My Stolen Dog Has Had Its Microchip Details Updated by Mystery Person

LBargain7175 on 13/07/2025 - 23:09

This one is a new dilemma for me, any insights, knowledge or experiences would be helpful.

Almost a year back my mother passed whilst I was abroad, she was taking care of my pup while I was away, together with her own dog. The day she passed, the RSPCA came and gave the dogs food and left a note on the door saying that they would return to collect the pups the next day.
That evening the dogs were stolen.

Nothing was known from that point according to the council, RSPCA and The Sydney dog and cats home.

Fast forward to last week and I was talking to a vet and had them run the microchip number and found that the ownership details have been updated and there is a new owner living right across on the other side of Sydney in the Mt. Druitt area….! They could be the (very brazen) thief or merely someone who bought the dog/s from the petnapper. Having taken the person's details I googled them and found that they're famous for running various pet scams online (mainly with birds) and seem to be very unpopular.

My goal of course is to get my dog back but I'm not sure where to go from here. Do I contact the police? Try to contact the new registered "owner"?

The microchip certificate was in my mothers name which may complicate things although I am her next of kin.

Thank you in advance!

Pets

Comments

  • SydStrand on 14/07/2025 - 00:47
    +4

    Strange. To change microchip details, you need to submit a form to central animal records, with two sections one each signed by the previous owner and the new one. Who signed the first section? If it was the RSPCA, it's because they used special privileges to seize the dogs, the new owner probably conned them.

    • Jolakot on 14/07/2025 - 01:15
      +3

      You don't need the other owners details, can change microchip details and just say that you can't get in contact with previous owner, and they are meant to try and contact them to confirm. If they don't get a response from the original owner in 23 days, then it's auto-approved.

      Microchip registration doesn't equal ownership, in the same way that the deed to your house being stolen doesn't mean the thief now owns your house.

      • AustriaBargain on 14/07/2025 - 01:52

        They maybe just registered it on http://dogsandcatsonline.com.au. You can get microchip readers very cheaply online, or maybe their vet gave them the number who knows.

        • Jolakot on 14/07/2025 - 04:03

          I would be very surprised if someone from Sydney registered their pet with a South Australian animal registry, but stranger things have happened

          • AustriaBargain on 14/07/2025 - 04:18

            @Jolakot: Well whatever the Sydney equivalent is, maybe directly with their local council.

  • Jolakot on 14/07/2025 - 01:35
    +19

    Contact police first, then get the case number and report the theft to central animal records. They will mark the microchip as stolen, so when a vet or shelter scans the microchip it will tell them to contact authorities.

    Legally the dog is property, as next of kin that property now belongs to you, the microchip details mean squat for ownership.

    A thief would have to be dead stupid to register their details for a stolen dog, but I suppose thieves aren't exactly known for being smart.

    Good luck OP, the hardest part will be getting the police to take it seriously.

  • holdenmg on 14/07/2025 - 07:39
    +6

    Call Ace Ventura: Pet Detective…

  • Wiadro on 14/07/2025 - 08:47
    -2

    prob easy to change

  • smartazz104 on 14/07/2025 - 08:55
    +1

    The day she passed, the RSPCA came and gave the dogs food and left a note on the door saying that they would return to collect the pups the next day.
    That evening the dogs were stolen.

    Nothing was known from that point according to the council, RSPCA

    So the RSPCA say they came back to collect the dogs and they were already gone?

    • holdenmg on 14/07/2025 - 09:10
      +1

      It seems odd the RSPCA would leave animals unattended in an empty house.

      Is it possible that a relative or friend may have intervened or that the Executor knew of the pets and took them to an animal shelter or a vet?

    • Speckled Jim on 14/07/2025 - 10:31
      +3

      left a note on the door

      I take this to mean "on the outside of the main entry door" and therefore visible to anyone.
      They should be trying to slip something under the door, or into a mailbox if it looks secure.

      This is a procedural failing of the RSPCA.

