Jane Lesley Louise Armstrong v Newark and Sherwood District Council

the Respondent it is not satisfied the Appellant is capable of meeting their licencing conditions;

the Respondent considers granting a licence may negatively affect the welfare, health or safety of the animals involved in the licenced activity; and

the housing, staffing or management are inadequate for the animals’ wellbeing or for the activity or facility to be run properly.

The Appellant did not have a policy for dealing with dangerous/difficult dogs and staff were not trained in handling or the use of appropriate equipment to deal with such dogs. This is a breach of paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations.

Six of the dogs on the premises at the time of the inspection had incomplete vaccination records. This is a breach of paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 2 of the regulations.

The intake forms were poorly completed for a number of dogs lacking key information. This is a breach of paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Regulations.

The design of the kennel floors in a number of units was such as to allow the flow of urine, water or other matter between units creating a risk of contaminant spread. Further, the hatch systems on some of the units were broken/non-functioning exposing the dogs to a risk of injury. This is a breach of paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations.

The local authority must—

appoint one or more suitably qualified inspectors to inspect any premises on which the licensable activity or any part of it is being or is to be carried on, and

following that inspection, grant a licence to the operator, or renew the operator’s licence, in accordance with the application if it is satisfied that—

In considering whether the licence conditions will be met, a local authority must take account of the applicant’s conduct as the operator of the licensable activity to which the application for the grant or renewal relates, whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to be the operator of that activity and any other relevant circumstances.

The Decision was wrongly based on findings outside the scope of the Appellant’s licenced operation, conflating her business with that of Mr Metcalf’s. The two businesses are separate, she has no operational responsibility for One-to-One Dog Training School Limited and any deficiencies of One-to-One Dog Training School Limited are not attributable to her or her operation. Specifically, this is relevant to failings identified in dangerous dog handling, kennel conditions and record keeping.

The Decision does not take account of evidence of the Appellant’s positive compliance including upgrades to kennel flooring, staff training policies and veterinary support.

The Appellant was denied an opportunity to respond to concerns which they say was procedurally unfair and a breach of statutory guidance.

It is disputed that findings within the Decision were outside the scope of the licencing application. No indication was made on the renewal application or within the supporting documentation supplied that the dogs boarded by Mr Metcalf were not included within the licence renewal application. The inspection was conducted on kennel units detailed on the premises plan attached to the application which did not include any indication that some of the units were not part of the premises seeking to be licenced. At least one of the supporting documents submitted with the renewal application related to Mr Metcalf’s business. Despite the Appellant’s submission that the two businesses were operating in different areas of the premises separated by a sterile area, during the inspection dogs from both businesses were observed in the same kennel block being cared for by the same staff.

Whilst it is the Appellant’s position that she has no responsibility for the dogs boarded at the premises by Mr Metcalf, as he does not hold an animal activity licence, if his dogs are not being cared for by the Appellant in accordance with the minimum standards required by an animal boarding licence, then the Appellant has allowed dogs to be boarded without a licence and therefore unlawfully. There is evidence Mr Metcalf used marketing material that stated his business operated from licenced boarding kennels.

The inspection identified a number of ways the minimum standards were not being met in the kennel blocks shown in the plan provided by the Appellant within the licence renewal application. Further the failures to meet minimum standards were such that they compromised the welfare of the dogs. Specifically, the breach of general condition 9(4) – protection from pain suffering, injury and disease. On the date of inspection six dogs boarded by both the Appellant and Mr Metcalf had incomplete vaccination records. Additionally, the breach of general condition 5 – suitable environment. On the date of inspection only two kennel units in the block with 14 units had suitable flooring which would contain contaminants such as urine and this block was being used to board dogs by both the Appellant and Mr Metcalf.

The remit of an animal licencing inspector is to ensure that businesses and individuals engaged in activities involving animals are complying with the relevant legislation. The statutory guidance states if animal welfare is being compromised, a licence should not be granted or renewed. In addition to the failings to meet minimum standards, some of which compromise the welfare of the animals, the licence has been refused due to other relevant circumstances. Namely the boarding of dogs at the premises by another business, whom the Appellant does not take responsibility for.

The Appellant stated she loves animals and it has always been her dream and passion to run a dog kennels. She said she has worked with a veterinarian over a period to make improvements and feels she has done this. She wishes to get back to running her kennels and feels she may have made some minor mistakes but doesn’t feel she has done anything wrong. She said she would not make the same mistakes again.

