Edward Morris v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Background

1. Mr Morris has been a dog owner for many years. He tells me that he has been breeding dogs for many years and has customers who will seek him out as they want to buy puppies that he has bred.

2. Parliament decided that anyone who breeds dogs must have a licence. To enforce this in England, they made laws, which are found in section 13 of the and the Animal Welfare Act 2006 Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 (now “the Regulations”). The Regulations provide that breeding dogs is a licensable activity if 3 or more litters are bred in any 12-month period or the breeding includes advertising selling dogs (see paragraph 8 of Schedule 1). The Local Authority for a breeder’s location enforces the licensing requirements.

3. Parliament’s decision meant that, even though Mr Morris had already been successfully breeding dogs and selling the puppies, he needed to have a licence to do so.

4. It is common ground that, in 2020, he was granted a licence and given a 4-Star rating. It is also common ground that, until 30 November 2024, he was licenced. By Application to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (now “Rotherham”) dated 27 th November 2024 and received by them on 29 th November 2025, Mr Morris applied to renew his licence.

5. Rotherham inspected Mr Morris’s premises on 11 th December 2024 and then, on 13 th February 2025, refused to renew Mr Morris’s licence to breed dogs.

6. This is Mr Morris’s appeal against the refusal to renew his licence. Case law and regulatory law

7. Case law provides that when making its Decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of Rotherham and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to Rotherham’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions . The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that Rotherham’s decision was wrong rests with the Appellant. See R (Hope and Glory Public House Limited) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31 , see https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/31.html ; approved by the Supreme Court I Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60 at paragraph 45, see https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0126-judgment.pdf

8. Relevant parts of the Regulations are set out below set out when a renewal is to be granted. It provides (as relevant to this appeal):

5. Period of licence A local authority may grant or renew a licence— (a) for the period of one, two or three years ….

4. Conditions of grant or renewal of a licence (1) This regulation applies where— (a) a local authority has received from an operator an application in writing for the grant or renewal of a licence to carry on a licensable activity on premises in the local authority area, and (b) the application gives such information as the local authority has required. (2) The local authority must— (a) appoint one or more qualified inspectors to inspect any premises on which the licensable activity or any part of it is being or is to be carried on, and (b) following that inspection, grant a licence to the operator, or renew the operator’s licence, in accordance with the application if it is satisfied that— (i) the licence conditions will be met, (ii) any appropriate fee has been paid in accordance with regulation 13, (iii) the grant or renewal is appropriate having taken into account the report submitted to it in accordance with regulation 10 . Regulation 10 is not set out here. It is not in dispute that the Report contained the information required. It is in dispute as to whether those answers were all correctly recorded by the inspector Schedule 6 Specific conditions: breeding dogs 6—Protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease (1) ……. (11) A preventative healthcare plan agreed with the veterinarian with whom the licence holder has registered under paragraph 9(8) of Schedule 2 must be implemented . Paragraph 9(8) of Schedule 2 is not set out here Documents provided to the Judge

9. The Tribunal considered a bundle comprising of 102 pages. In addition, the tribunal was provided with the Case Management Directions from the Compliance Hearing on 26 th September 2025 and the Skeleton Argument provided by Rotherham. Rotherham’s decision

10. The inspection took place on 11 th December 2024; it was conducted by Mr Tony Lowe, an Animal Health Inspector who is employed by Rotherham. The Decision to refuse renewal is at pages 54 to 57 of the Bundle, that decision was made by Mr Lewis Coates, the Service Manager for Regulation and Enforcement and a qualified Environmental Health Officer. Mr Coates has the authority to make decisions under regulation 4 of the Regulations (this is not in dispute). The overall reason given is that Mr Morris does not meet the minimum standards required by the Regulations. That overall reason is set out in specific points (with silent grammar corrections): a. Licence condition 9.4 has been breached because vaccination certificates expired in May 2024. b. Licence condition 9.11 has been breached as Mr Morris cleans his kennels with bleach, which is toxic and not a suitable, safe and effective product to be around dogs for cleaning. c. Specific Licence condition 6.7 has been breached as no record is kept of the date and time of birth of each puppy, each puppy’s sex, colour and weight, placentae passed, the number of puppies in the litter and any other significant events. d. Specific Licence condition 6.8 has been breached as no record is kept of each puppy sale including the microchip number of the puppy, the date of the sale and the age of the puppy on that date. e. Specific Licence condition 6.9 has been breached as no record is kept of each breeding dog or the dates of any matings whether or not successful, details of its biological mother and biological father, details of any veterinary treatment it has received. f. Specific Licence condition 6.10 has been breached as no record is kept of each breeding bitch of the number of matings, its age at the time of each mating, the number of its litters, the date or dates on which it has given birth and the number of caesarean sections it has had, if any. g. Specific Licence condition 6.12 has been breached as a preventative healthcare plan has not been agreed and implemented. Mr Morris’s grounds of appeal

