldn’t just avoid those situations and we are a little insulted that this is how we were perceived.

We will provide updates as and when we get them.

We received this response from Kim Hamilton with regards to our issues above:

Dear Heather and David

Happy New Year to you both and thank you for your email.

I’m sorry to hear that you have concerns about the behavioural report and feel insulted by the outcomes of the assessment of Nala that took place in November. I would like to reassure you that this certainly was not our intention and I am sorry for any offence we may have caused you. In terms of negative impressions that you feel may have been obtained, again, I can assure you that is not the case; in fact and as we discussed, we feel that you both could offer a loving home to another less boisterous dog that is more suited to you.

We hoped that by involving an experienced and independent behaviouralist you would feel reassured that the assessment at the Bromsgrove centre was a fair and balanced one. We believe that it was. We also hoped that you would accept that the decision would be the best for Nala’s future happiness. Whilst I know that not having Nala placed with you is difficult for you to accept and I really do sympathise, we have to make sure that Nala is matched to the most suitable home for her.

I’m sure you’ll be interested to know that Nala has settled at Bromsgrove and is coming along really well with her training.

Kind regards,

Kim

We still do not know who the behaviourist was, or what her qualifications are and we have not received an answer to our questions. We have replied and will update as soon as we have any further news.

I have just had a call from Kim Hamilton. In short the answer is NO.
She gave the following reasons:
1) Nala needs firm experienced handlers
2) Our level of experience was not good enough.
3) We couldn’t manage her behavior.
4) Nala keeps mouthing people

The Blue Cross said in their report about nala that she was not good with new people and new dogs. So I would assume that being in a pen with 8 people, only 1 that she knew, 2 that she hadn’t seen for a month, everyone watching her, using a gentle leader that she always hated and a dog in the next pen barking at her would not be the best solution to examine how good we are with her, but thats what they did. We didnt get any direction on what to do. Hell, I found it hard to focus. To me it is no surprise. I had never seen her that badly behaved. Since she was taken off us, she has gone down hill a lot. The blue cross can deny it all they want, but the evidence is there.

Since nala was taken from us she has developed so many dangerous characteristics in her personality that she does now need someone very experienced.
She had NEVER had any problems with other dogs or other people. We socialized her with people and dogs and she never acted in the way they found her to act once they had torn her from a loving home into a kennel.
How are the fosterer’s supposed to prepare a dog for a new home when they are not experienced? How can you get experience when the blue cross fail to provide support and then scheme behind your back?

I really like Kim Hamilton and think she is a genuine, good person. But that negates from the fact that because Denise Young was at the very least lying about us behind our backs and planning the transfer of nala without talking to us about it or informing us that it was happening. Nala was torn from her home and is now doomed as she has developed so many problems she needs a handler with much more experiance. I want the Blue Cross to be the best charity in the uk and as such, I will be calling for the sacking of Denise Young. I have only mentioned the things I can prove. I have talked to a lot of the people involved within the fostering scheme at both a fosterer and coordinator level. Everyone has told me the same thing, no support is provided and the dogs do not get the help that the fosterer’s and the dogs need. Everyone said that they were planning on leaving the service as they are not helping any dogs and just making them worse.

As most of you will know, both Denise Young and Steve Goody told us that if we wanted to adopt nala, we would only have to complete the paperwork. There would be no assessment, there would be no report and no decisions on the part of the blue cross. However, we had to decide very very quickly. Both Denise Young and Steve Goody refused to give us extra time to investigate it. Denise Young wanted us to decide in the car park! Even after arguing about it, she only gave us until the following morning. I dont understand this and never have done. We are now left knowing for a fact that if we had rushed into a decision without looking into it fully, we would have nala now and wouldnt have had to fight for her. The blue cross wanted us to make a rash decision knowing full well that we did not have the info at hand.

We have now received this email from Mandy Jones at the Blue Cross:

Hi Heather

as discussed, details are:

The external behaviourist will arrive at Bromsgrove in the morning of Tuesday 18th November.

You and David arrive at the centre for 2pm.  Kim Hamilton our Chief Executive will be there and also Neil Edwards the manager of the Bromsgrove centre and myself.

The behaviourist will talk about the assessment and what they feel we should be looking for in terms of the right home for Nala.

After the meeting it is likely the behaviourist will want some time to reflect and think about their report, so as I said, it is quite likely that we will not be able to make a final decision on the day.  We do not know how much time this will take and don’t want to pre-empt how the behaviourist may like to work, so to some extent we are in their hands on this.  Once we have their report, we will make a final decision regarding whether or not we will be agreeing to you adopting Nala.

As discussed, we will help you with your expenses so if you keep a record of your mileage we can reimburse at the normal volunteer rate.  If you do have to come back again, we will help you with expenses for that trip too.

I look forward to meeting you both next week

Kind regards

Mandy Jones

We decided to add an extra angle to this story and we asked the Blue Cross press office (Laura Dobson) to answer some questions for us. This would allow the Blue Cross to tell us either where they went wrong and what they’re doing to put this right, or defend their actions. So far we don’t have the answers but as soon as we get them we’ll let you know.

