Summary: Ms D complains about the transportation costs of her dog to a quarantine centre. The Council has already accepted some failings in its communications with Ms D. We have not found any additional fault and have completed the investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council failed to follow procedures when transporting her rescue dog into quarantine. This includes a failure to source cheaper transportation, find a quarantine centre closer to Ms D’s home and instructing debt enforcement agents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. The decision on which quarantine centre to use was not made by the Council. This action was taken by the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) which is a Central Government Agency and outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. APHA decided which centre was used. As such I am not looking at this aspect of the complaint. Ms D can complain about the actions of APHA to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have spoken to Ms D and considered the information she provided. I asked the Council questions and examined its response and supporting documentation including logs of emails and calls.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. In March 2022 Ms D adopted a dog from overseas via a charity which had brought other dogs into the UK.
8. On 27 April APHA contacted the Council, it found that Ms D’s dog’s microchip did not match the information in the corresponding pet passport. That day the Council Inspector met with APHA Inspectors at Ms D’s home. She was notified about the issue and APHA issued the direction to Ms D requiring her to either quarantine or euthanise her dog. At this time there were unusually high numbers of dogs being transported into the UK from Ukraine which meant there were no approved facilities to house the dog. As a result, APHA agreed to home detention for seven days.
9. On 3 May APHA received test results, via the charity, for Ms D’s dog showing it did not have rabies. However, APHA noted the test result dates did not correlate to the dog’s health certificate (it subsequently confirmed the test results were falsified). This meant Ms D’s dog still had to move into an approved quarantine centre. No spaces were available and APHA agreed to extend the home detention for the dog. The Council issued a notice to Ms D under the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974 (hereafter referred to as the 1974 Order) confirming the home detention. A costs notice was also issued to Ms D showing the possible costs of transport and quarantine if the dog were housed in a local centre. On the same day APHA notified the Council there were two more rescued dogs in the area that needed quarantine due to importation issues. The next day APHA told the Council it was still sourcing a quarantine facility. The Council Inspector notified Ms D and the other two dog owners about the documentation issues which meant quarantine would be needed.
10. On 6 May APHA advised the Council it had found a quarantine facility in Surrey that could take the three dogs. The spaces needed to be filled quickly before they would be offered to other animals. That day APHA Inspectors and the Council Inspector visited the other two dog owners, Ms D was present at one of the visits. All the owners were advised about the Surrey facility and the length of stay for each dog would be decided by the facility. The Council contacted the facility to see if they could collect the dogs. This was not an option. The Council continued to contact approved transporters, but none had availability to transport Ms D’s dog. On 10 May the other two dogs were transported by the Council to the facility in Surrey using an approved vehicle that could only accommodate two animals. Ms D’s dog also had to be checked by a vet to see it was fit to travel, that check was completed on 10 May. The next day the Council transported the dog in its licensed vehicle to the facility.
11. On 24 May the Council sent Ms D an invoice for the dog’s transportation. Because Ms D and the two other dog owners had previously agreed to split the costs the invoice calculated the cost “split three ways as requested”. The cost to Ms D was £706.67. this was calculated using the HMRC value for fuel and mileage alongside driver time using the Public Protection Fees and Charges Rate. The Council issued reminder letters in June and 18 July.
12. Ms D formally complained to the Council and received a reply at the end of July. The Council said it was aware of the financial burden placed on owners by the quarantine of pets and it provided payment plans on request. It also explained it had no choice in the quarantine facility. It had contacted approved transporters in the South of England at the time and none were available. The costs incurred were calculated at standard rates. The Council said the Officer involved had sought to keep Ms D informed about a fast-moving situation, where possible spaces were flagged up in nearby quarantine facilities by APHA they were filled before any further progress could be made. The Council apologised if the updates to Ms D had resulted in confusion. It would look at ways to improve how Officers communicated with pet owners in similar situations. Ms D pursued her complaint, and the Council issued its review response on 9 September. The Council stated the three dogs could not have travelled together, as suggested by Ms D. The van used by the Council was only licensed to carry two dogs. There were no alternative vans available at short notice that were licensed. In addition, due to her dog’s health all three animals were not allowed to travel together. A final reminder letter about the outstanding invoice was sent in October. The case was passed to an enforcement agent in November. They contacted Ms D who agreed a payment plan and subsequently paid the invoice.

