Southend County Court saw the return of Loretta Bastin, formally Mrs Toye (trades under the name of Hollies Hounds) who was in contempt of Court, one year after agreeing to not sell any puppies that were not of satisfactory quality at Southend County Court last July, 2003.  Essex Trading Standards this time asked the Judge for an Enforcement Order under the Enterprise Act 2002, which meant that for the rest of her life she must not sell a puppy that is not of satisfactory quality. She also had to pay costs of £4,000. If Essex Trading Standards receive complaints (which they will) she will be be back before the Judge and it could mean a custodial sentance. During the last 2 years Essex Trading Standards have received 50 complaints from puppy purchasers relating to this one outlet.
I personally feel this is the way forward, it maybe long winded to get rogue traders to Court but whilst the general public keep buying puppies from retail outlets who are supplied by puppy farms of course the complaints will keep comming in. Until the message gets through to the public to not buy puppies from retail outlets this will continue but if they do and they have a complaint then at least take it to Trading Standards who do have the power to take and rogue traders to court and eventually to close their businesses. 

 

Whilst this is good news why do you feel that this is the way forward. How many years do you say it has taken?  Does this mean that  any would be puppy trader will have years of continued selling before they ever went to court, always assuming that their case would go to court.

You said fifty complaints to trading standards over one person, why do they need so many?  If they had so many cases why was this person not stopped from selling puppies.  If it was a small time breeder who had received a couple of complainst they would be stopped from selling puppies straight away and probably the RSPCA would step in and take their dogs away and splash it all over the paper.
I cannot see this as the way forward more like political correctness gone mad.

The public aint ever gone to stop buying the puppies from these places.
How are you going to tell all the people up and down the Country to go to their TS and report any sick puppy they have bought if it took over 2 years and 50 puppies for that 1 person.

This does not make any sense to me at all. What is the reason behind this Enterprise Act 2002? Who is it meant to be protecting? It say's it is meant to safeguard the consumer and make businesse's more aware of the consumers rights, but it would seem you get 50 chances and then more. More red tape is what it amounts to.

Alison.

When a person who wishes to sell puppies from a retail outlet they have to apply to the Council Environmental health dept for a pet shop licence this enables them to 'buy in' puppies from any source.  It means they can purchase pupies from both Licensed and unlicensed breeders, invariable puppy farms. The pet shop licence is for one year and is renewable. In deciding whether to issue a pet shop licence the Council only has to take into account the suitability of the premises for accomodating the puppies and safety etc. They do not have to take into account where the PSL holder purchases their puppies or from whom. In fact, welfare only becomes an issue if the puppies are housed within filthy conditions or do not have water, food or have not been weaned. In this case, the animal welfare issue only became apparient after sale to the puppy purchaser, although it may have been prevelent beforehand in some cases.
Therefore, when puppies are being sold in a reasonable environment but within a short time after purchase become sick this only becomes an issue with EH should the puppy have become sick with parvo virus, for example, which is very contagious . If a puppy is found to be suffering from any other condition needing veterinary treatment or a condition from which it dies, then what redress does the puppy purchaser have against the seller? Yes, they can return the puppy, ask for their money back, take action through the small claims court for a reimbursement. However this is one individual. It is far better to not only follow this route, if applicable but for Trading Standards to take action collectively against a trader,if they receive complaints from puppy purchasers.
Although you may think that 50 complaints is high this has been an accumlative number over a period of time with the defendent repeatedly going to Court.  There is a proceedure that has to be followed, the Judge has to be satisfied that T/S and the Office of Fair Trading are acting according to the law and that the defendent is treated fairly. It is basically a consumer issue (although these are puppies) the same would apply if it was faulty washing machines. 
If a small time breeder acted in the same manner, you suggested that that the dogs would be taken away by the RSPCA and it splashed all over the papers. The Rspca had no grounds to act in the case above and if the same contitions applied to a small time breeder then the RSPCA would not have taken action.
There is going to be given a far higher profile by Trading Standards in the role they can play in taking rogue traders to Court, therefore people will be more aware of what action they can take when purchasing a sick puppy from a trader.
Can you suggest a better way that gets effective action in closing down rogue traders who sell sick and diseased puppies?
The next time in Court and effectively there has to be only one complaint received by T/S then this trader can be returned to Court, the Judge can commit the person to a custodial sentance as they would have broken their 'promise' to the judge to not sell puppies that were not of a satisfactory quality.
Environmental health will not close down a trader because the puppies sold are suffering from an hereditary condition, worms, fleas, lice or gastro enteritis, neither will the RSPCA intervene for the same. No more that they would a Licensed or hobby breeder if they were selling the same and to be honest many do (both licensed and unlicensed) otherwise why would these puppies sold from retail outlets be so sickly if the problems were not created at the breeding site?
So you tell me what you are left with? This issue cannot be tackled by animal welfare means because neither of the agencies E/H, RSPCA will/can take action in many instancies.  Then it can only be tackled on a consumer isssue, this is why I think it is the way forward, as there is no other/better action that can be used.
It is a shame that you felt you had to pick it to pieces, because there will be a result in this case this trader will shortly be made to cease trading as they cannot keep their 'promise' to the Judge. It is impossible to purchase healthy puppies from puppy farms, the only way this 'promise' can be kept is if there is a different source of supply but will a responsible breeder supply a retail outlet, I would think and hope not.
Tell me Alison what would you advise? 
                

