Business ProfileforDogs Downtown

I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against Dogs Downtown regarding their unethical and fraudulent practices in selling dogs marketed as emotional support and companion animals.In May 2024, I purchased a Labradoodle named **** from Dogs Downtown, under the explicit assurance that he had been positively trained as an emotional support animal. I paid a substantial fee for ****, believing he would be a loving and well-trained addition to our family.Unfortunately, it quickly became evident that **** had been subjected to severe and traumatic training methods, including the use of shock collars, which caused him significant psychological distress. His fear and resulting aggression made it impossible for him to function safely as a companion animal, leading to multiple dangerous incidents within our household.Upon discovering the extent of ***** trauma and the deceptive practices of Dogs Downtown, I demanded a refund, which they ultimately provided. However, I have since learned that Dogs Downtown is now marketing **** under a different nameDashattempting to sell him once again as a trained emotional support animal. This constitutes blatant fraud and deceit, endangering both the dog and any potential new owners.I urge the BBB to investigate Dogs Downtown for their unethical practices and take appropriate action to prevent them from continuing to deceive and harm other customers and animals.Thank you for your attention to this serious matter.Sincerely,*****************************

First, it is necessary to state that all accusations of fraudulence and deceit are baseless, and all claims of any fraudulent business practices are easily disproved through verifiable documentation.To begin, it is simply untrue that we attempted to sell one dog under a different name. **** and **** have different Rabies' certificates (a legal document signed by a veterinarian), with unique microchip identification numbers, and different medical histories. This accusation was made by the poster with zero evidence to support such a malicious claim. Evidence disproving this was shared directly with the poster, which they acknowledged. Secondly, there was no deceit in the initial meeting of the candidate they eventually purchased, or any mishandling of the return of the candidate. The truth is this: we placed a companion dog with a family, sharing with them the specific faults of the dog which they acknowledged both over the phone, and in-person multiple times prior to accepting the dog home. Eventually, the dog began to display behaviors previously unseen that we mutually agreed were not suitable for their household. They alerted me to these behaviors, brought the dog back, and I refunded the full purchase amount promptly and with compassion.To expand on this: In our initial phone consultation, I shared with them all known "faults" of the dog- specifically his well-known predisposition to timidity with strangers, something that was observed from puppyhood. Any claim that his timidity was caused by harsh training methods, as opposed to being an intrinsic personality trait, is baseless. It was noted by the poster herself how much he visibly loves the people involved in his training and care, and was happy to come back to see them when he visited. Regardless, after the initial phone call, and prior to the initial in person meeting, the poster insisted multiple times on us "holding" the dog for her, and insisted on making a monetary deposit which I refused, stating I believed it was important they met the dog, and considered it in greater depth, prior to any monetary exchange. After spending time together, and letting them observe the nature of his timidity, the dog was placed with an expected prolonged training period using pre-agreed upon training methods (primarily reward based with the preference for the use of a head halter + front clip harness). The posters ultimately decided they did not want to complete the full training period (despite it being included in the purchase price), and pushed for him to go home earlier, which we allowed. When the dog went home, we initially received a significant amount of positive feedback including photos, and videos. It is worth noting that after the placement, the owner additionally asked if the dog could be a "service dog" capable of public access, despite never mentioning such desire before. I unequivocally stated he was unsuitable for being a Service Dog given his general timidity of strangers. As time progressed in their home, the dog began to show some resource guarding behaviors, which concerned the poster, and we agreed he should return to the facility for assessment. When mutually agreed he was not suitable for the household, we accepted back ownership and refunded the purchase price. The poster attempts to make it sound like we argued or withheld the refund, but this is willful deceit on their part and our written correspondence proves as much. Our intention at that point, as was clearly stated to the poster, was to reassess his behaviors given the new information we had, train and prepare him for adoption as a pet in a more suitable household that would have the ability to manage any behaviors safely, and humanely. Accusations of unethical practices are unfounded. We pride ourselves in our honest, respectful, and compassionate business practices.Thank you, ******