Tammy Kirby v Birmingham City Council

Ms Kirby’s records of dogs boarded on an excel spreadsheet showed no record of the Dog being boarded with her from 5 to 17 July 2024, in breach of paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations

The Dog suffered a wound while in Ms Kirby’s care for which it did not receive prompt treatment; when this was reviewed by a vet the wound was at least 24 hours old and described as “sticky and smelly”. The Dog should have been checked at least daily and there was no record of the Dog’s injury recorded on the daily observational records. This was a breach of paragraphs 4.2 and 9.6, 9.13 and 9.14 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations.

There was no record of the Dog’s date of last vaccination and it is alleged Ms Kirby did not obtain proof of vaccination from the Dog’s owner. The Council’s officer believed that the Dog was significantly out of date with booster vaccinations, which poses a significant risk to all other boarded dogs. This was a breach of paragraph 9.4 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations.

Ms Kirby’s register of dogs at the address did not include the Dog’s microchip number or date of last vaccination, both of which are required under paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 part 3 of the Regulations.

The Appeal

The Council’s officer came with a prior agenda to investigate the incident from July 2024 and interviewed Ms Kirby without allowing her support or fair time to respond. The officer “used bullying tactics on a vulnerable person”.

All the paperwork from the Dog’s stay was presented to the Council’s officer, who took photos of it.

Ms Kirby accepts that the Dog’s name was missing from Ms Kirby’s Diary recording dogs staying and explained that she was so upset by the complaint raised by the Dog’s owner in July 2024 that she removed the Dog’s name from the Diary. Ms Kirby’s partner, Mr Suttle, comments that Ms Kirby was upset by the incident in 2024 and the civil court case that followed. He says “it was naïve to remove [the Dog’s] name from the spreadsheet”. The civil court case concluded that whilst a dog care provider should have noticed an injury had occurred there was insufficient evidence that the injury itself was caused by a lack of care and skill.

The Council’s officer and Ms Kirby have a difference of opinion regarding the method used for worming of Ms Kirby’s own dog, who also resides in her home. Ms Kirby argues that this contributed to animosity between the parties.

The incident caused significant distress and anxiety to Ms Kirby which is ongoing.

Ms Kirby feels she has not been given time to explain her position and concerns.

Legal Framework

Paragraph 2, which provides:

Paragraph 4, which provides:

Paragraph 9, which provides:

—(1) A register must be kept of all the dogs accommodated in the home which must include—

(a)the dates of each dog’s arrival and departure;

(b)each dog’s name, age, sex, neuter status, microchip number and a description of it or its breed;

(c)the number of any dogs from the same household;

(d)a record of which dogs (if any) are from the same household;

(e)the name, postal address, telephone number (if any) and email address (if any) of the owner of each dog and emergency contact details;

(f)in relation to each dog, the name, postal address, telephone number and email address of a local contact in an emergency;

(g)the name and contact details of each dog’s normal veterinarian and details of any insurance relating to the dog;

(h)details of each dog’s relevant medical and behavioural history, including details of any treatment administered against parasites and restrictions on exercise;

(i)details of each dog’s diet and related requirements;

(j)any required consent forms;

(k)a record of the date or dates of each dog’s most recent vaccination, worming and flea treatments;

(l)details of any medical treatment each dog is receiving.”

The role of the Tribunal

To refuse to grant or renew a licence, or

On appeal, the First-tier Tribunal may overturn or confirm the local authority’s decision, with or without modification.”

Evidence and submissions

She explained that the complaint about the Dog was the first complaint she had had as a dog boarder.

She said that the meeting she had with the Council’s officers in May 2025 was a meeting planned so that she could be cautioned by them rather than a meeting about the renewal of her licence. She said that the Council’s officers asked her about precautions and policies and procedures before saying that she had not complied in relation to the Dog and immediately cautioning her. She said she felt bullied by the Council’s officer and was left very distressed by the visit. The Council has subsequently been through an in internal investigation into the complaints raised by Ms Kirby about how she was treated, particularly in light of her vulnerability. Ms Kirby and Mr Suttle said that they had never received a copy of the visit report.