      • Protractor on 14/07/2025 - 16:40

        The story fell over, long before then.

    • Bargain7175 on 14/07/2025 - 11:33

      Exactly, that was my dead end on the matter until contacting the vet recently

  • Duckie2hh on 14/07/2025 - 09:27
    +3

    That evening the dogs were stolen

    so…I assume there is a police report?

    • Bargain7175 on 14/07/2025 - 11:37
      +1

      At the time it wasn't on my mind as I was more preoccupied with the passing

    • Protractor on 14/07/2025 - 12:35
      -3

      FTFY

      That evening, the imaginary neglected dogs were stolen rescued.

  • Porker on 14/07/2025 - 10:04
    +2

    Would be annoying if you went through all the effort only for the dog to want to go back to the current owner.

    (not condoning theft or saying that you should let sleeping dogs lie)

    • Bargain7175 on 14/07/2025 - 11:38
      +1

      I'd be fine with the situation if it went that way however from what I'm seeing online, the lady who she is registered to may not be the most caring custodian.

  • Protractor on 14/07/2025 - 10:12
    -3

    New member . Peak imagination. Clickbait post you would never normally imagine on this forum. School holidays.
    Traddemark> Thank you in advance!
    The dark stars and redditt frogs have aligned.

    Might be some useful 'advise' here>
    https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/94i4c6/tx_i_re…

  • GordonD on 14/07/2025 - 10:39
    +6

    That evening the dogs were stolen.

    That is an uncharitable assumption that they were "stolen".

    You're a neighbor. You know someone has died, and they had dogs. You see or hear, or even just suspect the dogs are still there, and you wonder if a caring friend or relative will look after them. When you go to check you see they are, and from the note on the door you see that its the RSPCA that is going to take them. You know what the likely result of that is. So you take care of them yourself.

    This scenario is far more likely to have been the result of good motives than bad. To this day that person probably still thinks they did the right thing.

    • Bargain7175 on 14/07/2025 - 11:51

      Somebody "doing the right thing" would have left a note or contact number

      • holdenmg on 14/07/2025 - 12:10

        Not necessarily.

        If someone was the Executor (or likely to be) they would only be leaving a note for themselves.

        Also, if a house were then unoccupied, leaving notes would be a clear "please break in" invitation.

        You don't say how long it was between her passing and when you returned or whether you contacted the Executor or Public Trustee or anyone for that matter.

        Who notified you the Pet was missing and when?

        • CaptainJack on 14/07/2025 - 15:46
          +3

          Or you use 1 brain cell to slip put the note in an envelope and put it in the letterbox or under the door?

          Nah you know what, I think the right thing to do is just keep the dogs and not tell anyone.

      • GordonD on 14/07/2025 - 12:26
        +2

        Leaving a note for the RSPCA so it knew where the dogs were is exactly what someone who thought they were saving them FROM the fate that would likely await them at the RSPCA would NOT do.

        Old people don't usually have young energetic dogs. A person thinking they were doing the right thing expecting an old dog going to the RSPCA would probably be right if they thought it would have no chance of finding someone who'd adopt it, and would be euthanised.

    • Protractor on 14/07/2025 - 11:58

      If my mum died and someone came to the property to steal anything. Dog,pot plant,wind chime, whatever. I would consider her private property and home was violated by a low arse and I'd file a police report, regardless.How would anybody know something else was not taken? Another troll post,at best.

      • GordonD on 14/07/2025 - 12:52

        You can paint a picture of the dogs being taken by someone callous and uncaring enough to steal from the home of a just dead person.

        I'm just suggesting that it was more likely they took the dogs for good, if misguided, reasons, and accordingly would probably have provided a good home for them.

        Which do you think the OP would be happier believing?

        • Muppet Detector on 14/07/2025 - 19:10
          +2

          Maybe a burglar saw the note on the door left by the RSPCA and worked out the house was empty (otherwise, why was the note on the door?), and a prime candidate to break in and steal stuff.