She had a good relationship with the Respondent’s previous Animal Licencing Inspector and she had worked with them to make improvements. She felt the inspection this time had been unusually long and the Inspecting Officers were picking faults. There were things she should perhaps have clarified at the inspection but she was tired due to its duration.

She felt the licence had been removed to move Mr Metcalf on from the area due to his reputation. She made several references to a campaign by “trolls” in relation to Mr Metcalf and the impact they had had on her. She submitted that Mr Metcalf is no longer living at South Forest Farm and has nothing to do with her business anymore. The application for the licence was only intended to cover the one block of kennels from which she was operating (“the Appellant’s Block”) not the whole of the kennels but conceded that the plan submitted with the application may not have made this clear. Her business and that of Mr Metcalf’s were completely separate. They did not receive money from each other’s businesses, had different clients and account. She had a lease agreement with Mr Metcalf and did not realise he needed a licence for his business until it was pointed out and she is sorry for that.

Her staff are her own staff and do not work for Mr Metcalf. She said Mr Metcalf had his own “crew”, but she couldn’t say who they were. Mr Metcalf works all over the country and is therefore not always at the kennels. She accepted therefore that sometimes her staff will help out with his dogs to make sure they are cared for but did not accept this amounted to a cross over in staff. She said her staff did not need training on dangerous dogs as she did not have any dangerous dogs.

She initially accepted that on the day of the inspection that there might have been one of Mr Metcalf’s dogs in the Appellant’s Block. However, when asked who was responsible for each of the individual dogs on the Appellant’s Block at the time of the inspection, of those she could remember she confirmed three of the dogs belonged to Mr Metcalf. She said Mr Metcalf’s dogs shouldn’t have been there and they had probably been moved to the Appellant’s by her staff to allow for cleaning of their kennels.

She has been working to make improvements on the design of the kennels and at the time of the inspection had begun replacing the flooring to prevent the spread of contaminants. This work had to stop when her application for a licence renewal was refused for financial reasons. Eight kennels in the Appellant’s Block have had resin floors installed and there are five or six left to complete.

In relation to vaccinations, she submitted that this mainly arose in relation to dogs that were Mr Metcalf’s and therefore they were not her jurisdiction. She said one of her own dogs, Carlos, did have a full vaccination record but the dog’s owner had not wanted to provide this. She said there may have been another of her dogs with an incomplete record.

She confirmed she held an Animal Inspector’s Certificate from the Institute of Licencing and had been the lead officer during the inspection. Whilst conducting the inspection she walked around the site and asked questions about the dogs present. The Appellant was unable to answer questions about Mr Metcalf’s dogs. As part of her role she has a duty to ensure all dogs are kept in a good condition. There were 10 dogs present in the Appellant’s Block at the time of the inspection and these were a mix of the Appellant’s dogs and Mr Metcalf’s dogs.

The Appellant’s previous licence was subject to the general conditions in Schedule 2 and the specific conditions in Part 2 of Schedule 4. The previous licence had contained conditions enabling the sale of animals but this element did not form part of the application for renewal. There were no further specific conditions to the licence.

There were a number of dogs with incomplete vaccination records. These were a mix of the Appellant’s dogs and Mr Metcalf’s dogs. The risk of infection caused by unvaccinated dogs is increased at the Appellant’s site due to the design of the kennels which allows contaminants to pass between units. The same staff were looking after both the Appellant’s and Mr Metcalf’s dogs (vaccinated and unvaccinated) and this further increased the risk of infection.

She was not made aware that there was a separation of the blocks of kennels shown on the plan until she saw the Appellant’s witness statement as this was not made clear on the application. Nevertheless, the decision not to renew the licence was based on the failings observed in the Appellant’s Block.

9(4) – In not obtaining or recording the dogs’ vaccination records and allowing Mr Metcalf to keep dogs with incomplete of no vaccination records on her site, the Appellant has not taken all reasonable precautions to prevent and control the spread among the animals and people of infection diseases, pathogens and parasites.

5(1) – The design of the kennels in the Appellant’s block is such as to allow the flow of urine and other contaminants between units and as such the Appellant has failed to provide a suitable environment that presents minimal risks of injury or illness.

8 – The Appellant’s staff were not adequately trained in handling difficult or dangerous dogs and there was no adequate policy in place for the same. As such the Appellant has failed to ensure all people responsible for the care of the dogs are competent in the appropriate handling on each animal to protect it from pain, suffering, injury or disease.

Specific Condition 9 – Required information was missing from several intake forms at the time of the inspection as such the Appellant has failed to keep a complete register of all of the dogs on the premises.