Jo Cottrell v Wokingham Borough Council

Procedure

1. I have conducted a remote hearing by Cloud Video Platform and considered an open bundle of 337 pages. I refused to admit the skeleton argument filed by the Respondent on 2 January 2026. In reaching this decision I have taken into account that Ms Cottrell is not represented and paragraph 10 of the Case Management Directions dated 9 September 2025 directed that any party wishing to provide a skeleton argument must do so no later than 5 working days before the hearing. I find no grounds to waive the time requirements under Rule 5 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.

2. I have heard submissions from Ms Cottrell, the Appellant, and from Ms Lucas, on behalf of the Respondent. I have heard evidence from Ms Cottrell and the Respondent’s witnesses, Mr Hinchcliffe, Service Manager for Licensing for the Respondent, Ms Moran, Animal Health Inspector employed by the City of London and Ms Newitt, DVM MSc MRCVS, RCVS registered veterinarian employed by the City of London Animal Health and Welfare Service. Background

3. The Respondent is the licensing authority. Dog Trouble is Ms Cottrell’s business trading name. Ms Cottrell 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.

4. The Respondent made a decision on 6 June 2025 to refuse to renew Ms Cottrell’s licence for dog kennel boarding. The Respondent subcontracts the carrying out of inspections in relation to animal activities to the City of London.

5. Officers from City of London Animal Welfare inspected the premises of Dog Trouble on 27 March 2025 and recommended that the licence be refused. The grounds for the refusal are that the Respondent must not grant a licence if it is not satisfied that the conditions of the licence will be met. General condition 9(4) of the Regulations requires that licence holders take all reasonable precautions to prevent and control the spread of infectious diseases, pathogens and parasites among both animals and people. Ms Cottrell has repeatedly confirmed that she is unwilling to ensure or require that dogs boarded at her premises are vaccinated against Leptospirosis. The British Small Animals Veterinary Association (BSAVA) and Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) recommend that Leptospirosis is considered a core vaccine for dogs in the UK. Grounds of Appeal