There is a notorious place near to where I live and they get away with it by the wording used 'licensed breeders' not breeder to advertise their pups for sale. The council always renew their licence despite the amount of different breeds for sale. We have to get to the council, to get them to stop licensing these places, but, I don't think they really care as long as they get their money.     

If you are you saying that the Council near you grants a dog breeders licence to a breeding establishment even though they have numerous different breeds for sale?  That is not uncommon, it is nothing for Councils to issue a licences to breeders with 50 + breeding bitches and more of various breeds at one establishment. They also issue both a breeders and a pet shop licence to the same establishment enabling a breeder to breed themselves and to buy in. So in all, there can be a licence for 30 breeding bitches and a licence for 50 puppies to held on the site that have been 'bought in' from elsewhere.
Often you will see 'licenced breeder' on an ad it only tells half of the truth sometimes because unless the pupy purchaser has done their homework and knows how these places operate and what licenses they hold they may not until it is too late if the puppy they have purchased is one that the breeder has bred or 'bought in.'   

Pat

I am sure you understand what you have written but to the man on the street it means nothing.  They buy a puppy and it falls ill, they want action they do not want to have to wait for however many years until enough people/puppies have come forward for a case to proceed. Most of them will have gone away, bought another puppy and forgot all about it by the time anything comes of their complaint and how much more money will the seller of the puppies have made in the meantime.  Seeing as you mention cars in reference to puppies ie goods, if this was a garage selling faulty cars would it take fifty plus complaints several years and the possible death of someone before something was done.  This is why I asked why you thought this was the way forward.  Can anyone who campaigns on this issue be happy at such  time consuming action.

Your average puppy purchaser does not understand all of what you write about licensed breeder pet shop license buying in puppies to sell they cannot even understand that you should not buy from a pet shop so how are they going to become more aware of this new enterprise act. Trading Standards had legislation to act before this but very few did they could not be bothered.  Councils have powers to stop people breeding and selling but how many use them?  We do not need more enforcement laws we just need people to carry out and enforce the exisiting one's and do their job properly. If that happended many of these places would be closed down. I know of one place that is licensed but has not been throughtly inspected for 3 years.  Each year he gets asked if anything has changed under the terms of his license.  I have been to this place and it is OK (in so far as you can ever say about these places) but what if the other was true and it was a hell. 

I think that Councils should also be held to account if licensed breeders continually sell sick puppies they should legally be held responsible for not carrying out the license check correctly and allowing that person to trade. If they were financially penalised they might get their act together on licensing more. This is something I am taking issue over with my local Council perhaps you should do the same Pat.

Alison

I reported someone last year to the council and RSPCA. this woman has around nine bitches and a dog, all rottie types, and keeps them in a couple of stables in a field. They are shut in the dark all the time are only let out occasionally - daily for ten minutes if they're lucky. I've known her go away for days at a time and leave them. She's always got pups for sale but has no licence.
What did the council/RSPCA do - NOTHING. She's still at it....

One report to the RSPCA or Council is not going to get an immediate result, it is neccesary to keep reporting until action is seen to be taken. This is one reason why changes and improvements are not made in animal welfare because people are not consistant or persistant in their actions. In fact to put it in a nutshell give up too easilly at the first hurdle.  If concern is still there regarding the dogs then why have you not reported it again or collated the proof of unlicensed breeding by collecting the ads and sending them to the Council.
If you wish, then direct me to the ads by emailing me privately, please. It is unkind to sit on this and do nothing don't you think? 