11. Mr Morris set out his grounds of appeal in his Notice of Appeal (bundle page 68): a. The Licensing Officer who made the decision to refuse to renew was not the Visiting Animal Welfare Officer. b. His kennels are 4-star rated and have been improved over the time he has bred dogs. After Mr Morris received a breeding licence in 2022 under which he could keep up to 18 dogs, Rotherham notified the landowner (Ms Branford) that all building and other activity had to cease as there was a query about planning permission; as a result, he was only permitted to keep 7 dogs. c. He did vaccinate the breeding bitches. One bitch’s vaccines expired in May 2024. This was an oversight and probably he was not going to breed that bitch at that time. d. The Visiting Officer could see at the visit that Mr Morris was dismantling and renewing all the kennels. The dogs were outside. He was using a highly water concentrated bleach as the dogs were being moved, and he wanted to prevent parasites or germs. Following the bleaching, he was then going to use a power washer and lots of fresh water and leave all the doors open, he believed that would protect the dogs. e. The Visiting Officer did not ask to see any paperwork on this visit. With previous visits, there was no problem with paperwork. f. If bitches whelp when Mr Morris is awake, they are supervised. If they start to whelp during the night, he relies on a camera to monitor them. g. A Health Care Plan was agreed on the Animal Welfare Officer’s first visit. There were then issues and that lapsed. He intended to obtain a local and accessible veterinary service and obtain a Health Care Plan from them. h. His dogs’ welfare is extremely important to him, and he works hard to give them the best life. The bitches are given all the nutrients they need and are closely monitored with a healthy balanced diet and are given appropriate exercise. i. There were no visits between the previous license being granted and the visit for renewal. This is unhelpful as the Animal Welfare Officer informs Mr Morris of changes. Mr Morris would find it helpful to have more frequent visits to make him aware of changes in legislation. Response

12. Rotherham’s response to the appeal is at pages 1 to 3 of the Bundle. By way of response (and using the same paragraphs as I used above), Rotherham submitted: a. They agree that the Licensing Officer (who made the decision) and the Animal Welfare Officer (who did the inspection) are different people, but that is not a reason to allow an appeal. b. The instruction to cease building was from a different department (namely planning) and are not relevant to the appeal. c. Up to date vaccination records were requested at the inspection and not produced. Those which were produced indicated that vaccinations for “multiple animals” had expired. d. The use of household bleach is not a suitable product for use with animals due to its toxic nature. e. Records must be kept for at least 3 years from their creation, during the inspection records were requested at the inspection and not provided. The records were for the required details of puppies born, breeding dogs, and breeding bitches. f. A Preventive Healthcare Plan must be agreed with the veterinarian with whom the licence holder is registered and that Plan must be implemented. The vet must be consulted and a written health plan provided. The application form indicated that Medivets was the veterinarian, but Mr Morris stated at the inspection that a different vet was being used. g. The response does not dispute how important Mr Morris’s dogs are to him. h. They understand that the reference to a previous visit was that which took place on 2 nd November 2020 in respect of the previous licence. Appellant’s Reply

13. It seems that Mr Morris chose not to reply to the response, which is his right. The hearing

14. The hearing took place on 20 th November 2025 and was conducted by a Judge alone and using CVP; the hearing was, within Article 6, fair as – despite slight connection issues – each party had the opportunity to present their case, by way of evidence and submissions. To enable the Tribunal to consider matters chronologically, Mr Sowter presented his case first, calling two witnesses, Mr Lowe and Mr Coates; Mr Sowter chose to not have Mr Coates in the CVP room to hear Mr Lowe’s evidence.

