Tribunal tells council to reconsider refusal of dog care licence

The London Borough of Ealing has been told by the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) to reconsider a decision to refuse a dog care licence.

This turned on the difference between day care for dogs, as opposed to boarding.

The owner of Alphas Canine Care brought the case under Regulation 24 of the Animals Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals (England) Regulations 2018.

He had a licence issued in May 2023 “to provide or arrange for the provision of boarding for dogs kennels” for up to six dogs, but in March 2024, applied for a new licence to provide day care - though not boarding - for up to 46 dogs.

Ealing refused on the basis that its legal advice was that a dog day care licence cannot be granted for a residential home.

The appellant argued that Ealing 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, did not preclude the provision of day care for dogs in a residential building.

Judge Brian Kennedy KC heard it was common ground that the sole reason for refusal was that a dog day care licence cannot be granted for a residential dwelling.

The appellant argued there is no restriction on granting a day care licence in respect of a residential dwelling and questioned whether the premises concerned are a ‘residential dwelling/home’ within the meaning of the 2018 Regulations, Schedule 4, part3.

He said the relevant regulations and the guidance were essentially agnostic on where day care is provided and this could be on any suitable premises whether commercial or residential.

Ealing argued that guidance documents clearly point towards an intention that someone should not hold both a home boarding licence and day care licence at the same premises.

The council said this was demonstrated by the fact that the former permits overnight stays whereas the latter prohibits these.

Judge Kennedy said Ealing “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”.

He said the appellant “on the most fundamental basis should succeed in that the reasons given in the refusal are inadequate…at no point has [Ealing] 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 had shown that a “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”.

The judge said it was though inappropriate for the tribunal to simply grant the licence as Ealing “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…”

Judge Kennedy sent the matter back to Ealing for reconsideration.

Mark Smulian