Agenda item

The Director, Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) introduced an information report on Operation Lisbon 2: Dog Breeding.

Members were informed that the report helped demonstrate how the service’s small Intelligence Unit supported the broader delivery of the service.

During November 2020, WRS initiated an intelligence gathering operation code-named “Lisbon” (Lisbon 1). The primary purpose of the operation was to assess the people, businesses, and locations associated with unlicensed dog breeding and put in place strategies and/or interventions to reduce the level of offending. Whilst the operation had positive outcomes, several factors limited its effectiveness.

Firstly, as the operation was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, it could not be stated with certainty whether the information collected during the initial stages of the operation was indicative of the “normal” trading environment. It was likely, for example, that information had been captured about certain nominals who had chosen to breed dogs whilst furloughed but did not continue this activity (at a licensable level) once restrictions were lifted. Secondly, the prominence of general selling platforms as opposed to those dedicated to dogs or pets was underestimated or had significantly changed by the time the operation had concluded. These platforms were not included in the scope of the operation, so it was also likely that several nominals operating illegally were undetected.

After Operation Lisbon had concluded, the service continued to receive complaints from members of the public about unlicensed dog breeders. As a result of those complaints, Operation Lisbon 2 was launched during November 2023 with a view to assessing the scale of offending in a post pandemic environment.

Fortunately, WRS and Shropshire Council both had an interest in this area and opted to share intelligence resources and to work together, allowing the scope of the operation to broaden covering both counties and encompassing additional sales platforms, including some generalist ones.

Key Legislation and Considerations

The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activity Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 was the primary legislation covering the breeding of dogs. It placed a requirement on individuals or businesses to obtain a licence if they were “breeding three or more litters of puppies in any twelve-month period” and/or are “breeding dogs and advertising a business of selling dogs.” The failure to obtain a licence was a criminal offence under Section 13 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

When acquiring information from online platforms, care had to be taken to only request information that could be obtained under the Data Protection Act 2018. A policy change by the Home Office in 2023 meant that certain personal information (mandatory registration data) linked to online accounts must be treated as communications data and could only be obtained as regulated by the provisions of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Despite this, several platforms did disclose such data which, whilst useable for intelligence purposes, became subject to permission from the local authority’s Senior Responsible Officer before it could form part of the investigative process.

Whilst proactive monitoring data was assessed prior to account information being requested, the limitations of certain platforms meant it could not always be established whether certain accounts were operating at a level where a licence was likely to be required. As a result, information pertaining to these accounts was not requested and their account information was not available for analysis during the latter stages of the operation.

The requirement for someone to be “in the business of selling animals,” did mean that the local authority must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was a business-related activity. There was no specific case law relating to this under the 2018 Act, however, the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 similarly required proof of trade or business so this case law has a role in informing thinking. Even under this legislation, the possibility existed for a person to have a “lucrative hobby,” so the business test may not necessarily be as black and white as it first appeared.

Results

Some 1,069 unique adverts were identified across Worcestershire over the five-month period of the operation. A significant proportion of those adverts were posted legally by licensed breeders (approximately 10%) or by private sellers who did not meet the threshold for a licence.

When adverts were reviewed, only 17% related to dogs categorised by the Kennel Club and others as being large breeds, demonstrating as officers expected, that they only make up a modest proportion of the market.

The most common breeds advertised across the two counties were Cockapoos, Cocker Spaniels, Labrador Retrievers, and Dachshunds. The total value of the adverts listed was more than £7 million (£4.2 million for Worcestershire and £2.8 million for Shropshire). Although there was likely to be some double counting of adverts as a few sellers would advertise on more than one platform. This figure was still much higher than officers involved in the project would have suggested before undertaking the operation. It showed that, although dog prices had fallen since the pandemic, there were still large numbers of animals being supplied commercially or otherwise.

The most prominent locations mentioned in adverts were Worcester and larger towns such as Kidderminster, Stourport-on-Severn, and Evesham. Whilst an advert might state the location as “Worcester,” however, enquiries established that this designation also included sellers residing outside of the City Council boundary in the nearby villages under Wychavon’s or Malvern Hills’ jurisdiction.

