Tammy Kirby v Birmingham City Council [2026] UKFTT 659 (GRC)

[2026] UKFTT 00659 (GRC)Case Reference: FT/WA/2025/0006
First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Hearing Heard on: 30 April 2026Date 07 May 2026
Welfare of Animals
Heard by Cloud Video Platform
Before
JUDGE HARRIS
Between
TAMMY KIRBYAppellantBIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCILRespondentTammy Kirby, representing herself with support from Chris Suttle. for AppellantHenry Skudra for RespondentDecision: The appeal is Dismissed.The Council’s decision dated 22 May 2025 is confirmed.REASONS

Background to the appeal

[1]Birmingham City Council (“the Council”) is the licensing authority. The Appellant, Ms Kirby, held an Animal Activity Licence pursuant to the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 (“the Regulations”) in relation to animal boarding.[2]The Council decided on 22 May 2025 to refuse to renew Ms Kirby’s licence for dog home boarding.[3]Officers of the Council visited the home address of Ms Kirby on 14 May 2025 and recommended that the licence be refused. The grounds for refusal set out in the Council’s email dated 22 May 2025 were that the Council’s officer believed that Ms Kirby had failed to meet several significant conditions attached to her licence relating to the boarding of a specific dog (the “Dog”) with Ms Kirby between 5 and 17 July 2024. In summary, the Council identified the following failings:a. 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 Regulationsb. 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.c. 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 The Council’s officer believed that the Dog was significantly out of date with booster vaccinations, which poses a significant risk to all other boarded dogs.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.d. 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[4]Ms Kirby filed an appeal on form T98 dated 8 June 2026 which was incomplete. She subsequently filed a completed form GRC1 on 11 November 2025 which was admitted by the Tribunal out of time by order dated 9 December 2025.[5]Ms Kirby’s grounds for appeal stated that “I feel that I have been judged unfairly and ignored, along with the treatment I endured on the day of the inspection and the state I was left in mentally and physically by [the Council’s officers]”. The grounds gave a chronology beginning with the visit on 14 May 2025 and Ms Kirby’s subsequent complaint against the Council’s officers. In summary, Ms Kirby raised the following points:a. 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”.b. All the paperwork from the Dog’s stay was presented to the Council’s officer, who took photos of it.c. 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.d. 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.e. The incident caused significant distress and anxiety to Ms Kirby which is ongoing.f. Ms Kirby feels she has not been given time to explain her position and concerns. Legal Framework[6]The Regulations govern the licensing of premises involving animal welfare standards including those engaging in boarding of dogs.[7]Regulation 4 sets out the conditions for the grant or renewal of a licence.[8]Schedule 2 to the Regulations sets out the general licence conditions. The key conditions here include the following: a. Paragraph 2, which provides:
“(1) The licence holder must ensure that at any time all the records that the licence holder is required to keep as a condition of the licence are available for inspection by an inspector in a visible and legible form or, where any such records are stored in electronic form, in a form from which they can readily be produced in a visible and legible form. (2) The licence holder must keep all such records for at least three years beginning with the date on which the record was created.” b. Paragraph 4, which provides: “…(2) The licence holder or a designated manager and any staff employed to care for the animals must have competence to identify the normal behaviour of the species for which they are caring and to recognise signs of, and take appropriate measures to mitigate or prevent, pain, suffering, injury, disease or abnormal behaviour. c. Paragraph 9, which provides: “…(4) All reasonable precautions must be taken to prevent and control the spread among the animals and people of infectious diseases, pathogens and parasites… (6) Sick or injured animals must receive prompt attention from a veterinarian or, in the case of fish, an appropriately competent person and the advice of that veterinarian or, in the case of fish, that competent person must be followed… (13) All animals must be checked at least once daily and more regularly as necessary to check for any signs of pain, suffering, injury, disease or abnormal behaviour and vulnerable animals must be checked more frequently. (14) Any signs of pain, suffering, injury, disease or abnormal behaviour must be recorded and the advice and further advice (if necessary) of a veterinarian (or in the case of fish, of an appropriately competent person) must be sought and followed.”
[9]Part 3 of Schedule 4 sets out the specific licence conditions for providing home boarding for dogs. The key condition here is paragraph 17, which provides: 17. —(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[10]In the leading case on appeals against local authority licensing decisions R (Hope & Glory Public House Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31,

Lord Justice Toulson said:

“It is right in all cases that the magistrates' court should pay careful attention to the reasons given by the licensing authority for arriving at the decision under appeal, bearing in mind that Parliament has chosen to place responsibility for making such decisions on local authorities …The weight which the magistrates should ultimately attach to those reasons must be a matter for their judgment in all the circumstances, taking into account the fullness and clarity of the reasons, the nature of the issues and the evidence given on the appeal.”
[11]Although this case referred to magistrates’ courts, the same principle of the weight to be placed on the evidence of the licensing authority applies to the Tribunal.[12]Regulation 24 of the 2018 Regulations provides:
“24 Appeals (1) 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… (4) On appeal, the First-tier Tribunal may overturn or confirm the local authority’s decision, with or without modification.”
Procedural matters concerning the hearing[13]The hearing was conducted by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) with all parties attending remotely. The Tribunal was satisfied that it was fair and just to conduct the hearing in this way. The start of the hearing was delayed by technical difficulties. Evidence and submissions[14]Ms Kirby made the following points in the hearing:a. She explained that the complaint about the Dog was the first complaint she had had as a dog boarder.b. 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.c. 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.d. She said that she had produced all the paperwork to the Council’s officer on the visit, who took a photo of it.e. Ms Kirby said that she loves dogs but described herself as not the most organised person.f. 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.g. 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.[15]Mr Skudra, for the Council, made the following points in the hearing:a. 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.b. 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.c. 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.d. 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.e. 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[16]The issue before the Tribunal is whether the Council was correct to refuse to renew Ms Kirby’s licence for dog home boarding in its decision dated 22 May 2025.[17]Taking account all the circumstances, including of the evidence before me today, I find as a matter of fact that the Ms Kirby has not demonstrated compliance with the following conditions of her licence:a. 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.b. 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.c. 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.d. 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.[18]A key part of any regulatory licensing scheme is that the licensor needs to be satisfied that the person seeking licensing is ready, willing and organised to comply with the requirements of that scheme. In deciding whether or not the licensor can be satisfied of sufficient likelihood of future compliance, the extent to which there has been compliance in the past is relevant, because it may raise concerns or doubt about the ability of a person seeking a licence to comply in future. Put another way, if there are concerns about a licence holder not meeting conditions of their licence up to the point of renewal, without evidence of steps being taken to ensure future compliance, concerns may remain about the same thing happening again in future.[19]The Tribunal steps into the shoes of the Council and considers whether the Council’s decision is correct or not. In this appeal, because I find that Ms Kirby has not demonstrated compliance with all the conditions of her licence, and concerns remain about her ability to organise herself to do so in future, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that it is more likely than not she will comply with these conditions in future.[20]I therefore consider that the Council’s decision to refuse the application for a licence renewal was correct and confirm it.[21]For that reason, the appeal must be dismissed.