15. Mr Morris’s case was presented after the Tribunal heard from Rotherham’s witnesses. As criminal proceedings are contemplated, I explained to Mr Morris and Ms Branford that they did not have to give evidence or answer questions as have the right of protection from self-incrimination. I sought to put the warning in non-legal terms, to enable them each to understand what I meant. I made it clear that I would not hold it against either of them if they decided not to answer questions; they indicated that they understood. They both chose to answer questions put by Mr Sowter. At one point where it seemed particularly relevant, I interrupted the cross-examination of Mr Morris to remind him that he did not need to answer, and he chose not to answer one question. I also required Mr Sowter to be specific about certain timings (month and year) when he was asking about breeding activities; it would have been unfair for him to try and gather in these proceedings additional evidence for use in criminal proceedings.

16. None of the witnesses took the oath/affirmation (which is standard in First-tier Tribunal proceedings).

17. Following the evidence, Mr Sowter made submissions, followed by Ms Branford on behalf of Mr Morris. Mr Morris wanted to say more, and I allowed him to make further submissions, he had the last word. Evidence and submissions

18. Mr Lowe’s written evidence is found at pages 4 to 7 of the Bundle. It is in a format used in criminal proceedings and has the wording from section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 about risk of prosecution. These are Tribunal proceedings, so criminal evidence provisions do not apply, but I accepted that form of evidence. Mr Lowe gave further evidence by way of answering questions from Mr Sowter, which focussed on his confirming the information recorded in his Report (pages 19 to 52 of the Bundle). Ms Branford asked him questions as did I. My impression of Mr Lowe’s evidence is that he is an experienced Animal Health Inspector who has done many inspections. He was not seeking to prevent Mr Morris from continuing to breed dogs, but recorded in his Report what he found at the time of the inspection.

19. Mr Coates’ written evidence is found at pages 8 to 9 of the Bundle. Again, it is in the form used in criminal proceedings, again I take no issue with that. He confirmed that it was his decision not to renew Mr Morris’s licence. Ms Branford and Mr Morris had no questions for Mr Coates. I asked him about whether he ever departs from a Report given by an Inspector and he said that he sometimes does, for example if further information and/or mitigating circumstances are brought to his attention. He stated that he did not ask Mr Morris for any information prior to making his decision. I also asked him a question about who is responsible for chipping a bred puppy, he was not able to answer that, stating that it would be better to ask Mr Lowe. Whilst this perhaps appeared surprising, I note that Mr Coates’ remit covers all sorts of licensing, and it is perhaps not to be expected that he cannot immediately recall all the different regimes. The question of chipping was not something on which I needed to make a finding, I did not ask for Mr Lowe to be recalled as a witness. My impression of Mr Lowe as a witness is that he had nothing to hide – he made the decision on the evidence in front of him, namely the Report.

20. Mr Morris’s written evidence is the letter dated 12 th August 2025 (at page 78 of the Bundle) with the heading “Statement – Breeding Licence Application Refusal” in which he says: a. He has no written Health Care Plan. Abbey Vets, who have provided treatment to and care for his dogs, would (on contact) confirm that, whilst there is no written plan, Mr Morris uses their practice consistently for the health and welfare of the dogs. b. When the Animal Welfare Officer visited, he was refurbishing the kennels and using bleach to eliminate 99% of germs. The kennels were then pressure-washed to remove all traces of bleach, and the dogs were not going to return to those kennels for at least 2 days to ensure they were safe. c. He was not given a fair opportunity to meet the required standards before his licence was refused, and this is unfair.

