How striking to find such positive, rave reviews - our experience over many years was similar and we had recommended Lochinvar Pet Motel to many friends and acquaintances. But the business has grown substantially over the years, and in our opinion the standard of care has fallen correspondingly.
This year, as usual, I left our beloved Lab, Phryne, with LPM over Christmas. When I collected her, around midday on 30 December, I was told by a staff member, in response to my polite question, that Phryne had had a good time but she also said she had been moved recently and that two dogs in the adjoining pen had dug under the dividing fence and invaded her pen. This fact was also acknowledged by the owner of LPM later in the sequence of events I shall immediately describe.
When Phryne was brought to me I noticed that her coat around her neck area was matted and smelled putrid. One ear was badly skinned and slightly torn. I drew this to the attention of the staff member and the owner of LPM.
Phryne was then given a wash and inspected by the owner of LPM, who clipped away some of her coat in the neck area and pronounced that she had 'canine hot spot' and sprayed her with a disinfectant. She also advised me that there was no point in seeing a Vet about hot spot, and that the best treatment was washing with salt water. It was during this exchange that she also declaimed that it had been a ‘week of problems, what with dogs digging under fences and other things' (or words to that effect). She did not say that Phyrne was the 'guilty' party and I took the plural 'dogs' to confirm the staff member's account of this incident.
When I returned home, I became very concerned about the amount of infection in Phryne's neck area, and the fact that she seemed to have a deep wound. I took her to the Vet the next day (Monday morning), who reeled at the smell of the infection, shaved and washed her and placed her on a course of antibiotics and cortisone cream. At that point the swelling from the infection was so bad that it was only evident to the Vet that Phryne had one puncture wound in the back of her neck (and, of course, that her ear was badly grazed and slightly torn). The Vet's opinion was that these wounds were at least two days old, ie at least a day old - and unnoticed and untreated by LPM - when I collected her. A few days later, when the swelling had subsided, it became clear that in fact Phryne had two, deep and connected puncture wounds in her neck that, again in the opinion of our Vet, were consistent only with dog bite. By this stage it was necessary for the Vet to cut away some necrotic tissue around one of the punctures that also involved a tear wound. It also became clear that her other (we thought uninjured) ear had slight injuries likewise consistent with dog bite. In other words, Phryne's pen had not merely been invaded but she had been mauled.
My wife wrote to the owner of LPM informing her of these facts and requesting that she pay our Vet bills. Her reply was that she 'hated email complaints', suggested that if we had rung her something might have been worked out, but she was unwilling to discuss the matter any further and we should read the terms of our contract. She has not acknowledged any responsibility, or even regret, for what happened. She has never made any inquiries about the well-being of our dog.
I should acknowledge that, in response to an earlier version of this post, the owner of LPM has asserted a number of facts that readers of this review may consider relevant:
First, she has said that Phryne only had 'a slight graze on her ear' and that this was attended to by her. It would seem that even the misdiagnosed hot spot has been eradicated from her memory. I am, of course, truthfully conveying the facts as to the nature of Phryne's wounds and the opinion of our Vet as to their cause. But have a look at the photo and judge for yourself as to whether her wounds consisted only of a graze that could be considered slight.
Second she states that security video records show that Phryne was not attacked. What she means, of course, is that the security videos do not show the attack. There is a world of difference. She has offered no information as to what the videos do show that would explain her injuries.
Third, she has stated that "I stay up and supervise the dogs every New Year's Eve. During my supervision time I filled in the hole that had been dug. The hole was actually in the yard that Phryne was in. It appears that the two dogs in the adjacant kennel took advantage of the hole that had been dug."
I note again that I collected Phryne on 30 December, and that the opinion of our Vet is that her wounds were at least a day old at that time.
The fact that the hole was filled on New Year's eve is obviously completely irrelevant; and even if it was filled in on some other date, it was done either after the harm had occurred or not done adequately to prevent the harm.
The implication that Phryne dug the hole is at odds with what I was told on the day I collected her, nor is its relevance in any way clear. All that is clear is that there was a hole between two pens and, as the owner of LPM herself admits ‘it would appear that the two dogs in the adjacent kennel took advantage of' it. I would merely note one further fact: LPM proclaims on its website that it does not take vicious dogs. This statement is obviously intended to assure pet owners that their pet will be safe from attack by other dogs. We were aware of this promise and relied on it. The fact that our dog's serious injuries were caused by dog bites is irrefutable, regardless of what security videos, available thus far only to the owner of LPM, do not show.
I summarise what seem to be to be the essential facts:
1. Our dog was mauled by by another dog or other dogs during her stay at LPM.
2. It is our Vet's opinion that her wounds had been untreated for at least a day when I collected her from LPM. They were seriously infected and required three courses of antibiotics over two weeks to treat them.
3. When drawn to the attention of the owner of LPM, the injuries were diagnosed by her, incorrectly, as canine hot spot, and inappropriately treated as such by LPM.
4. I was advised by the owner of LPM not take Phryne to a vet.
5. The owner of LPM has not at any stage acknowledged any regret or concern for the well-being of our pet following this incident.
If you assume your pet will be safe and showered with love at care at LPM, you might wish to think again. We would not think of placing an animal in LPM's care again.

Approximate cost: $260 pw