Sara Veasey v Rugby Borough Council [2026] UKFTT 332 (GRC)

[2026] UKFTT 00332 (GRC)Case Reference: FT/WA/2025/0014
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Date 05 March 2025
Welfare of Animals
Decided without a hearing
Before
JUDGE HARRIS
Between
SARA VEASEYAppellantRUGBY BOROUGH COUNCILRespondentDecision: The appeal is struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with it and under Rule 8(3)(c) because there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding.REASONS
[1]These proceedings concern the Appellant’s licence to keep a dog breeding establishment (DB007). The Appellant filed the appeal by form GRC1 dated 5 September 2025.[2]With her appeal the Appellant provided a copy of the decision she said she was appealing, which was a letter dated 31 March 2025 sent by the Licensing Officer for the Respondent. This read as follows:
“I am writing to inform you of the licence to keep a breeding establishment (DB007) has now lapsed. You are no longer permitted to carry out the licensable activity of dog breeding at the premises. You are entitled to apply for a new breeding licence at any point, however, the position of the Council has not changed since the last communication sent on the 10 September 2024 via email: it is highly unlikely a licence would be granted at the premises due to the number of dogs kept, noise complaints (both historic and new) and an inability to uphold standards set out by DEFRA in relation to dog breeding premises. If you breed dogs without a licence you could be fined an unlimited amount or go to prison for up to 6 months.”
[3]The reasons for the appeal given by the Appellant in her form GRC1 were as follows:
“I believe that there was incorrect information given to the licensing officer, who only sent me emails about not renewing my licence. I was never sent any hard copy letters with any explanation about why my licence was not being renewed. The only thing that was of any relevance was a section about the scale of what I was doing which had the officer visited he would of known that the information was not correct. I asked for hard copies about 4 weeks ago when I found out about the appeals process. The licensing officer also never visited to see if the spurious reports were legitimate or just a disgruntled neighbour being vindictive.”
[4]The outcome sought by the Appellant was “I would like a renewal of my breeder’s licence on the grounds that there was information that was not correct which was taken as truth without any physical investigation which would have set the record straight. This has destroyed a reputation that has taken decades to build it is not just about a licence.”[5]The Respondent applied by form GRC5 dated 24 December 2025 to strike out the appeal on the basis that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider it under Rule 8(2)(a) and/or that there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding under Rule 8(3)(c) (the “strike-out application”).[6]The reasons which the respondent gave for striking out the appeal were set out in its Response dated 24 December 2025. In summary, these are as follows:a. The appeal discloses no appealable decision under Regulation 24(1) of the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 (the “Regulations”) and is out of time. There is no active licence, no refusal of renewal (as none was applied for) and no other decision capable of founding jurisdiction.b. The Appellant held a licence which expired by effluxion of time on 29 March 2025. No renewal application was submitted, nor prescribed fee paid.c. Advice given in communication on 10 September 2024 stated that the attached renewal application should be completed 2 months prior to the expiry of the existing licence. No application was received prior to the expiry of the licence on 29 March 2025.d. The letter dated 31 March 2025 merely confirmed that the existing licence had expired due to non-renewal and provided pre-application guidance. The Appellant was invited to submit a fresh application.e. The Appellant is an experienced licensee who had renewed her licence previously and could therefore be taken to have awareness of the renewal procedure under Regulation 4 of the Regulations. The Appellant has not followed the renewal process.f. No decision was made to refuse, revoke or vary any licence.g. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal fail to plead any material facts, error of law, irrationality or procedural impropriety.[7]By directions dated 9 January 2026, I directed that the Appellant should make any representations as to the proposed striking out of her appeal by 26 January 2026 pursuant to rule 8(4), which states that the Tribunal may not strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings under Rule 8(2)(a) or Rule 8(3)(c) without first giving the Appellant an opportunity to make representations in relation to the proposed striking out. No response was received from the Appellant. Discussion and conclusions[8]Regulation 24(1) of the Regulations states that any operator who is aggrieved by a decision by a local authority—(a) to refuse to grant or renew a licence, or(b) to revoke or vary a licence, may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.[9]I find that as a matter of fact the letter sent by the Respondent to the Appellant dated 31 March 2025 was not a refusal to grant or renew a licence or to revoke or vary one, because no application had been made for renewal and no licence was in existence at that date. The terms of the letter make it clear that it is simply informing the Appellant that the existing licence had lapsed and that she could apply for a new one at any point, but in the meantime could not operate as a dog breeder without a licence.[10]I therefore agree with the Respondent that there is no decision in respect of which a right of appeal lies to this Tribunal. This means that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and accordingly must be struck out under Rule 8(2)(a).[11]I am also satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the case, or any part of it, succeeding because the outcome sought by the Appellant is not something which is within the Tribunal’s power to grant. The Tribunal cannot order the renewal of a licence where no application has been made for this.[12]The proceedings are therefore struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with them and under Rule 8(3)(a) because there is no reasonable prospect of them succeeding