21. Mr Morris was asked questions by Mr Sowter. As set out above, I had given him a direction about the right to not self-incriminate. My impression of Mr Morris is that he is frustrated with this whole process and does not understand how he went from having a 4-star premises to being refused a renewal of licence. He explained that when Mr Lowe arrived on 11 th December 2024, he (that is, Mr Morris) was in the middle of doing some building works in the kennels and had forgotten about the appointment with Mr Lowe. He is adamant that he was not asked about providing records. Further, he was adamant that, if he had been given a chance to provide documents, even on the following day, all the required documents would have been provided. He was unable to explain why he had not provided all the documents to the Tribunal when he lodged his appeal or during the Tribunal appeal process (whether to the Tribunal or to Rotherham). He was asked specifically about the records which are in the Bundle (pages 83 to 102); his recollection of the dates of birth of the puppies was different from the forms. He was, however, adamant that he kept all those puppies because he breeds dogs to keep and breeds dogs for selling. He was unable to explain why each page had, at the bottom, details of a person named as “new owner”. After he had given evidence, Ms Branford informed me that Mr Morris is very dyslexic. Therefore, I look back on Mr Morris’s evidence (written and verbal) as his best attempts to assist the Tribunal to work out what happened in circumstances where he is not always totally clear due to relying on his memory, rather than having written documents.

22. Ms Branford’s written evidence is dated 14 th August 2025 (page 79 of the Bundle). She says in her written evidence: a. The kennels are kept in excellent condition. b. Mr Morris works very hard to maintain the high standards required by Rotherham’s Animal Welfare Officer. c. She has always been present at every visit, except the last one (i.e. the one on 11 th December 2024). Mr Morris requires support with paperwork and administrative matters, Ms Branford normally takes care of those things; Mr Morris has special needs. d. The first visit by the Animal Welfare Officer included attendance by a Vet (paid for by Mr Morris) and the kennels were given a 4-start rating. e. Mr Morris, since that first visit, has met all required standards. He did not initially have a choice of veterinary surgery, but moved (due to distance) to using Raoul Dowding vets or Abbey vets depending on what procedure is required. f. Mr Morris has gone to great lengths to improve the kennel environment. People who come to collect puppies from Mr Morris comment on how impressed they are with the setup and how clean and well-run it is.

23. Ms Branford confirmed that the statement dated 14 th August 2025 (page 79 of the Bundle) is her witness statement, she owns the land on which Mr Morris’s kennels stand, and she assists him with paperwork. She confirmed, through answering questions from Mr Sowter that she is not the licence holder or responsible for adhering with licence conditions. She was adamant that she was not present at any of the inspection on 11 th December 2024; she can only tell the Tribunal what she was told about that inspection. She accepted that it was her fault that Medivet was written on the application form, stating that Mr Morris was unable to read the application. She said that Mr Morris is unable to do paperwork without her assistance.

24. The bundle also includes the following evidence: a. Receipts from 9 th January 2024 showing a purchase of 4 x 5L kennel Cleaner from Waites Discount Warehouse in Conisbrough, Doncaster. b. Receipts showing payments to veterinary surgeries. c. Feedback from new owners of puppies. d. 8 Litter Forms dated in December 2023 for a dog called Lucky. e. 6 Litter Forms dated in November 2024 for a dog called Peri (also referred to as “Perri”). Relevant factual disputes and findings

25. Where there is a factual dispute that the Tribunal needs to determine, the Tribunal uses the civil standard of proof – balance of probabilities, in other words “is it more likely than not” – to make its findings about what happened. The starting position is that the person who is asserting a fact must prove that fact. However, where the question is whether a document exists, it is fair to expect the person who has possession or control of that document to provide that document as proof that it exists, rather than expecting another to prove its non-existence.

26. The relevant factual matters which are agreed between the parties are: a. One dog’s vaccination had expired in May 2024. b. There was bleach in the area of the kennels at the inspection on 11 th December 2024. c. No records of birthing or of breeding dogs were, on 11 th December 2024, handed to Mr Lowe by Mr Morris.

27. There are several factual disputes which the parties raised in written documents and at the hearing. The ones which I consider relevant to the decision I must make are: a. Whether more than one dog’s vaccination had expired in May 2024. b. Whether the presence and use of bleach was a breach of licence condition 9.11. c. Whether there was on the premises disinfectant for use which is approved by Defra as suitable for use in kennels. d. Whether Mr Lowe asked Mr Morris to provide him with records. e. Whether Mr Morris was given a fair opportunity to provide the records which are required under licence conditions 6.7, 6.8, 6.9 and 6.10. f. Whether Mr Morris had (or has) the records as required by the Regulations.