What should have happened

13. Where an animal is brought into the United Kingdom without correct documentation the Council and APHA Officers share powers under the 1974 Order.
14. APHA Imports Team examine documentation to see if the animal is legally allowed into the country. If the evidence shows the correct legal process has not been followed then APHA or Council Inspectors must either detain, destroy or place the animal into an APHA/ DEFRA approved quarantine facility. An Inspector will issue a notice to the owner of the animal which sets out why the animal is believed to be in contravention of the 1974 Order and requires quarantine at the owner’s expense. A costs notice is also issued which states that “quarantine can be an expensive process” and includes an example schedule of costs based on the nearest facility. The owner is given the option to either: a) sign the animal over to the Council for euthanasia; b) make an immediate payment to cover quarantine costs with further costs to come or c) agree to pay estimated costs (to be confirmed later) over an agreed period. If the owner chooses to have the animal quarantined APHA or the Council will seek an approved centre. If no spaces are available, the Inspectors can consider a brief interim period of home quarantine whilst a centre is found as soon as possible.
15. Where APHA locates and confirms the quarantine centre the Council’s role is then to arrange the animal’s transportation to the centre and to subsequently invoice the owner for the transportation costs. The Council will contact DEFRA approved transporters to see if they have capacity. The Council can also transport animals using approved vehicles. The Council cannot use animal transport companies who are not specifically approved by DEFRA for quarantine purposes and only specific licensed vehicles can be used.
16. The Council will issue an invoice to the owner once the animal has been placed in quarantine. Costs for mileage should be calculated using HMRC guidance and there are also set costs to calculate the Officer’s time when transporting the animal. The invoice should set out these amounts. If no payment is made the Council will send a reminder letter a month later. Another letter will be sent the following month advising legal action can be taken if payment is not made. If the owner fails to respond the case will, in due course, be passed to enforcement agents. The enforcement agents can agree a payment plan with the owner, if those payments are made then no further action is taken.

Was there fault by the Council

17. The Council has already accepted to Ms D that its communications were not always as clear as it would have liked. In a fast-moving case Officers were giving Ms D too many updates about possible quarantine options before anything had been confirmed by APHA. The Council now aims to restrict communications and updates in similar cases and will notify owners only once the quarantine options are confirmed. I do not see any additional fault this case.
18. I appreciate that events for Ms D were deeply distressing and the issues she encountered were due to the importation of her pet which were outside of her control. She was in no way at fault herself. However, I must assess the evidence impartially and, having done so, I am satisfied the Council, aside from the point above, acted in line with its procedures.
19. Ms D says the Council should have sourced cheaper transportation to the quarantine facility. The cost of transportation is not the deciding factor for a council when it must urgently transport an animal to quarantine. The emphasis for councils is to ensure an animal is moved as soon as possible. The evidence shows me the Council made reasonable efforts to contact approved transporters at the time such as the transporter linked to the identified quarantine facility. There is no statutory requirement for a council to contact every DEFRA approved transporter in these circumstances. Given the Council had to move Ms D’s dog quickly whilst sticking to strict procedures it was entitled to take the action it did. It has previously explained to Ms D that all three dogs could not be transported together to save money because the only vehicle available was limited to two dogs. The cost of the transportation has been clearly set out and explained to Ms D in the Council invoice. The costs are calculated using a standard cost for mileage and Officer time in line with procedures. I see no evidence of fault in this matter.
20. Ms D is dissatisfied the Council instructed an enforcement agent to recover the debt. The evidence shows me the Council followed its procedures in this instance. It issued an invoice to Ms D. When no payment was received it then sent out reminder letters. After three letters had been sent with no payment made the Council had the right to refer the case to an enforcement agent, this referral was made after her stage two complaint had been dealt with.

Did the fault cause an injustice

21. The Council has already accepted some fault in its communications in this case which may have resulted in confusion for Ms D. It has apologised and confirmed it will alter its approach in future case. That is a reasonable remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have completed the investigation and upheld the complaint because of the one fault already accepted and remedied by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman