Following on from our previous post, which this platform wouldn’t allow us to promote under its normal advertising rules, possibly thinking it was a little too spicy.
It was an honest questioning of a change to the way certain dogs are classified and managed, introduced on 1 October.
This post is asking whether the current approach actually has any teeth, and whether it has had any positive effect at all.
The statistics are interesting…
In the early 1990s, official figures referred to around 120 dog attacks a year resulting in victims spending time in hospital.
In 2024/25, NHS figures recorded 10,787 hospital admissions caused by dog bites or other dog-related injuries in England.
Of course, there are more people now, and more dogs, but since around 2011:
England’s population has increased by about 10%
The UK dog population has increased by about 35%
Hospital admissions caused by dog bites or other dog-related injuries have increased by about 77%
These figures show hospital admissions increasing much faster than either human or dog population rising.
I would have thought the vast majority of people, whether they are dog lovers or not, would prefer restrictions and penalties to be focused on irresponsible handlers rather than innocent dogs.
When you receive a speeding fine, the driver is penalised — not the car.
Our view has always been that focusing far more on the people handling a dog would be both more appropriate and more effective.
But to do that, a simple infrastructure needs to be in place, which currently isn’t.
We already have compulsory microchipping and databases recording keeper details, but unlike vehicle registration there is no single central pet microchip register. Instead, the information is spread across more than 20 separate databases.
The information exists, it just isn’t held in one place.
If a vehicle is still registered to you and it is caught speeding, the authorities come to you first. You are expected to identify who was driving, and failing to deal with that properly can itself become an offence.
And yet with dogs, if the registered keeper simply says, “That’s no longer my dog,” the fact that their details are still on the microchip database does not automatically make them legally responsible for what that dog subsequently does.
There should first of all be one central database recording a legally liable accountable handler. And if a dog changes hands, responsibility should remain with the registered handler until that change is properly recorded.
We also believe third-party dog liability insurance should be compulsory for the handler, not for each individual dog.
One policy could cover all dogs registered to that person.
The premium should be based primarily on the handler’s claims and incident history, not automatically on breed or simply how many dogs they own.
Someone could responsibly own 10 dogs and remain claim-free, while someone with one dog could have repeated incidents – If claims are made, premiums rise.
If someone remains responsible and claim-free, they should not be penalised simply because of what their dog looks like or how many dogs they own.
Third-party cover is generally considerably cheaper than full pet health insurance, and if everyone was required to have a policy, spreading the risk across a much larger pool could make basic cover cheaper still.
That insurance should also cover dog-on-dog attacks, particularly veterinary bills when another dog causes injury.
The dog’s microchip would then simply link back to the central record showing who is legally responsible and whether valid insurance is in place.
At Dog World, we regularly hear about incidents involving dogs. It is often frustrating when we can clearly see problems that, in our view, could be addressed with simple common sense and clearer responsibility.