Here are the emails sent to and from Laura:

Hi

Some of the people who have left a comment are asking us questions that we don’t have answers for and we would like to get answers for them and ourselves. To try to even the story out and show the Blue Cross in a better light as it has never been our intention to make the organisation seem bad.

The questions we have been asked have been posted on the website, but I was wondering if you would like to add any comments to the questions or provide answers etc so that we can add them to the site.

Why have we been pushed into making a rash decision at every stage?

by this we mean Denise firstly giving us 10 minutes then after beggin giving us overnight.

How is it in the best interests of the dog to have her taken out of a loving home when all we needed was an extra day to make our decision?

we asked Steve for one further day to gather information because we needed to contact one more company and he refused flatly.

Why was the decision made (after we begged) to give us overnight to think about adopting Nala (Tinker) when it is not Blue Cross policy and goes against the advice of the behaviourist?

the behaviourist had said that if it was up to her she would have given us a week or so, but that it was up to Denise and we know its not policy to ask people to make decisions there and then.

Why, when we tried to adopt her hours after she had been picked up, were we refused when we could offer her everything she needed?

we got all the info we needed within 12 hours of her being taken away and she was still at thirsk. We asked if we could do the paperwork and pick her up and the answer was no.

Any comments would be added to the web site if that is ok with you and then it would give another aspect to both sides.

Thanks in advance

David and Heather

As many of you will know DOGSOS is a charity which goes to the pounds and saves dogs on death row.

In the past the charity has helped many Dobermanns to get out from the pounds and given them a temporary safe haven before they could be moved on to their own breed rescues. MAX was a recent case.

It would be a very sad day if that safety net was no longer there and the dogs died through the lack of an organisation to coordinate the effort.

The charity is in danger of going under at the moment. Please follow this link and read.

http://www.dogsos.co.uk/#

If you can crosspost to other forums please do.

More helpers are needed for all sorts of things if they are going to be able to carry on and be there for the next Dobermann abandoned in the pound . Some pounds are very good at trying to help move on the stray dogs they hold but others will destroy the dog on the 8th day and do not bother to contact breed rescues or post photos on the internet.

Let’s make sure that doesn’t happen. Please.

We contacted Kim Hamilton today to try and have our questions answered by someone higher up at the Blue Cross.

Hi

My name is Heather and myself and my partner David were recently foster carers for the Blue Cross. We are concerned about a massive problem we encountered. This is the full story so far, however it is being updated every day. Please look at the current comments on this post too. There is wide spread knowledge on the internet about this and the following is growing rapidly.

We are shocked and disgusted. Only a few days ago adoption was a viable option but now we aren’t good enough. We were homechecked as foster carers which is different to adoption in the fact that we are homechecked for any dog rather than a specific dog. We were willing to travel hundreds of miles, stay in a hotel at our own cost just so that we could bring her home and this was rejected. We feel that we are being penalised for making a well thought out decision and not being rash about this. We made extensive enquiries and all we needed was an extra day to get all of the information together.

Please show your support of this by leaving a reply to this post as we need all the help that we can get. Please also look at our “How you can help us” page to help us in our cause. We are not taking this refusal lying down and your help will count.

Here is the link for further reference:

http://www.charityvoice.co.uk/animal-charities/dog-fostering-scheme/blue-cross-dog-foster-scheme-disaster/

All we want is to be able to adopt Nala and bring her home. We are willing to travel for her, and do anything else necessary. We can offer her anything and everything she needs and we have shown that. We are growing increasingly concerned that Steve Goody has been lied to about us or our home etc and we find this concerning.

Please would you help us to adopt Nala? She doesn’t need the help that is being claimed. She needs work on her recall but we were told not to let her off lead so of course this is sub par. She has been transferred to the Bromsgrove Centre and is currently not available on the website I assume because of the transfer.

I personally have researched and set up two different training classes to take Nala to, found a big and secure place to give her off lead excercise, can afford her monetary costs and have got insurance ready to buy and all the other things she needs.

Please help us. We can give Nala the best possible home and as we have been her foster carer, you already know that the house is acceptable and we know her better than anyone.

We would be ever so grateful for the help.

Thankyou in advance

Heather and David

The reply

Dear Heather,
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.

I’m sorry that your experience of The Blue Cross and our Pet Fostering service in particular has not been a positive one for you.  This is a very new scheme for us and as such, we accept that there are elements of the process that can be improved.  There has also clearly been a breakdown in communication along the way, for which I can only apologise.

I can understand how difficult it must be for you to be parted from Nala after the time you have spent together, but I can assure you that her welfare is our first priority.

As a dog lover, I’m sure you can appreciate how important it is for a dog’s future wellbeing that appropriate behaviour is established at an early age.  I understand that you were finding it difficult to cope with Nala’s challenging behaviour, which is why you agreed that she should be transferred to a Blue Cross adoption centre for intensive training with our animal behaviourists.

The Blue Cross has been caring for animals for over 100 years and all our centres offer very high standards of care.  I’m happy to report that Nala is settling in very well and she is now undergoing a period of behavioural assessment and one-to-one training by our experienced staff.

