Council erred in dog day care decision – First-tier Tribunal

In Alphas Canine Care Ltd v London Borough of Ealing (Re Welfare of Animals) [2024] UKFTT 1055 (GRC) (26 November 2024), the Appellant appealed under Regulation 24 of the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals (England) Regulations 2018 against the London Borough’s decision to refuse a dog care licence application.

The Appellant, operating from Long Lea House, initially had permission for boarding up to 6 dogs but applied to provide day care for up to 46 dogs.

The Respondent refused, citing statutory guidance that prohibits dog day care licences for residential homes.

The Appellant issued its appeal on 21 May 2024 and the Tribunal provided the parties all relevant appeal documents, template response form, initial case management directions and a template case management questionnaire on 5 June 2024. In essence the Grounds of appeal were as follows:

Ground 1: raises a question of Law. The issue is whether the Respondent was wrong to refuse the Application on the basis that the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the 2018 Regulations, and/or guidance issued by the Secretary of State under the same, preclude the provision of day care for dogs in a residential building.

Ground 2: At issue here is whether the Premises are a “residential dwelling/home” within the meaning of the 2018 Regulations, Schedule 4, part3 and whether Ealing was wrong to conclude that the Premises were such.

Handing down his judgement, Judge Brian Kennedy KC said:

“At this stage the Tribunal having considered the above submissions accept and adopt those submissions made by the Appellant and is persuaded that the Appellant is correct in those submissions made under Ground 1 that the Respondent was wrong and erred in law when finding a dog day care licence cannot be granted for a residential dwelling/home without expressing adequate reasoning or that decision.

“The Tribunal is of the view that the Appeal on the most fundamental basis should succeed in that the reasons given in the refusal are inadequate. The reasons provided to support the refusal were that the decision is in accordance with statutory guidance that all licensing authorities must adhere to, specifically ‘Home Boarding for Dogs Licensing Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities’ and ‘Dog Day Care Licensing Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities – Therefore, the Local Authority has decided to refuse your application. At no point has the Respondent authority clearly explained on what basis it has reached the view that as a matter of its discretion the premises is a residential dwelling.

“The Appellant has demonstrated that the bland assertion that a dog day care licence cannot be granted for a residential dwelling/home simply cannot be said to be justified by relying on their generic interpretation of the guidance under which they must consider any application as explained above.

“That is not to say there are no other grounds for considering in any further applications from the Appellant or any applicant (and the Respondents have properly raised such situations which may pertain e.g. to holding two licences on the same premises, the number of dogs kept etc,) and further in the Respondent or any like authority specifying the particular grounds for refusal in each case rather than a generic reliance on the guidance. This would provide consistency and thereby demonstrate fairness in their regulation of all applications coming before them.

“The Appellant has invited the Tribunal to grant the application but that would not be appropriate either. The Respondent clearly has issues to decide on a number of fronts such as the domestic use of, and nature of the premises, the conduct of the applicant and the granting of more than one licence to premises etc.- all reasons that may have played a part in a lawful refusal but in this instance did not on the face of the reasons provided in this case, as so comprehensively demonstrated by Mr Rhimes on behalf of the Appellant in his submissions in this appeal. The Tribunal find that the for the good administration and consistency in decision making, not just within Ealing, but across all licensing authorities in this area of regulation which the Respondent properly aspire to present to the public they need to provide more specific and pertinent reasoning in any refusal.”