Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Appellants, Michelle and Tony Steer, operated Wolstonbury Kennels for approximately two decades, initially licensed to board 60 dogs under the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 from 2004. The Respondent (Mid-Sussex District Council) issued warnings in 2019 following inspections that found breaches of licence conditions, including housing dogs from different households together and stray dogs with boarded dogs, leading to a reduction in licence capacity to 30 dogs. Subsequent inspections in August and September 2022 revealed 65 and 57 dogs boarded (exceeding the 30-dog limit) and incomplete records for multiple dogs, resulting in seven criminal charges under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, to which the Appellants pleaded guilty in March 2023. The Respondent then varied the licence to remove the boarding activity entirely on 5 December 2022. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the variation, finding that the Appellants had a long history of non-compliance, showed an approach that treated licence conditions as suggestions, and were unlikely to comply in the future, particularly as breaches were motivated by financial considerations.
Issues
The court determined whether the Respondent was justified in varying the licence to remove the boarding activity under regulation 15 of the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018. The Respondent argued that significant breaches of licence conditions related to animal welfare and a history of non-compliance satisfied regulation 15's requirements. The court found the breaches were serious, directly impacted animal welfare, and the Appellants were unlikely to comply with future conditions, upholding the variation.
Holdings
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Respondent's decision to vary the Appellant's licence, removing the licensable activity of providing boarding for 30 dogs in kennels. The Tribunal found a long history of non-compliance with licence conditions designed to protect animal welfare, indicating the Appellants are unlikely to comply in the future.
Remedies
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Respondent's decision to remove the boarding activity from the licence, meaning the Appellants cannot board dogs under the current licence terms.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal applied Regulation 15 of the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, which permits local authorities to vary licenses without consent when license conditions are breached, regulations are breached, or animal welfare is at risk. The Appellants' repeated breaches (including housing dogs from different households together and inadequate record-keeping) were specifically related to animal welfare protections, satisfying the conditions for license variation.
Cited Statute
- Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018
- Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013
- Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963
Judge Name
Wilson
Passage Text
- I find that the Appellants' approach to licence conditions, their prioritisation of their financial income over compliance and inability to accept responsibility for regulatory compliance is indicative that they will not comply with licence conditions should the licence be re-instated to allow for the boarding of dogs.
- On the basis of my findings above I find that the conditions set out in regulation 15(a),(b) and (d) are satisfied. Licence conditions have not been complied with, there has been a breach of the 2018 Regulations as evidenced by the conviction for the offences pursuant to section 20(1)(a) of the 2018 Regulations and I have found that the breaches relate to conditions which are specifically designed to protect animal welfare. It follows that I have found that the Appellants are unlikely to comply with similar conditions for the protection of animal welfare in the future. It follows that I confirm the Respondent's decision to vary the licence dated 17 December 2020 so as to remove the licensable activity of providing boarding for 30 dogs in kennels and the appeal is dismissed.
- On the basis of the evidence before me, I find that there is a long history of non-compliance. Indeed, even after the licence was varied so boarding of dogs was no longer permitted, the first Appellant accepts that she entered into a commercial arrangement to board dogs where there was no licence to do so. I find that this history of non-compliance is indicative that the Appellants will not comply with licence conditions in the future. I find that the conditions that have been breached are specifically designed to ensure the welfare of the dogs. The issue of record keeping in particular in relation to vaccinations is to prevent the spread of disease as is the requirement to keep stray and housed dogs separate. The requirement to kennel dogs separately other than those from the same household with the written consent of the owner in part is to avoid distress. Accordingly, I find that there is a long history of breaches of the licence conditions designed to ensure animal welfare. Against this background, I find that the Appellants are unlikely to comply with similar conditions designed to protect and promote animal welfare should the licence activity of boarding dogs be reinstated.