28. I am also going to make further findings as follows: g. Whether, on 11 th December 2024 the vaccination records for Ruby, Lucky and Heidi were shown to Mr Lowe. h. Whether Ruby, Lucky and Heidi were up to date with vaccinations on 11 th December 2024. i. Whether, on 11 th December 2024, there was a Preventative Healthcare Plan. j. Whether there ever has been a Preventative Healthcare Plan for Mr Morris’s programme of breeding for sale.

29. I will deal first with the questions about records. It is agreed that only two persons were present at the beginning of and during the inspection. Those persons were Mr Morris and Mr Lowe. Mr Morris’s own evidence is that he had forgotten about the inspection and, therefore, was taken by surprise when Mr Lowe turned up. He described himself as being in the middle of the building work, covered in dust, and unprepared for a meeting. He says that Mr Lowe did not ask for records. Mr Lowe’s evidence is that he did ask. Both agree that records were not handed to Mr Lowe by Mr Morris (although Mr Lowe refers to having vaccination certificates handed to him). Having heard both Mr Morris and Mr Lowe’s evidence, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mr Lowe did ask for the records. Firstly, as one of the main purposes of attending is to see the records, it is highly unlikely that Mr Lowe would not ask, at least once. Secondly, it is likely that Mr Morris did not hear him, and perhaps Mr Lowe did not repeat the question when Mr Morris was able to concentrate and hear what Mr Lowe was asking for.

30. Since that inspection on 11 th December 2024, 11 months have passed and the only records which have been provided by (or on behalf of) Mr Morris are litter forms for 2 dogs (Lucky and Peri One document spells the dog’s name “Perri” – nothing turns on this difference ). Mr Morris says that he has not provided the other records because he was never asked; he clearly understands why he is appealing and I consider that he has been given sufficient opportunity to provide the records himself (if able to do so) or to ask Ms Branford to ensure the correct records are sent to Rotherham and the Tribunal (whether by handing to him for sending or by doing the sending). It is significant that he provided 2 sets of litter forms (pages 87 to 102 of the Bundle), but did not provide any other documents to show that he had them. I cannot be satisfied that Mr Morris probably has all the records that he is meant to keep as he has not provided them, which would be the easiest way of him proving that he has them and, therefore, he has kept to those licencing conditions. I find, therefore, that Mr Morris did not and does not have all the records that he is meant to have under the conditions of his Licence.

31. Turning to the vaccination certificates. Mr Lowe’s written evidence is that he saw 3 vaccination certificates (for dogs named Ruby, Lucky and Heidi), each of those had expired in May 2024. My understanding of Mr Morris’s evidence is that he handed no document to Mr Lowe for inspection on 11 th December 2024. Mr Morris gives a bare assertion that it was only one vaccination that had expired and that was for a dog which was not going to be bred. However, Mr Morris’s evidence about whether a dog is in or out of the breeding programme was scattered and unclear and it seems to me that he decides such things on a whim rather than in a structured way. Firstly, I find it unlikely that Mr Lowe would name 3 dogs without having seen a certificate of some sort. Further, I find that Mr Morris has in his control (I recognise with the assistance of Ms Branford) the other certificates. Therefore, I find that it is more likely than not that Mr Lowe did have sight of a vaccination record for the 3 named dogs and that each record showed it has expired. Mr Morris’s evidence about dogs being in (or out of) the breeding for sale programme) was wholly unpersuasive to me. Therefore, I find that on 11 th December 2024 Ruby, Lucky and Heidi each needed to be fully vaccinated and that their vaccinations had expired. I find, therefore, Licence Condition 9.9 was breached.

32. Turning now to the bleach. Both parties agree that there was bleach on the premises. They both agree that it was in the area of the kennels. Mr Morris says that it was there to enable him to thoroughly clean the area where he had been demolishing kennels and that, once he had done that thorough clean, he was going to power wash the whole area and not allow the dogs into the area for 3 or 4 days. Rotherham’s case is that the use of bleach is always improper as (1) it is not certified as being able to kill the sorts of bugs that dogs are likely to carry and (2) it can cause burns to a dog’s paws and, therefore, is dangerous. On the evidence before me, I find that it is more likely than not that the bleach was being used on 11 th December 2024 to clean an area of the kennels which was not in use at the time but was close to an area which was to be in use, after a short period of time had elapsed. Whilst I am not persuaded that this amounts to bleach being the only product ever used to clean the kennels, I am satisfied that its use in an area intended for the dogs was against Licence Condition 9.11 despite Mr Morris’s intention to wash the bleach away with water through a power wash. The use of bleach would not have done the cleaning that was needed, i.e. cleaning to ensure that pathogens posing a risk to the dogs were killed. I find, therefore, that Mr Morris did breach Licence Condition 9.11.

