18/08/2024
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/649f1f878fa1977797a223bf?utm_source=amp&target=amp_jtext
The reasons given in the decision for revoking the license under regulation 15 (a) and (d) were as follows;-
Inadequate care and repeated failures to meet the welfare needs of the dogs on the premises.
she and her sister had used mopheads to control behaviour before they had gates installed but denied ever telling staff to do this.
entirely inappropriate methods of managing dog behaviour that had been regularly used on the premises, specifically, the discharging of extinguishers to break up fights and stop barking, the use of mops to manage dogs� behaviour, shouting at dogs, slamming doors and banging on windows as a means of deterrence.
The evidence shows that dogs were being assessed by the Appellant by merely observing their behaviour in the Pets corner shop and seeing how they behaved with humans in that context. That is not an appropriate assessment.
further submission that inadequate thought was given to the particular needs of braxy cephalic dogs. They find breathing more difficult and are less able to regulate their own body temperature than other breeds. No consideration was being given to their particular needs in terms of controlling their temperature
a. breach of condition 3.2 in that the maximum of 36 dogs permitted on the premises in accordance with the licence was exceeded and the records kept of the number of dogs on the premises did not match the number of dogs actually present. Breach proven.
b. breach of conditions 4.1, 4.2 and 5.2 the licence requires that sufficient numbers of competent individuals must be available to provide a level of care for the animals that ensures their welfare needs are met. Breach proven.
c. breach of condition 6.5 which requires that constant access to fresh clean drinking water must be maintained in a suitable receptacle. Breach proven
d. breach of condition 10.1 which requires that a written emergency plan acceptable to the local authority (my emphasis) must be in place, known and available to all the people on the premises used the licensable activity followed where necessary, to ensure appropriate steps are taken to protect all the people and animals on the premises in the case of fire or in the case of breakdowns for central heating, ventilation and aeration or filtration systems or other emergencies. Breach proven
e. breach of condition 7.1 that requires active and effective environmental enrichment. Breach proven.
f. breach of condition 21.1 (a) that requires that each dog must be provided with a clean comfortable and warm area where it can rest and sleep. Breach proven
g. the respondent was satisfied that the appellant was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence
11 dogs were being kept in the isolation kennels. These kennels do not meet the minimum space requirement per dog and the appellant had been informed of this several times previously. The area felt very warm, although the temperature reading showed 24°. On inspection several dogs were found in the kennels. The dogs were showing signs of overheating and panting/lying motionless on the floor.
123. In her report following her July 2021 inspection Ms Edwards made a recommendation to reduce the star rating to 1 star and the number of dogs permitted from 36 to 26. The council had received witness statements from two anonymous witnesses who worked in the premises providing accounts that confirmed ongoing concerns about the way in which the business was being run.
124. On 22/09/2021 Kareen Plympton team leader, health, safety and licensing, Charlene Ellis senior licensing officer and Paul Willis environmental health practitioner observing visited the appellant�s premises unannounced following complaints received of overcrowding (60 dogs), no ventilation and wider animal welfare concerns.
a serious incident that resulted in a bitch being mated on the site on 17 July 2020.
there were no areas where individual dogs could take themselves in order to avoid seeing other dogs and humans. There was no separate resting area within the two main rooms. it was a matter that had been raised in the previous inspection in February 2019.
It was noted that there were insufficient staff to dog ratios of the time of the inspection
after he'd come back from spending a few days there and he had a huge bite mark and swelling on his neck, I told the owners to take him straight to the vets for antibiotics. It had created a huge abscess and whilst draining it another dogs tooth came out of the wound! From what I gathered from the owners they didn't care then either
My partners dog had a hole in her ear from going there. They were just like “accidents happen”.
We were barely through the gate and this new staff member was extremely rude and grabbed my puppy by the collar
Narcissistic owners who care more about profits than the welfare of their employees or the dogs in their care. They have had countless injuries and even a death. You can’t take legally required breaks and are expected to show up early to every shift. Emotional manipulation and lying to owners happens on a daily basis and they often breach capacity meaning you can be responsible for the welfare of up to 40 dogs between two people.
The only reason they are running is through lying incessantly to clients.
Please read the full case report
Get free access to the complete judgment in Hatcher v Crawley Borough Council on CaseMine.
