Assessment of Candy and detention
18. Ms C says Candy was detained on 19 November 2020 after an assessment by APHA which found her to be a seven-week-old Dachshund weighing 2.2 kilograms. But, Ms C has said this assessment was incorrect and Candy was 16 weeks old at the time and is a miniature Dachshund. This meant she would weigh much less than a standard Dachshund.
19. APHA explained that Candy was thought to be younger than the age stated in the passport, which cast doubts on the validity of the required rabies vaccination. An inspector can require an animal to be quarantined where there is reason to believe it has landed in the UK in contravention of the rabies order.
20. It goes on to say, due to the fact Candy was suspected of being under the minimum age required for it to have received a valid vaccination, it meant the conditions in Article 6 of the pet travel regulations were not satisfied. This meant the requirements of Article 10 of the Balai Directive were not satisfied.
21. The decision of the veterinarian who inspected Candy was based on her dentition, weight, behaviour and breed characteristics. While there is consideration made of any supplementary evidence and documentation provided, the veterinarian is mainly concerned with the animal they inspect. The veterinarian will continue to review the ageing process of detained animals and may adjust their advice accordingly.
22. APHA has explained Candy was only stated as a ‘Dachshund’ on her passport. But, it is worth noting that Ms C has said there is no regulation in the country she travelled from about specifically stating the dog was ‘miniature’.
23. APHA has explained it needed to decide, based on phenotype (observable characteristics) whether Candy is a standard or miniature Dachshund. Phenotypically standard Dachshunds tend to have longer bodies than miniature and appear generally less stocky. It says Candy would have been assessed based on this and it found she was likely to be a standard Dachshund.
24. APHA has accepted that the process is not ‘fool proof’ and hindsight may lead to different conclusions. But, it says it is dealing with the dog in front of them at the point of age estimation. It is worth noting that APHA works to ‘reasonable suspicion’ not ‘absolutely irrefutable proof’, as its standard of proof as to whether a dog is underage and therefore non-complaint with the rabies order.
25. APHA has explained that once it has determined the suggested breed, it is able to use ‘predicted weight charts’ to assess whether a given puppy is likely to be underage.
26. Candy was assessed on 19 November 2020, at this point according to her passport she would have been 16 weeks and four days old. APHA has said for a female Dachshund of this age, it should weigh roughly 5.08 kilograms. When examined Candy weighed 2.2 kilograms. APHA felt that even after considering travel weight loss it was unlikely Candy would have been 16 weeks old.
27. In respect to Candy’s dental examination, it says it would have expected permanent incisors to be present and possible permanent pre-molars too. On examination only deciduous teeth (baby teeth) were present, which it says were not in keeping with the age suggested (regardless of standard or miniature breed).
28. After the assessment Candy was transported to the quarantine facility where she was examined again the next day (20 November). The veterinary surgeon adjusted Candy’s age slightly, estimating her to be between seven to eight weeks old.
29. We cannot look at the decision reached by APHA, but only whether it acted reasonably when reaching that decision.
30. In this case it is clear Ms C disputes the assessment made by APHA and has provided evidence to support her claim that Candy is older than APHA suggested. From the information we have seen, APHA made a professional judgement based on Candy’s appearance on both the 19 and 20 November and we have found no issues with this. Ultimately, this was a professional judgement and APHA has explained it works on ‘reasonable suspicion’ not ‘absolute irrefutable proof’. This means, we cannot criticise APHA for the steps it took.
31. Ms C has provided us with an aging sheet that states Candy’s date of birth is 26 July 2020 but, on another document she has provided it states Candys’ birthday was 8 August 2020. Although, this does not support APHA’s assessment, it does suggest different veterinarians have different opinions based on Candy’s appearance. This further supports our position that we cannot criticise APHA for the approach it took.
32. There is no doubt that both Ms C and Candy would have been caused a great deal of distress during this period, but we cannot say APHA acted unfairly. Our Principles of Good Administration say to get it right organisations: • ‘should follow their own policy and procedural guidance, whether published or internal… • in their decision making, public bodies should have regard to the relevant legislation. Decision making should take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones, and balance the evidence appropriately.’
Complaint handling
33. Ms C has said there were delays in investigating her concerns.
34. From the evidence we have seen Ms C raised a formal complaint on 27 November and APHA issued a response on 18 December.
35. APHA complaint guidance states it will aim to provide a response to a stage one complaint within 15 working days. In this case it seems it met this target because it issued a full written response on 18 December 2020, explaining its position.
36. It then seems that Ms C emailed APHA on 21 December and requested a review of the case. APHA issued its final response on 19 January 2021.
37. Again, APHA complaint guidance states it aims to issue a full response within 15 days. APHA slightly missed this target and issued its response after 18 days.
38. But, given the period in question was Christmas, when staffing levels would be less than normal, we do not find a delay of three days to be unreasonable. And, Candy was no longer detained at this time, so we are satisfied it had no lasting impact.
39. Based on what we have seen, we think APHA acted in line with our principles.