The owners of Matilda, a kitten purchased from Rudycats as a breeding queen, have asked me to share their story as a tribute to Matilda.
Matilda suffered at the hands of Rudycats and so too has her family.
Matilda was, according to Rudycats, meant to remain with Rudycats as a breeding queen, and as such Rudycats encouraged a different breeder into purchasing a black smoke littermate.
Rudycats later encouraged this same breeder to buy the high smoke girl that she was intent on keeping herself (Matilda), for the price of £2,500 with a discount and claims that she can sell the same kitten in Europe for £3,500.
In the end, this breeder did not take Matilda. Instead another breeder, Matilda’s owner, enquired about the cost and, miraculously, Matilda was now selling at a price of £3,000.
Matilda joined this breeder and their family in February of this year.
Within a few weeks, Matilda became extremely unwell. Her eyes were incredibly crusty and Rudycats suggested a number of treatments.
For those unaware, “famvir” is famciclovir and it is used to treat feline herpes twice a day. “Doxy” is doxycycline and is used to treat upper respiratory infections once a day. Terramycin is an eye drop treatment to treat bacterial eye infections twice a day. One questions why Rudycats is doling out veterinary advice of restricted and controlled medicines when she has no qualifications to do so. Perhaps she’s reignited her contact with Rachel Winterbottom.
Unfortunately sweet Matilda had neither feline herpes nor a upper respiratory infection. This poor baby had FIP. Matilda’s family has kindly sent in the post mortem results for their sweet girl and have given me permission to post them.
The breeder reached out to Rudycats, and this was their response.
Rudycats claims that FIP, which is itself a mutation of feline coronavirus, could not have come from parents and then corrects herself to say that it couldn’t possibly have come from the stud but instead could only have come from the mother, if indeed it came from them at all.
Experts in the field of feline medicine, notably Professor Leslie Lyons and the WINN Foundation both agree that there is a genetic component to FIP mutation:
Rudycats offered to replace Matilda and suggested a kitten from the same mother or a kitten from Matilda’s aunt.
Rudycats pressures Matilda’s owner into accepting a newborn kitten as a replacement for her dear Matilda, and Matilda’s owner makes their feelings known to a friend.
Matilda’s owner, still without closure, discussed with a friend the potential of requesting a refund from Rudycats. They shared the story of what actually happened to their little baby.
Reader discretion advised: The following screenshots are distressing
Matilda had been with her family less than two months before she passed, leaving her family devastated. The vet confirmed that Matilda had arrived to them unwell, which is consistent with dry FIP being a long-term infection, and Rudycats asked the grieving family to keep it quiet.
Matilda’s owner went on to request a refund from Rudycats, and Rudycats initially agreed to provide said refund. Of course, it wouldn’t be Rudycats if there wasn’t a side helping of guilt.
August goes by and Matilda’s owner checks in.
Rudycats appears to help Matilda’s owner, offering to move breeders on their waiting list onto Matilda’s owner and taking £500 deposits for each kitten in order to pay for SMA testing.
Rudycats volunteers that they have recently lost three litters, an utterly shocking loss.
Matilda’s owner has still not received their refund by the 15th September and, understandably, loses their cool with Rudycats.
This author has no doubt that were Rudycats to engage in a conversation that indicated a reasonable repayment plan, Matilda’s owner would have been amendable. This lack of funds due to loss of litters is certainly not a problem for Matilda’s owner who herself is out of pocket by £3,000 and no kitten to show for it.
Rudycats handles the situation in typical Rudycats fashion.
Now Rudycats argues that most breeders would not give refunds, which is wholly incorrect. Responsible breeders do give refunds. Ah, there I am mistaken – Rudycats is not a responsible breeder.
One wonders where Rudycats spends their money when she sold 15 kittens in August alone, amounting to a modest total of £26,925 on the basis of her minimum charge.
One questions why, when earning £26,925 in a month just from the kittens publicised, does Rudycats not have enough money to return £3,000 to Matilda’s owner?
Now one could argue that Rudycats has had outgoings. Certainly she will have done, but outgoings to the tune of £26,925 between the end of August 2022 and the 15th September 2022?
To date, Matilda’s owner has had no refund of their money. Meanwhile Rudycats purchases four new adult cats and a puppy.
To add insult to injury, Rudycats has included Matilda in her “Previous Kittens” page on her website.
I very much hope that Matilda’s family receive both their refund and closure to this horrific experience.
Rest in peace, sweet Matilda. You deserved better from your breeder.
Update from 28.10.22:
Matilda’s owner has finally received a full refund thanks to this site sharing her story. Those who are struggling to obtain their own refunds, please get in touch.