A COUPLE whose son and grandson were attacked by a dog which was temporarily staying with them have slammed Redditch Council’s dog warden and West Mercia police superiors’ lack of action.

On May 15, the dog launched an “unprovoked, unexpected and ferocious” attack on Susan and Terence Beck’s seven-year-old grandson and 14-year-old son. Both needed emergency treatment, the elder boy undergoing two lots of surgery.

The couple, from Headless Cross, called police.

Susan said: “The two attending police officers were magnificent and did everything possible to get the dog removed.

“It was clear the animal was unstable and dangerous.”

The dog was contained in the conservatory with the inner doors to the house locked, but the outer doors were open.

Redditch Council’s dog warden was contacted to remove the dog but refused. A request made for a police dog handler was also refused.

It transpired the only way to remove the animal was for a vet to be called at a cost of nearly £160.

Immediate payment was being requested by the vet, but the attending officers persuaded him that the couple was unable to pay the full amount at that time and £50 was accepted, with the balance to be paid later.

Susan said: “This was the only way of getting the dog removed safely. The police and council advice was to leave the dog and for us to remove it the next day ourselves.

“This was a dog that had turned savage and had already attacked two people. The attending vet was also turned on and the dog had to be euthanised in the conservatory where it was being restrained.

“This is not about the cost, or money, this is about safety - safety and protection from an animal turned so dangerous it could have resulted in a child’s death.

“The authorities acted in an appalling and unsympathetic manner and should be thoroughly ashamed.”

A council spokesman said: “We have a duty under s68 of the Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act 2005 to seize and detain stray dogs if found in a public place or on any other land or premises.

“As the dog in question was neither in a public place nor straying, regrettably the dog warden was not legally able to intervene in this case.”

Insp Ian Joseph said: “It’s our understanding that the animal involved was a bull terrier type dog belonging to a family member currently living at the property.

“While it’s obviously regrettable that two young people were hurt, when our officers arrived the dog had been contained, it was on private property and no threat to the public at large.

“As this occurred on private premises we didn’t consider an offence had been committed and no further investigation was necessary, particularly as the owners wished to have the dog destroyed.

“Responsibility for the dog remained with the owners and it was their choice to have it put down – indeed under the circumstances the police had no legal power to order its destruction. Although our officers tried to help by organising the attendance of a vet there’s no legal obligation on police to do so or to pay the associated fees, which again remain the owner’s responsibility.

“Even if we do seize an animal in connection with an offence we cannot authorise its destruction - only the court has the power to do so.”