Thursday, April 9, 2015

Wine Country Pet Resort: Continuing And Systemic Fraud By Alan Parker and Phyllis Colgan Parker

From March 12 through March 15, 2015, a one-year old Boxer named Fritz (and owned by Craig Isham [707.812.8069]) was boarded at Wine Country Pet Resort, in Napa, California, owned by Phyllis Colgan-Parker and Alan Parker.

The dog was booked into the so-called “executive suites” at $75 per day. In fact, the dog was kept in a basic kennel (Kennel No. 10) the entire time, which bears a rate of $40 per day. Alan Parker, Phyllis Colgan-Parker, and the only full time employee, Sherrie Hall, were well aware of this. Phyllis Colgan-Parker checked the client out around 6:00 p.m. on Sunday, March 15. When the owner came to pick up the dog on Sunday, March 15, Phyllis Colgan said to Sherrie Hall, “people are ripping me off so I am going to rip them off."

As you can see, the paperwork for the stay (below) originally, when the dog arrived, had “H2” on it for the luxury suite (No, 2), and was then crossed out and “K10” (basic Kennel No. 2) is written in ink.

This is an everyday occurrence at Wine Country Pet Resort and has been occurring since the business was opened almost fifteen years ago. Phyllis Colgan-Parker and Alan Parker have been committing this type of fraud on customers since they came to the U.S. in 1999. Phyllis Colgan-Parker also regularly abuses the pets that are kept at Wine Country Pet Resort. She keeps the medications brought by owners, keep high end food brought by owners, and physically batters many of the dogs, including kicking them and using shock collars, all of which is unknown to the owners/customers. These people are criminals and should be in jail.

Here is one of the "hidden" reviews from Yelp:

Trudy J.
San Carlos, CA
1.0 star rating 10/6/2014

"I have never been so appalled in my life - the treatment of my poor dog was deplorable. When I dropped him off I was assured he would be in a luxury suite that I paid for ... I returned early from my vacation - to their suprise - and they had no idea where my dog was. The luxury suite were empty, they then tried to cover their tracks and tell my my dog was out playing in the field Seriously ! Do I look that stupid ? My dog was dirty and had a nasty scratch along his nose and to top it off they had lost his bedding which I had supplied. It was eventually located after a good 35 minutes in another dog's cage
I did not leave my dog there to be CAGED. I paid for a LUXURY SUITE
This business is a sham a total fraud
I would encourage anyone to think twice before leaving your beloved family member there
There are other wonderful pet resorts in Napa. Wine Counrty Pet Resort is NOT as they claim the" number one pet resort in NAPA"
People please if you love your pets do you homework !


Anonymous said...

How many dogs did you buy from this breeder? Why were you previously a great fan of this breeder? Why did yourself live with this breeder?

onecoatsam said...

You raise a question worth responding to. With the exception of Andrew's mother, none of the three dogs I bought from her were from Karazan lines. Jack was Pouch Cove and Seafar; Satchel was Fleur de Lys and Seafar, and Andrew's father - Phantom (same as Satchel's) was Fluer de Lys. I knew and liked these lines. Of course, none of what you say has anything to do with her brutality to her own dogs and client dogs. Why did we choose to live with her? Her husband has a lawsuit on file for personal injuries from a car accident last year. HE OFFERED us a deal where I would represent him and Cara would care for all the Newfies, in exchange for room and board for us and our Newfies. We also wanted appropriate facilities for breeding to and from our Newfies. And while I was fairly well acquainted with some of the practices she engaged in, it all became far too much to fathom after seeing all the horror up close and personal. Our dogs stayed with us the entire time. We provided all the food for our dogs. We did all the grooming on our dogs. And now we continue to live with and care for our dogs. The point of the post, which appears lost on you, is that she should not be in business for any purpose, and part of staying there was to document by first hand knowledge exactly why she should not be in business. Apparently, you condone her actions.