I have reported her more than once, both for her dogs and her horses. So have several other people but the authorities have done nothing really. She was taken to court for selling a horse that did not belong to her but her solicitor argued that it was a one off (although the police had evidence that it wasn't the first time) and she got away with a small fine. I also reported her to the paper she advertises in but she changed her mobile number and surname and just keeps going. This is a woman who lives on benefits but can afford to keep 10 dogs and twenty horses! And yes we rang the DSS and inland revenue as well but it appears that no action is taken because she's a damn good liar.
I received quite a backlash from her because she suspected I had reported her - several of my ponies were beaten, their rugs were slashed repeatedly and the electric fencing cut on umpteen occasions but the police could not prove it was her - even though she was seen in the immediate area more than once. She also told me she would take me to court for harrassment if I kept making complaints!
After a year of trying to get something done I have given up for the moment because I can't bear to have my horses made the scapegoats. If the authorities won't listen to all the info they've been given repeatedly what hope is there that one person can stop her.
But I believe that what goes around comes around and she'll trip herself up one of these days.

No one can accuse you of not trying or giving up too easilly, I think you have tried your damnness to see justice done. It becomes even more difficult, when, as you rightly say your own animals are being made the scapegoats and are getting the backlash to warn you off. Horrible situation to find yourself in.
The people that flaunt the law often have all the answers on the tip of their tongue and are believed, even though it is a pack of lies.  That is another reason why its so hard and frustrating, when you are trying to get justice done for the sake of the animals, they are belived over and above genuine honest individuals. It is not fair but as you rightly so what goes around comes round and she trip herself up, hopefully.

Most people that have purchased a puppy that falls sick soon after purchase only really want that puppy to recover that is their main concern I agree but they are still upset and angry, when the veterinary bills are ever increasing. Yes, some retail outlets do offer 6 weeks insurance providing they take the puppy back to the retail outlets own vet (if they have one) if they don't it invalidates the insurance. Others offer nothing but either way it does not waive the sellers responsibility towards the puppy purchaser. 
They are even more upset and angry if the puppy dies, yes, they do want redress and in general the public are more streetwise to their rights now and rightly so. The rogue traders have got away with selling inferior stock for far too long. Yes, I agree some puppy purchasers may just want to turn their back on the whole sorry affair and purchase another puppy to help them forget. That is not everyone  and it does not take all, for action to be taken against a rogue trader by Trading Standards.
You ask would it take so long and 50 complaints if the trader was selling faulty cars?  I expect it would, particulary, as in this case that the seller each time in Court gave an undertaking to the Court Judge that they would not sell faulty goods but still continued to do so, that is why they were in contempt of Court. The Judge cannot 'jump the gun' so to speak and move onto the next part of the proceedure, they have a process to follow according to the word of the law. It would have been a different matter had the defendent said they could not promise to not sell faulty goods, then the matter would have been signed and sealed much quicker.
However, puppy traders in general are not naive they are very strreet wise and know only too well how to play the law to their advantage when it comes to protecting their business, it comes down to one thing - money and knowing when it is wise to agree or not to agree to their advantage.
You suggest that others who campaign against puppy traders maynot be happy at such time consuming action. Perhaps not butl if they can do better and have success then I would be only too pleased to know how?
The reason why action is not taken is because people have not always known who to contact and who to complain to when they have purchased a sick puppy.  Now they can find out much more with the internet, advice bureaus, local radio, newspapers, libraries.  I do not know where you live but there must be a lack of public awareness in your area if people are unable to find out basic information about The Sale of Goods Act and what Trading Standards role is in consumer law.
I agree, we do need Councils to take more action against unlicensed breeding but they will only take action if individuals report these activities with the necessary proof of unlicensed breeding, they will not act on suspicion alone and without  adequate proof.  I know one Council that prosecuted a breeder successfully for unlicensed breeding in the past few weeks, another is due in Court on the 21st for the same offence and it again is not the first offence, so some Councils do act.
If a place that has not been inspected for the past 3 years then the Council is not doing their job properly are they?  Have you asked them why they are not inspecting regulary, as the law states they should?
Most Councils appoint a vet to inspect breeding establisments but even so he only has to inspect the premises to see if the premises are suitable for breeding, he does not have to make decisions regarding the breeding stock as to whether they are suitable for the purpose of breeding or that the puppies are suitable to be sold.
The only time a vet is likely to make any decision regarding the welfare of the animals is if he/she has been called in by the Environmental Health department if they have specific concerns such as an unusual outbreak of a disease or many complaints of sick puppies or called in together with the RSPCA. In the initial general inspection and yearly inspection he proberly will not even touch a dog in the context of a kennel inspection that would not be his/her role. May sound stupid and it is but that is the way it is.
The Council in question relating to this case in question (T/S) already as part of their Licence agreement the Council inspects the premises 6 times a year with an independent vet and they are unanounced inspections too. So please do not suggest to me that I should do the same as you or perhaps I do not do enough already, I do plenty thank you and more besides.