6. Ms Cottrell relies on the following grounds of appeal: a. The recommendation for Leptospirosis vaccination for all dogs boarded is not supported by current evidence and poses unnecessary health risks. It is not proportionate to the nature of her business. The vaccine does not prevent infection only reduces infection for approximately six months and carries a documented risk of adverse reactions particularly in dogs with behavioural or health issues. She operates strict health screening and intake controls and Dog Trouble is not a high-risk environment. Regulatory bodies such as the VMD, BSAVA and World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) advise that vaccination decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis and not enforced universally as only healthy dogs should be vaccinated. She asserts that her position is based not merely on personal belief but on significant professional experience, published evidence, and veterinary regulatory guidance. b. Dog Trouble is a specialist dog behaviour, training, and wellness centre, ranked No. 1 on ThreeBestRated.co.uk for dog training services. The business is fundamentally different from generic boarding kennels. Dog Trouble rehabilitates dogs with significant behavioural issues, including aggression, fear and anxiety. The Board & Train and Training School programmes are only offered to dogs who have undergone behavioural, training, and wellness assessments and programmes with Dog Trouble. Dog Trouble maintains rigorous health screening for all dogs accepted into its care. This highly controlled intake process significantly reduces health risks, including potential transmission of Leptospirosis. c. The professional and regulatory guidance on Leptospirosis vaccination is follows: d. The VMD advises: “Dogs should only be vaccinated when they are healthy. If the dog is unwell, the vaccination might not be as effective, and there could be a higher risk of adverse reactions.” e. Many dogs under the rehabilitation programmes are not in optimal health due to behavioural stress, underlying medical conditions, or recovery from prior trauma. Enforcing Leptospirosis vaccination in such dogs could put their welfare at risk. f. Further VMD guidance states: “The veterinary surgeon and the client should discuss and agree a vaccination programme for an individual animal. This should be based on the local epidemiological situation and risk of Leptospirosis.” g. This explicitly recognises that vaccination should be a case-by-case decision, considering the individual animal’s health, environment, and risk factors. h. The Leptospirosis vaccine does not provide sterilising immunity; it does not prevent infection, nor does it guarantee that a dog will not carry or shed the bacteria. Instead, the vaccine has been shown to reduce the severity of clinical signs and limit bacterial shedding, typically for a duration of six months. This limited protection window highlights the importance of assessing genuine risk based on epidemiological evidence, rather than mandating a vaccine with temporary and incomplete effectiveness. i. There are concerns about adverse reactions to the vaccine. Ms Cotterell has personally rehabilitated numerous dogs who experienced significant adverse physical or mental health reactions following the Leptospirosis vaccine. These have included: • Severe allergic reactions (anaphylaxis, swelling, sudden collapse). • Neurological and behavioural changes (increased fear, anxiety, aggression). • Autoimmune conditions (kidney failure, liver disease, polyarthritis). • Chronic inflammatory responses. j. These adverse events are documented both anecdotally in practice and in official reports: • When Nobivac Lepto 4 was introduced in 2014, over 2,000 adverse reactions and 120 suspected deaths were reported to the VMD. • A significant number of dog owners (approx. 44,000) have shared adverse experiences in the Facebook group “Nobivac Lepto 4 – Our Experiences.” k. Evidence suggests adverse events are severely underreported, as many owners are unaware they can report vaccine reactions. l. There is a lack of robust epidemiological data. Although the BSAVA and VMD recommend Leptospirosis vaccination as a “core” vaccine, this is a recommendation, not a legal requirement. Even the BSAVA concedes: “There are no reliable data on the national or local prevalence of Leptospirosis in dogs.” m. Ms Cottrell seeks to rely on supporting sources which include: • BSAVA Vaccination Guidelines (2022): ◦ “Not all serovars are covered by current vaccinations.” • WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines (2024): ◦ “Vaccination against Leptospirosis should be restricted to geographical areas where a significant risk of exposure has been established.” • Ball et al. (2013, University of Liverpool) which recorded: The majority of 89 UK veterinary practices surveyed saw no cases of Leptospirosis in the previous year. Only five confirmed cases were reported nationwide. No practice reported more than one case in a year. n. Despite broader serovar coverage in Lepto 4, these strains are not prevalent in the UK. There is no evidence suggesting that Berkshire is a high or even medium-risk area for canine Leptospirosis. o. Imposing a vaccine requirement on a specialist, tightly controlled facility such as Dog Trouble is disproportionate and discriminatory. Veterinary practices cannot legally refuse treatment to unvaccinated dogs including those unvaccinated for Leptospirosis. Rescue centres are permitted to operate without enforcing Leptospirosis vaccination even though they often house high-risk populations in challenging conditions. p. Vaccinated dogs may shed live Leptospira bacteria in their urine post-vaccination potentially, increasing environmental exposure risks for other animals. Mandating vaccination does not eliminate the risk of Leptospirosis transmission and may, in fact, inadvertently increase exposure risk for immunocompromised or vulnerable dogs. q. She is committed to the highest standards of canine health and welfare. She requests that the requirement for mandatory Leptospirosis vaccination be removed from her boarding licence and that Dog Trouble can continue to operate under the current policy of recommending but not enforcing the Leptospirosis vaccine. To require all clients to make an informed decision with their vet and continue to insist on vaccination/titre testing for Distemper, Hepatitis and Parvovirus. r. The general conditions must be met but the published guidance is just that and should be treated as such. Grounds of opposition

7. The Respondent submits the following grounds of opposition: a. Ms Cottrell is unwilling to mandate the Leptospirosis vaccine and, therefore, the Respondent cannot be satisfied that the licence conditions will be met. b. The Respondent relies on the inspection report dated 27 March 2025 detailing the reasons for recommending refusal on the grounds that the dogs who board must have the core vaccine cover as per the statutory guidance. It would be inappropriate to go behind this and for a licence to be granted in light of the professional report recommending the contrary. c. While it is accepted that the decision made in this case is not binding in respect of future decisions of the First-tier Tribunal, to allow a licence excepting this condition would be wholly irregular and would more than likely be used in future cases as a persuasive argument, undermining the guidance as a whole. Discussions and evidence

8. In oral evidence Ms Cottrell invited me to consider that although the Regulations as legislation was binding the Guidance was not legally binding. The only reference to vaccinations was in the Guidance and there was no legal requirement to follow the Guidance and there could be exceptions if there was good reason.

