Harborough resident claims he has refused ambulances as he cannot afford costs for his dog to be looked after
A Market Harborough resident says he has been forced to refuse ambulances as he cannot afford the cost for Leicestershire County Council to look after his dog while he is in hospital.
Jason Gilbert, who lives on St Mary’s Road in the town, suffered a stroke two and a half years ago, which has led to him experiencing regular falls.
Mr Gilbert, who lives on his own, has a dog called Tilly, which social services would look after while he was in hospital.
Leicestershire County Council previously paid the costs for Tilly to be looked after but have now said they cannot do this anymore.
Mr Gilbert says he has now refused ambulances as he cannot afford the bills he has received, some for £300, for Tilly to be looked after.
Following his stroke, Mr Gilbert uses a scooter due to mobility issues, and and says he is ‘virtually housebound’, although he does sometimes take Tilly to the park for walks.
“I have a lifeline monitor so when I fall it connects automatically to the emergency services,” he explained.
“The last few times when I have been contacted about an ambulance, I have said not to send one because I cannot afford it {the cost of putting Tilly into care}.”
Mr Gilbert claims he did not receive an explanation when the authority started charging for the costs of putting Tilly into care.
When approached by the Harborough Mail, Leicestershire County Council said it could not comment on individual cases.
Leicestershire County Council added in a statement: “We can confirm that the county council has a responsibility under the care act to look after animals in emergency situations, such as hospital admissions.
“Under the act we are also able to recover the costs of this care in circumstances where it’s deemed appropriate.”
The paper has seen correspondence between the county council and the office of Harborough MP Neil O’Brien, which claims that during a visit in February 2026 Mr Gilbert was “clearly advised that future animal care services would be chargeable.”
In this correspondence the council provides the following clarification about the case: “Adult social care became involved with Mr Gilbert due to concerns about his health and wellbeing, including periods of hospital admission during which he was unable to care for his dog.
“On these occasions, arrangements were made to place Tilly in kennels to ensure her safety and welfare.
“In line with Care Act guidance, the local authority may cover the cost of animal care for a limited period in emergency situations.
“In Mr Gilbert’s case, due to the frequency of short hospital admissions, earlier kennel stays were covered by the local authority on a discretionary basis, however, this was not intended to be an ongoing arrangement.”
The authority later agreed to waive charges for the most recent placement as what it called ‘a gesture of goodwill’ and said it would reallocate Mr Gilbert to a social worker to explore his capacity in relation to his ‘care, support needs and financial arrangements.’