          When bad guy breaks in, the dog escapes/runs away (or bad guy helps him run away to stop him barking) and the bad guy then gets uninterrupted opportunity to go through the place and steal a whole bunch of other stuff.

          If the dog was inside the house and now it's not, I'd bet all the money in my pocket that there's more missing from that house than a dog or two.

          If it was a Good Samaritan, how did they even get into the house to retrieve the dog?

          Yeah/nah, people just don't do that, they leave a note or something. They don't just abscond with a dog and fail to tell anybody about it.

          • Bargain7175 on 14/07/2025 - 22:07

            @Muppet Detector: That's exactly it. Somebody with good intentions would have left a note in the mailbox or under the door.

        • GordonD on 16/07/2025 - 02:26
          +1

          Some people here have never been old. They don't understand that people who know that there's a real chance that they could fall or get sick and end up in hospital or die suddenly, and have pets that depend on them and they care about, make plans with someone, a neighbor or friend, to take care of those pets if one of those things happens, and often give people keys to do that. And the RSPCA knows too. You can't do it in your will, pets need someone to look after them immediately.

          That's why the RSPCA would have done what seems an odd thing to do to be there, but not take the dogs away there and then, and leave a note saying they were going to do it the following day. So that whatever plan the person made for their pets could activate. And that's what likely happened in this case. Of course they wouldn't leave a note for the RSPCA, because it was none of the RSPCA's business, and the RSPCA knew and wasn't worried. And that's why nothing else was stolen. Because it was a neighbor or friend the arrangement was with.

          In fact I'd suggest that if the house wasn't looted of things a lot more valuable to a thief than a couple of dogs that that's proof that this was a pre-arranged plan by her for a friend or neighbor to take care of her dog.

          Its just unfortunate that in this case the OP's dog was there too, and whoever it was thought the right thing to do was to take care of it too.

          • Muppet Detector on 17/07/2025 - 18:18

            @GordonD: Surely the note would be left for the Next of kin though?

            Like, never occurred to her that an heir (or the true owner) may come looking for the thing?

            Really reckon granny was organising somebody to collect a dog that wasn't even hers and then not tell anybody about it?

            Granny can't give anybody else's stuff away without permission, even if she isn't dead.

            C'mon, seriously? Sure, perhaps if the older person didn't have anybody to collect the dog/s.

            Besides, once granny dies, ownership of the assets cease to be hers and passes to somebody else.

            Granny can't give anybody access to the property upon her death, because it no longer belongs to her.

            Anybody who enters without legal authority, justification or excuse is breaking and entering, and in this case, stealing property that does not belong to granny, far less to the Good Samaritan who allegedly absconded with the dogs (aren't there two missing?).

            Dogs are captured by property law, at a massive stretch, dogs may be captured by finders laws in which case Good Samaritan is legally required to make reasonable effort to locate and notify the true owner of the thing.

            Swiping the dog is no different to swiping a wallet.

            I don't think "Finders Keepers" means what you think it does.

          • Muppet Detector on 17/07/2025 - 18:25

            @GordonD:

            In fact I'd suggest that if the house wasn't looted of things a lot more valuable to a thief than a couple of dogs that that's proof that this was a pre-arranged plan by her for a friend or neighbor to take care of her dog.

            Not indefinitely though! The dog didn't belong to grandma, she can't give the thing away at any time, far less after she is dead.

            I mean, if the Good Samaritan was that good to granny, she never went to her funeral and mentioned to a family member that she had the dog?

            CRIME 1: Breaking and Entering
            CRIME 2: Stealing stuff that isn't hers (and let's face it, in your scenario, she was stealing because she intended to permanently deprive the true owner of the thing.
            CRIME 3: Finders keepers laws - failure to take reasonable steps to find and notify the true owner f the thing.

            There was no Good Samaritan.