Some 37 accounts were identified that were likely to have been trading without a licence. Further enquires led to some of these being linked to single individuals or, in some cases, small groups of people. Therefore, relationship charts were created to show the connections between different entities (people, online accounts, telephone numbers, email addresses) and a package of information was shared with senior officers in the Licensing team with recommendations for action.

The team had written warning letters and had offered guidance to 10 sellers identified during Operation Lisbon 2. Whilst 6 accounts were still being developed further by the Intelligence Unit as the operators were sharing contact details and advert locations. A total of 5 sellers, 2 of whom had previously been identified as part of Operation Lisbon 1, were now under formal investigation with a view to submitting reports to the various partner’s legal departments.

Conclusions

The two Lisbon operations had revealed that a significant market in the selling of dogs across Worcestershire existed and, whilst a proportion of this was not commercial or done under license, a proportion of this activity was unlicensed and illegal. It also showed that detecting illegal activity was not completely straight-forward and required resource to be dedicated to the activity. By utilising our Intelligence Unit to do much of the initial case building, Licensing Officers were freed from the burden of logging and recording in these initial stages and received a completed package which had much of the evidence they would need to go forward with obtaining statements and interviewing potential defendants under PACE.

It was clear that these operations were best done at scale. Focus on a single district would likely be impossible due to the nature of descriptions in adverts. Working with Shropshire colleagues was positive, as one of the groups identified was engaging in cross border activity. Officers would look to promote the Operation Lisbon model to other licensing colleagues and the use of the Intelligence Operating Model as a tool for enforcement.

Officers were looking to commence Operation Lisbon 3 within 12/18 months and would look to work with Shropshire Council should they wish to do so.

In response to questions from Members, the Director, WRS, explained that introducing a requirement for dog owners to have a licence would be expensive and could be seen as discriminatory due to the potential cost.

Operation Lisbon 2 had highlighted that intelligence officers could pick the right people up by using / accessing various sites whereby people were advertising more than one dog for sale, officers would use monitoring of such sites, the marketing of dogs, and the relationship charts created instead of the requirement for a dog licence. This could also create further legislation that people would not always adhere to.

Sites were predominantly advertising popular breeds of pet dogs, not racing dogs such as lurchers or greyhounds.

With regard to the total value of the adverts listed £7 million, as detailed on page 67 of the main agenda pack, the Director, WRS was unsure of the profit return on that figure.

The onus was on dog owners to microchip their dogs and to ensure that they kept the required information up to date. Any loose / unsupervised dogs in the park could have their microchips checked by the Police, WRS dog wardens and veterinarians. WRS had recently secured funding from the two Community Safety Partnerships to roll out a project as part of its priority work on dog control to raise awareness on various dog-related matters including microchipping, to support tackling stray dogs and, if necessary, increase enforcement.

The Licensing and Support Services Manager, WRS, responded to further questions from Members in respect of animal welfare and the licence conditions; and in doing so briefly explained the following.

A licence was required if the selling of dogs, as pets, was being carried out as a commercial business, to make a profit.  All businesses issued with such a licence would receive an initial visit from a WRS Officer with responsibility for animal welfare.  Businesses were expected to maintain minimum standards with a license being issued initially in most for one year; following which they would also be visited on each renewal application. Businesses meeting the higher standards (4 or 5 star rating) would be issued with a two or three year licence. However, intelligence-led spot checks at all such businesses would also be carried out by a WRS officer with responsibility for animal welfare.

The Director, WRS concluded that part of Operation Lisbon 2 was to look at the number of individuals who were working collaboratively.  As highlighted in the report, it was the local authorities and their legal departments to prove beyond a ‘reasonable doubt’ that they were operating such a business-related activity and to build a picture as to how they were linked working together.  The legislation was changed in 2018, and to date WRS had not prosecuted anyone.

WRS used the same process and model for creating Intelligence logs as other agencies such as the Police and HM Revenue & Customs, therefore, it was straight-forward for WRS to disseminate intelligence / information to these other agencies as it was in a format they knew and understood. This was one of the benefits of adopting an intelligence operating model for the business.      

RESOLVED that the information report Operation Lisbon 2: Dog Breeding, be noted.