33. Moving on to whether there was on the premises disinfectant which is approved by Defra, this was not clearly stated by Rotherham as an issue until the hearing. It is, therefore, for them to prove that fact, i.e. that there was no Defra certified disinfectant on the premises on 11 th December 2024. On balance, I make no finding as I cannot be satisfied on the evidence before me that there probably was not any Defra certified disinfectant on the premises, I do find that none was seen on 11 th December 2024 by Mr Lowe.

34. Finally, I turn to the Preventative Healthcare Plan (now referred to as a “PHP”). Mr Morris is adamant that he was provided with a PHP, provided to him by the Veterinary Surgeon who accompanied Mr Lowe on the first visit when the first Licence was granted. He says this item was dated and did not have an expiration date. It is his belief that Rotherham must have been sent a copy as the Veterinary Surgeon is “Rotherham’s Vet”. Mr Lowe says that he has seen a letter from that Veterinary Surgeon but that no PHP was provided by her to Rotherham.

35. From all the evidence I have seen and heard, it appears that this Veterinary Surgeon attended, at Mr Morris’s expense, when Mr Morris’s first application was made and Rotherham were considering whether to grant a licence (rather than renew a licence). The Veterinary Surgeon was concerned about vaccinations of the dogs and gave a 3-year vaccination (which would place that event in May 2021, as the vaccinations expired in May 2024). It is Rotherham’s case that the Veterinary Surgeon who attended on that occasion was unable to provide Mr Morris with a PHP as Mr Morris was not registered with that Veterinary Surgeon’s practice. Mr Morris’s case is that he was never told that he did not have a PHP and the document provided by the Veterinary Surgeon who gave the vaccinations was a PHP; he accept that he was not registered with that person, he uses a few different veterinarians, needing to have flexibility due to sometimes needing swift appointments. Mr Morris went further and asserted that no veterinarians provide written PHPs and that it is, therefore, impossible to obtain one. Again, Mr Morris could have provided the document on which he relies to say that he had a PHP and he did not. However, as Mr Morris is clear that he was not registered with the Veterinary Surgeon who attended the previous inspection, he cannot have received from her a PHP which complies with the requirements of Schedule 6, paragraph 6(12) of the regulations. Therefore, I find that it is more likely than not that Mr Morris has never had a PHP. Discussion

36. Therefore, the factual basis upon which I make my decision is this: • Mr Lowe did ask Mr Morris to show him the records kept about the dogs. • Mr Morris has been given a fair opportunity to provide the records that he does have, particularly through the process of the appeal. • 3 dogs’ vaccination certificates had expired in May 2024 and those dogs, from the expiry date, were not protected (through vaccination) as required by Licence Condition 9.4. • The presence of bleach on 11 th December 2024 and its use, even as described by Mr Morris, was a breach of Licence Condition 9.11. • Mr Morris did not have a PHP on 11 th December 2024, and none has ever been in place for Mr Morris.

37. Not providing the records on 11 th December 2024 was a small error, perhaps due to miscommunication. Failing to provide, after that date, even with his Notice of Appeal, the records listed in Rotherham’s Decision is a bigger failure – that was the time for Mr Morris to provide them with the argument: “I didn’t give them on the 11 th December 2024 or to Rotherham on the days between then and getting the Decision, but they exist and look at them”. The records are crucial to enable a breeder to prove their proper care of breeding dogs and the resulting puppies. I accept that it seems Mr Morris may need assistance with keeping of records; I will return to this issue in due course.

38. Failing to show paperwork to Mr Lowe was not the only concern. 3 dogs were not properly vaccinated. Mr Morris’s account of dogs being in or out of his breeding to sell programme (which needs a licence) did not persuade me that Mr Morris would be able to keep track of which dog (or dogs) needed to be vaccinated under a Licence and which would not have to be vaccinated under the Licence. Indeed, the way in which they are in/out of breeding for sale, indicates to me that it may be that all the dogs need to be vaccinated as then Mr Morris has all the dogs protected because he may, at any point, decide that a particular dog’s puppies are for sale. Therefore, I find it hard to accept that he would be able to keep to a Licence Condition requiring vaccination as he has failed to do this in the past.

