I'm really not sure how to feel about this one. On one hand its great that less dogs are being put down. On the other hand people who got their dog impounded and couldnt afford $93 are taking an after pay loan to get it back. As someone who used to live in south auckland I feel like this is going to make the roaming dog problem way worse. If you're getting your dog impounded and after paying $93 then you are probably not equipped to be owning a dog.

top 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

If inability to pay is the problem, bringing in a company that takes a cut means less money for everyone, while encouraging irresponsible lending. Couldn’t the council just have a payment plan?

permalink

fedilink

source

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Couldn’t the council just have a payment plan?

if its like lay-away and u get the dog when u have paid, it might work, then u have the issue of care costs, so that needs to be paid as well... if it's take the dog and pay, then 99.9% are unlikely to if there's no enforcement and then how to enforce? I'd guess for the council this is the best of a bunch of shitty options.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 point 5 months ago

The council have as many optipns to enforcement as afterpay.

I dont think the council should be keeping the dog. Thats the whole point of credit.

Yes, some. Options are shitry, but it seems they have chosen one of the shittiest.

permalink

fedilink

source