Thank you
---
An update on this as there's been a twist in the 'tail'.
The police went round on Sunday to interview my daughter and they said they were going to go round to the owners and strongly recommend that they voluntary pay the vet bill to avoid further action being taken under the dangerous dogs act.
Because the dog doesn't live in the same street, she was unsure which house it belonged to, but knew it was one of about 3. The police went off and then came back about 45 mins later. Apparently there are two very similar dogs that live next door to each other and after interviewing both owners, both of them readily admitted to regularly letting their dog out unsupervised.
Unfortunately because they are so similar she could not identify which one it was that attacked. She didn't even know there were two. Without knowing which dog, then it makes it impossible for the police to do much more.
Both dogs have been given a muzzle order that applies even if the dogs are outside on their own property. Both have been warned that if the dog is ever seen out again unsupervised then it will be taken away.
---
The dog owners know.. and the police know they know, else why both so readily admit to their dog being out on that date.
Which ever dog it was would have come home covered in blood.
The reason the dog was probably sniffing at Kims gate on Sunday was because there was blood that had been spilt there. Even though she got a photo, both dogs are so similar it was impossible to tell.
My friend who works for the police was here when my daughter phoned me back on Sun and she also reckons that they are mates and have both admitted to their dogs being out so specifically so that one owner cannot be held responsible for vet fees. Grrrr I think they should make them both pay, but she said it doesnt work like that