  • Elppa8 on 14/07/2025 - 10:51

    As you haven’t been with the dog since it was a puppy the dog hasn’t really bonded with you whereas 12 months on it would have bonded with the person who now has possession. Depending on the type of dog and whether it has been trained as a ferocious guard dog or a loving family pet and how it has been treated, you could be in for a bit of work retraining and gaining its trust to turn a dog with possible mental health issues into a trustworthy family pet. It may be not that bad but you don’t know if it is or not, and you haven’t said what type of dog.

    • Bargain7175 on 14/07/2025 - 11:46
      +1

      She's just a little Jack Russell/Chihuahua. A little bit feisty but sweet and affectionate too. I raised her from a baby up until 4 years old and I shared her with my mother for two years after that. She would be 7 now.

    • Protractor on 14/07/2025 - 12:00
      -3

      From 'pups' to 4YO in a single page. Gee, they grow up quick

      • Bargain7175 on 14/07/2025 - 22:06

        I've always referred to my dogs as 'Pups' It's just an affectionate term

        • Protractor on 14/07/2025 - 22:18

          U,huh

          • Muppet Detector on 14/07/2025 - 23:30

            @Protractor: Gotta fess up here.

            I frequently refer to my dogs as some variation of pup. They both just turned three last month.

            A previous dog we had was actually called "pup pup".

            We hadn't settled on a name for him, so we just referred to him as pup pup and then I got blindsided when I took him to the vet for some puppy health check or vaccination.

            First thing the vet asked me was the name of the dog. Only thing I could think of was "pup pup". So that was what his name ended up being.

            The dog we got after him got called Arthur because we couldn't settle on a name for him either, so everyone was calling the wee thing something different.

            After a few days, it got the better of me, and I exclaimed "if we don't settle on a name for this dog sometime soon, he's not going to know if he's Arthur or Martha".

            As he was a boy, Arthur it was.

  • pharkurnell on 14/07/2025 - 12:24
    -1

    …and there is a new owner living right across on the other side of Sydney in the Mt. Druitt area…

    Not possible.. nobody there can read or write.

    • holdenmg on 14/07/2025 - 12:39

      Makes Voting hard, but X-Lotto easy.

    • Protractor on 14/07/2025 - 12:42
      +1

      You don't need literacy to breed.

    • Muppet Detector on 14/07/2025 - 19:12

      Not possible.. nobody there can read or write.

      ok, I guess that explains why they didn't leave a note when they swiped the pup.

  • Muppet Detector on 14/07/2025 - 19:15

    Make a poster offering a reward for the lost dog and nail it to a power pole or fence etc near the new owners.

    Bet they'll learn how to read that real quick.

    • Bargain7175 on 14/07/2025 - 22:10

      I'm doubtful of the morals of the lady who has taken her and I'm hesitant to drive all the way to Mount Druitt to find out. She appears somewhat stand-offish in her online videos.

  • Bargain7175 on 14/07/2025 - 22:13

    For some context this is one of the Facebook groups publicly shaming Amanda (she has been dubbed Scamanda)

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/602667869438977/

    It seems she has been involved in other shady dealings with animals in the past and seems quite unpopular in the scheme of things.

    I'm yet to see my pup in any of the videos posted by her on the group although I'm not an Instagram user so she could potentially have her posted online previously which would be damning evidence

  • Protractor on 14/07/2025 - 22:31

    Really fanging for the OP to explain what drew them to bring their fable to this website forum of all places on earth. And coincidentally how it coincides with the miraculous disappearances of the last 2 weeks of hyper active provocative story trolls. (rinse and repeat)
    Maybe they can throw in the reasons why they omitted the time frames in this once upon a timer BS.
    Theft is theft. Microchip ownership is cut and dry. No police report at all. Which RSPCA person and location supposedly attended. Time and dates of the BS episode.Pfft. Beggars belief.

    • Bargain7175 on 14/07/2025 - 22:55

      I'm sorry that you feel that way. I've been struggling to wrap my head around a lot of things which took precedence in the immediate months since it occurred. You couldn't possibly understand unless you have been through it.
      It's always reassuring to have a new set of eyes on a problem and encouragement to move towards a certain course of action.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join