9. Ms Cottrell asserted that it was up to the Respondent to determine to what extent the Guidance should be followed and in the case of vaccinations for Leptospirosis this should be based on the risk of contracting the disease and should be restricted to geographical areas where a significant risk of exposure had been established.

10. Ms Cottrell urged me to consider that her business was very different from other boarding kennels because she specialised in educating dog owners in dog behaviour and rehabilitating dogs who had significant and special issues such as aggression, fear and anxiety. She only accepted dogs who had undergone behavioural training and wellness assessments with her. She undertook rigorous health screening before accepting a dog although accepted that it was not possible to screen for Leptospirosis.

11. Ms Cottrell stated that as an experienced dog carer it was her view that underlying health imbalances were often a significant factor in behavioural problems.

12. Ms Cottrell told me that the imposition of Leptospirosis vaccination for all dogs would have a serious detrimental effect on her business.

13. Mr Hinchcliffe, Service Manager for Licensing, gave evidence confirm his witness statement dated 13 October 2025.

14. Ms Moran, Animal Health Inspector, gave evidence confirming her witness statement dated 10 October 2025.

15. Ms Newitt, Veterinarian, gave evidence confirming her witness statement dated 9 October 2025. She confirmed that Leptospirosis is a zoonosis meaning that it can be transferred from dogs to humans. She told me that she had administered thousands of the Leptospirosis vaccinations. She stated that the Lepto 4 vaccination provided broader protection and was used more for dogs on farms and for dogs that would be travelling. She acknowledged that dogs could have mild transient side effects from the vaccination such as soreness at the site and be quiet and unwell or a day or two. In her opinion reactions did happen but the incidence was low.

16. Ms Newitt stated that her understanding was that a vet would not refuse to treat a dog if it was not vaccinated and dogs would be accepted at a rescue centre where vaccination for Leptospirosis was not obligatory.

17. Ms Newitt stated that the Leptospirosis vaccine was not a live vaccine so there would be no questions of shedding through urination. Conclusions

18. In approaching my task I have borne in mind that I should have regard to the decision in R (Hope & Glory Public House Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31 , namely that where parliament has delegated licensing matters to the local authority, careful attention ought to be paid to the reasoning of the local authority. I have borne in mind, also, that the Respondent must have regard to the Statutory Guidance and that the Respondent can only deviate from the Statutory Guidelines where there is good reason to do so.

19. Schedule 2 of the Regulations – General Conditions – Protection from pain, suffering, injury paragraph 9(4) states: “all reasonable precautions must be taken to prevent and control the spread among the animals and people of infectious diseases, pathogens and parasites.”

20. I find that it is a mandatory requirement that Ms Cotterell takes all reasonable precautions.

21. Part 2 regulation 14 of the Regulations – Grant, renewal and variation with consent of a licence and inspection of premises - provides that a local authority must have regard in the carrying out of its functions under the Regulations to such guidance as may be issued.

22. Ms Cotterell submits that the Statutory Guidance is not legally binding as is not the law. However, it is a legislative mandatory requirement that the Respondent has regard to the Statutory Guidance.

23. The Statutory Guidance (SG1) – Animal activity licensing process: statutory guidance for local authorities provides that a local authority must appoint a suitable qualified inspector to undertake a visit and inspection on receiving an application for the renewal of a licence. I find that the Respondent appointed Ms Newitt as a suitable person and the inspection was properly undertaken. I have attached weight to Ms Newitt’s report as properly prepared by an appropriate person.

24. The Statutory Guidance (SG2) – Dog kennel boarding licensing statutory guidance for local authorities provides that an up-to-date veterinary vaccination record must be seen to show that dogs, including resident dogs, have current vaccinations against Leptospirosis. SG2 makes clear that vaccination for Leptospirosis is a core vaccine.