39. The use of bleach is a concern. Defra are the experts in what products should, and should not, be used for cleaning areas where animals are to be kept. Mr Morris, whilst well intentioned, was wrong to use the bleach and was risking that his cleaning would not, in fact, be the deep clean that he intended as it was meant to be a clean which would protect his dogs. Therefore, it was even more important for Mr Morris to use a product certified to be effective against pathogens which pose a risk to the dogs. It is difficult to see how Mr Morris would keep to Licence Condition 9.11 when he has his own views about what products should be used and where.

40. The Certificate which expired on 30 th November 2024 is not within the Bundle. It must have been issued no more than 3 years previously because that is the effect of regulation 5 of the Regulations. Therefore, at a time when (as I have found) Mr Morris did not have a PHP, he did have a Licence. That is a worrying fact, unexplained by the evidence in front of me, because it indicates that Rotherham did not satisfy themselves that Mr Morris had a PHP which is a requirement of being licenced, which would have led to Mr Morris being immediately in breach the Licence when granted a situation rather unfair to Mr Morris. I do note, however, that Mr Morris’s own evidence is that he cannot ever meet the requirement to have a PHP, that requirement being one which Parliament set rather than an optional requirement which Rotherham decided to impose.

41. I turn back to Mr Morris’s personal circumstances as described in passing by Ms Branford. I have no evidence in front of me (for example a doctor’s letter) that Mr Morris has a diagnosis of dyslexia. Presuming that he does, and thereby is unable to read, I need to consider whether he could, nevertheless, comply with Licence Conditions. He was previously granted a Licence. For that to have happened, it appears that Rotherham were satisfied that he would be able to follow conditions which were imposed. However, there was no PHP, so it is totally unclear how Rotherham believed Mr Morris was able to comply with that Licence Condition as imposed by Parliament.

42. I believe that, if things are properly explained to him by speaking to him, Mr Morris can follow instructions and meet conditions of a licence. It is possible that he needs to have visual reminders (such as pictures) to enable him to remember things; it does seem that he needs a different way of recording matters, particularly if Ms Branford becomes unable to assist him with writing things down and no one else replaces her valuable assistance. The issue is, however, that no one told Rotherham of the extent of any difficulties which Mr Morris had. If they had known, they would have needed carefully consider the accessibility of their licencing regime to Mr Morris and whether it needed to be adapted to enable him to fully comply.

43. The issue for me, in this appeal, is whether Rotherham were wrong to conclude that Mr Morris did not meet the minimum standards require for a Licence and, therefore, would not be able to meet the Conditions of a Licence. Mr Morris did not give Rotherham the information needed or the opportunity to adapt their processes. He did not appeal on the basis that he was unable to meet the Licence Conditions and maybe needed adjustments; he appealed on the basis that he had his own way of ensuring compliance (i.e. with assistance in reading/writing). On balance, I do not consider that I should overturn the decision made by Rotherham on 13 th February 2025 as it was the right decision at the time and, on the evidence before me, it remains the right decision. Conclusion

44. On Mr Morris’s case, he cannot be granted a renewal of the licence because it is his case that he is unable to obtain a PHP, a condition to have a PHP is imposed by Parliament which he cannot comply with.

45. I believe it must be possible for a PHP to be obtained from a veterinarian with whom a breeder is registered. However, for all the reasons outlined above, I find that Mr Morris would be unlikely to meet the requirements of the licence due to his not having followed the conditions of the licence which expired on 30 th November 2024.

46. Finally, it seems to me that Mr Morris has a good track record of looking after dogs and clearly loves his dogs. If he were to apply in the future for a licence, the Local Authority he applies to should have due regard to Mr Morris’s personal circumstances and consider carefully whether to obtain evidence about Mr Morris’s dyslexia and to carefully consider what reasonable adjustments may be needed to prevent Mr Morris from being disadvantaged by a paper-heavy process. Signed District Judge Worth Date: 21 st November 2025