As soon as her behaviour is under control we will start the process of matching her to the most appropriate home with someone who can offer her the time, love and experience that she needs.  I would suggest that at stage we have a further conversation to determine whether this is something you and David will be able to provide, in accordance with our normal adoption procedures.  As I’m sure that you can understand that our main aim is for Nala to have a home where she will be happy for the rest of her life.

Again, I’d like to thank you for bringing this to my attention. As an organisation, we pride ourselves on providing the best service and as such, I appreciate hearing of your experience in order that we can improve the services we offer and achieve our shared goal of helping animals in need.  I can only apologise for any upset or distress the recent events may have caused you however please be assured that our intention is always to do the very best for the animals in our care.

Yours sincerely,
Kim Hamilton

We replied with the following

Hello, thank you for your reply. Our experiance of the blue cross had been a good one, we had only had problems when it came to the fostering service.

I agree, there does seem to have been a breakdown in communication, but we still feel that a lot has been said behind our back.

We are not doing this because we are missing her, we are doing this because we were given 10 minutes in a car park to decide if we wanted to adopt. Only when we begged were we given till the next morning. We managed to get one working day in which we tried our best to get all the details and answers we needed to make sure we could adopt her. One day simply was not enough. After she was taken away we continued looking into it and at 7pm that night we had all the details we needed to be completely sure we could offer everything she needed. We have everything set up that we need including training sessions.

Our only problem in all of this is that we feel we are being penalised for making a thoroughly thought out decision and not jumping to a decision. We were offered adoption and then it was flatly refused later. It was less than 12 hours since she had been picked up when we had all of the information.

we would like to compromise with you. We’d like to adopt Nala and to continue working with yourselves and her. We would go to training classes twice a week, take care of Nala and offer her a happy home. On top of this we will visit one of the adoption centres so that we can continue with training with yourselves as well. The only thing we couldn’t cope with was handling her small behavioural issues when we had no support. Now that we have set this up ourselves, everything will be fine.

We would be grateful if you would agree to the above offer with regards to adopting Nala as we know now that we have thoroughly researched it that it is more than a viable option and we want to get started with Nalas training sessions as soon as possible.

Hope to hear from you soon
Heather and David

We spoke to Kim Hamilton by telephone on 24/10/2008 and during that conversation, Kim has confirmed that there was a “breakdown in communication” but has not confirmed that there will be a thorough investigation. She has also agreed that we can apply to adopt Nala in the same capacity as any other member of the public and will speak to me more about that when “Nala has been assessed and her training has been completed”. We don’t know yet when this will be. We did highlight to Kim that Nala never had any serious behavioural issues and that the lies perpetuated about us were flatly untrue. Whether this has been taken on board or not, we do not know.

Update: 28/10/08. Kim Hamilton has confirmed in an email to us that she is investigating the issues we have had and is going to ensure that this does not happen in the future. This is a big step and I’m sure that Kim or Laura Dobson will be posting a statement on the outcomes of that to let all of us know whats been decided.

We replied to this email with:

Hi Kim

Thanks for your reply, we really appreciate the effort you are putting into this and we are grateful for all the help you are giving us.

I realise that this will sound a little bit paranoid, but will Mandy Jones be taking instruction from Steve Goody on this? If so, I am deeply concerned that we will be refused because of all the lies told about us and everything else and this is worrying because all we want to do is to adopt Nala and we wish we had had all of the information before we had to give her over to yourselves. We got all of the information a few hours too late. Can you confirm to me that we won’t just be refused because of the issues with Denise and Steve and that we will be fairly assessed? I hate to come across strongly but as I’m sure you can understand Nala is important to us and we can offer her everything she needs, we know that.

The questions we submitted to Laura were questions that the people leaving comments on the site had and we have no answers. I don’t want it to seem all bad towards the Blue Cross as it is an important charity, with a lot of good, honest and hardworking people in it doing their best for animals in need and I feel that the answers to the questions would be a benefit to us so we can post them and even the balance. The investigation that is being conducted is great and it has been posted on the website so that people can see you are doing something about it.

Thanks again for all of your time and we look forward to hearing from you next week to let us know we can start the adoption process.

Thanks again for all your hard work

Heather and David

Dear Heather,

As Nala is now at Bromsgrove, it will be the staff and centre manager there who will conduct the assessment and matching of all potential adopters to Nala.  I have asked  that Mandy  be present if you decide to apply for adoption in order to give support to the staff at Bromsgrove and to give you some assurance that the process is being managed at the highest levels.  As such,  I can assure you that whilst Mandy and indeed all staff within the Companion Animal Welfare Department report to Steve, they will act professionally as always and the assessment will be carried out with only the best interests of Nala at heart.  I can confirm therefore that you will be assessed fairly and objectively however as I have stressed before, there is no guarantee that you and David will be able to adopt Nala as our only objective is to find the best possible home for  her in order to secure her happiness for the rest of her life.

Kind regards,

Ki m

Click here to visit the “Help Tinker” main page for full details, the latest news and more.

We have three short videos of Tinker out and about on walks.

Click here to visit the “Help Tinker” main page for full details, the latest news and more.

Click on any image to enlarge