25. The BSAVA supports the vaccination in the UK for Leptospirosis as a core vaccine. The BSAVA supports vaccinations in the control of infectious diseases in dogs. It is acknowledged that there can be adverse reactions and a lack of efficacy but it is considered that the overall benefit supports the use of vaccination to control major infectious diseases.

26. I find that Leptospirosis, also known as Weil’s disease, is a zoonotic infection caused by bacteria which may be pathogenic and capable of causing disease in animals and humans. Infection can occur in anyone directly exposed to urine or urine-contaminated environments. There is no available vaccination against Leptospirosis for humans. It is rare but possible for people to get Leptospirosis from infected dogs. Leptospirosis is a serious and potentially fatal bacterial disease in dogs. Dogs contract Leptospirosis by coming into contact with the Leptospira bacteria. This bacteria is found in the urine of infected wildlife such as rats and enters a dog’s body through broken skin, mucous membranes or by drinking contaminated water.

27. I find that the Leptospirosis vaccine provides a high level of protection against the disease, it reduces bacterial shedding although does not provide 100% immunity.

28. I find that there is no one definitive and reliable test for Leptospirosis and it can only be diagnosed by a veterinary surgeon by combining clinical signs with laboratory tests to detect antibodies and bacterial DNA in the blood and/or urine. A titre test measures the level of antibodies but is not determinative for Leptospirosis.

29. I accept Ms Newitt’s professional view that for the majority of dogs any side effects are likely to last for no more than a few days and that Leptospirosis cannot be diagnosed by one test and requires specialist veterinary tests.

30. I find Ms Cottrell to be a credible witness who struck me as doing her best to give an accurate account of her understanding of the issues before me. She is clearly very knowledgeable about dogs and their welfare and is acutely aware of the measures that can be taken, short of vaccination, to reduce the risk of infection. She is aware of the risks of exposure to contaminated water or direct contact with rodents as a source of infection and has put in place procedures at her business premises to reduce the risks.

31. I find that Ms Cottrell has a vigorous screening system in place on admission of dogs to her establishment and has robust systems and procedures in place to try to prevent and control all diseases including Leptospirosis. For example, she ensures that there is no standing water in the paddocks and runs.

32. I find that although Ms Cottrell undertakes detailed screening on admission, because testing for Leptospirosis must be undertaken by a veterinarian she is not able to test or screen for Leptospirosis.

33. I find that the Leptospirosis vaccination is a precaution which enhances the prevent and control of the spread of the disease among dogs and, thereby, the prevention and control of transmission to humans.

34. I find, also, that the Leptospirosis vaccine is a reasonable precaution. Dogs can be carriers of Leptospirosis without showing any symptoms and they can shed the Leptospira bacteria in the urine thereby contaminating the environment and posing an infection risk to other dogs and people. Dogs can be asymptomatic and appear perfectly healthy and show no signs of being unwell. It is reasonable, therefore, to take all steps available to prevent this. I find that Ms Cotterell is not taking reasonable precautions in not obliging dogs to have the Leptospirosis vaccine.

35. I find that it is reasonable to vaccinate for Leptospirosis because notwithstanding Ms Cotterrell’s vigorous examination procedures on entry to the kennels without veterinary examinations it would not be possible to know if a dog had Leptospirosis or was a carrier.

36. I do not find that the reasons put forward by Ms Cotterell amount to a good reason for not following the Statutory Guidance and thereby granting her a licence under which she would be excused from requiring dogs to have received the Leptospirosis vaccine.

37. In reaching my decision I have taken into account that SG2 provides that for some diseases such as kennel cough vaccination ‘may’ be required whereas for Leptospirosis an up-to-date vaccination record must be seen and the vaccination must be current for Leptospirosis. It is significant that the Leptospirosis vaccine is a core vaccine. There is, therefore, a higher obligation to have vaccinations.

38. I find that there is an increased risk of Leptospirosis in unvaccinated dogs and, therefore, an increase in the risk of infection to staff and any people visiting the premises.

