Woman wins payout after husband accidentally shot dog while trying to scare off badgers

Badger

The man fired the gun in a bid to scare off three badgers after they attacked his small dog

|

ARTERRA/GETTY

Isabelle Parkin

By Isabelle Parkin


Published: 02/01/2026

- 13:42

The financial ombudsman concluded the man's actions were 'proportionate'

A woman won a payout from her pet insurer after her husband mistakenly shot their dog while trying to scare off three "vicious and angry" badgers.

The couple, referred to only as Mr and Mrs T, feared their pet would be "savaged to death" after it was attacked by the group of badgers under a cabin in their garden.


In hopes of scaring off the animals, Mr T fired a gun under the cabin which accidentally hit the pooch in the leg.

The dog was treated for the injury but when Mrs T attempted to claim the costs back through her insurer, Wakam, the company denied it.

The insurer said that under the conditions of the policy, it was not required to pay claims that "could have been avoided or that could have been less severe if you had carried your responsibilities".

Wakam further argued that Mr T's actions were "neither proportionate or safe" and said shooting badgers was illegal.

Mrs T referred her case to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which upheld her complaint.

Ombudsman Lindsey Woloski concluded Mr T's actions were "proportionate" and the fear of the small pet being killed was "rational".

Two badgers

The ombudsman concluded Mr T's actions were 'proportionate'

|

ARTERRA/GETTY

"I find that rather than putting the dog in danger, the use of the gun effectively scared the badgers away," she said.

"I understand that the badgers were protecting a sett and the fear was they would savage the small dog to death.

"I think that fear was rational, and the action taken was proportionate.

"It is most unfortunate that the dog’s leg was caught."

Money

The insurer was ordered to pay Mrs T £150 in compensation

|

PA

Ms Woloski acknowledged that killing or attempted to kill a badger is illegal under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, but said she was "not persuaded that Mr T was attempting to kill the badgers" and instead wanted "only to scare them off".

She added: "He believed that this was the only way he could save and protect the dog from the three 'vicious and angry' badgers."

The ombudsman concluded the insurer should settle the claim for the dog's treatment and pay Mrs T £150 in compensation.

"This clearly was a traumatic incident, of course Wakam is not responsible for that," Ms Woloski's report concluded.

"But I’m satisfied that Mrs T would have been caused further distress and inconvenience when her claim was unfairly declined.

"I find that compensation is merited and that £150 is fair in the circumstances."

GB News has contacted Wakam for comment.

More From GB News