Ms Kirby said there was never any problem with the dog in question and the Dog had no symptoms of injury; the owner’s husband came to collect the Dog, noticed nothing wrong with it and thanked her for looking after the Dog. She accepted that the Dog did have a scratch, but the vet said it was superficial.

She said that she had produced all the paperwork to the Council’s officer on the visit, who took a photo of it.

Ms Kirby said that she loves dogs but described herself as not the most organised person.

She said that when the Dog was boarding with her, she asked the owner for up-to-date vaccination and microchip information and the owner said they would WhatsApp it to Ms Kirby, but she never received it and boarded the Dog anyway.

She pointed out that she had a number of regular customers and for 2 years had had her licence renewed with no problem at all.

The Council can grant a licence for dog boarding if and only if it is satisfied the licence holder will comply with and meet licence conditions and that grant of a licence is appropriate. On 22 May 2025, the Council refused to renew Ms Kirby’s licence, because it was not satisfied her licence conditions would be met.

He noted that records need to be properly kept for a number of reasons, including to ensure the correct number of dogs are boarded and for animal and public health. Ms Kirby admitted that records were not properly kept because there was no record of the Dog’s vaccination or the microchip status of any dog, which are records which need to be kept for those reasons.

He also noted that conditions imposed on a licence holder include those which relate to staffing and the ability of person to meet needs of the dogs being looked after, including protection from pain and suffering. Through these conditions, the Council needs to make sure that all animals are safe and sound. In this case these were not fulfilled adequately because the Dog suffered injury while in Ms Kirby’s care which required veterinary treatment and was found to be at least 24 hours old at the point of leaving her care. The Council as a result has concerns about both about the physical assistance provided to the Dog and because there was no record of what went on and the injury.

Mr Skudra said all of this raises concerns for the Council about Ms Kirby’s ability to meet the licence conditions. He emphasised that the Tribunal was concerned with the decision of the Council whether or not to grant the licence. He noted that there are ongoing disputes about what happened during the Council’s visit and behaviour of persons connected with the visit and the Dog, but that these are separate and not a matter for the Tribunal.

He concluded that the Council had concerns based on Ms Kirby’s lack of records and lack of interaction with the Dog such that its injury was not noted. For these reasons, the Council does not feel it can be sufficiently confident about Ms Kirby’s ability to comply with her licence conditions and refused to renew her licence.

Discussions and conclusions

17(1), because she did not have or keep a record of the Dog’s most recent vaccination at the time of boarding in July 2024.

2(2), because she did not keep records in relation to the Dog of all the matters she was required to record as a condition of her licence for at least three years. In particular, she did not keep records of the Dog’s vaccination status. She had other information about the Dog in hard copy, but removed records about the Dog from her spreadsheet (the Diary) following a dispute with the Dog’s owner.

9(4), because in not obtaining or recording the Dog’s vaccination details, she did not take all reasonable precautions to prevent and control the spread among the animals and people of infectious diseases, pathogens and parasites.

9(13) and 9(14) because when the Dog was seen by the vet on the same day as leaving Ms Kirby’s care, the vet noted “Wound LF flank/elbow about 3cm, looks at least 24 hours old, a little smelly and sticky, mild purulent discharge, looks like maybe scratch with penetrating?? Ventral aspect a little swollen and bruised, dorsal superficial scratch”. It appeared that Ms Kirby was not aware of this injury at the point of the dog leaving her care, but as the Dog had been in her care for the preceding few days, it was more likely than not that the injury was sustained while in Ms Kirby’s care. In my view, this means that she has not demonstrated, including through her records, that she had been checking the Dog for pain or injury sufficiently regularly to have noticed or sought appropriate medical care.