39. I find that obliging all dogs to be vaccinated against Leptospirosis is a reasonable precaution and Ms Cotterell’s refusal to agree to this means that she is not taking all reasonable precautions as required by the Regulations.

40. I find that Ms Cottrell was made aware that compliance with condition 9.4, namely prevention and control of spread of infectious diseases, was a concern, having been notified that an inspector had raised such concerns at the time of issuing the previous licence.

41. A letter dated 3 March 2023 to Ms Cottrell stated that an Animal Boarding Licence had been granted with a recommendation for a 3 Star rating Two year licence (1/12/2022 to 31/11/2024). It stated: “The inspector has informed us that there are some concerns around compliance with general condition 9.4. Any further compliance of this condition could result in the licence being varied, suspended, revoked or not renewed. Please ensure conditions 9:4 is adhered to ready for your mid term inspection.”

42. I find that Ms Cottrell refused to make it obligatory to have dogs vaccinated for Leptospirosis. This is on the basis of her own evidence that this was the case and is confirmed by the comments in the Inspection Report dated 27 March 2025 as follows: “As highlighted in previous reports, the licence holder is unwilling to ensure or require that dogs being boarded at the premises are vaccinated with the Leptospirosis vaccination, which is a core vaccine (Vaccination topics – GOV.UK) as per statutory guidance (please see Part A 9.4 of this report). At the time of the inspection, a random selection of 3 dogs vaccination records were checked. 1 record did not show the date of Leptospirosis vaccination due to poor image, so it could not be determined that it was complaint. 1 other dog did not have a current vaccination. We regrettably recommend that the licence is refused due to repeated non-compliance with General Condition 9.4 due to the licence holders own personal beliefs and policy that does not require boarded dogs are vaccinated with the Leptospirosis vaccine.”

43. I find that this issue was discussed with Ms Cottrell at the mid-term inspection on 23 May 2024. Ms Cottrell made it clear to the inspector that she was opposed to the vaccination, she did not state on her website that it was required and she told the inspector that she advised owners against vaccination if they asked her opinion. She made it clear to the inspector that she was not prepared to adhere to the condition.

44. I find that regard must be had to the Statutory Guidance unless there is good reason not to do so. I find that there is no good reason not to do so in this case. In reaching this decision I have taken into account that however good Ms Cotterell’s checks are on admission she is unable to detect those dogs who may be carriers and asymptomatic and therefore by accepting non-vaccinated dogs she is increasing the risk of dogs passing on Leptospirosis to other dogs and to the people with whom they come into contact. This is relevant not only to the dogs who are on site at the same time but by shedding it poses a risk for dogs who may come to the premises at a later time.

45. I accept Ms Cotterell’s submission that she has experience of dogs being adversely affected by the Leptospirosis vaccine, however, this does not amount to a good reason for not following the Statutory Guidance.

46. Ms Cotterell submits that the requirement for vaccination will mean that some dogs will be unable to benefit from the specialist service she offers in rehabilitating dogs with significant behavioural issues which could lead to dogs being euthanised. She submits that her business will be financially impacted by an enforcement of the requirement. She submits that owners will feel pressurised to have their dogs vaccinated which will be difficult if they do not want this for their dogs. I cannot find that any of these matters can amount to good reasons for not following the Statutory Guidance. The Statutory Guidance is formulated on the basis of expert advice and must be given due weight.

47. I find that it is speculative to assert that dogs that would be euthanised unnecessarily. I find that in accordance with the VMD advice, owners of dogs would be likely to make a decision on the basis of the advice from their own veterinarian as to whether or not to vaccinate their dog and they would be advised not to vaccinate if their dog was unwell or it was not advisable in their dog’s particular circumstances due to behavioural or other problems. I accept that there may be dogs that are unable to benefit from Ms Cotterell’s training and care as a consequence of the Leptospirosis vaccination requirements but this is heavily outweighed by the benefits of vaccination in prevention and control of the disease.

48. I find that there were grounds to refuse the licence and confirm the decision.