Seizure of animals by unqualified charity Animal Protection Services

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.21.021881

I note you seek access to the following information:

Regarding an email quoted below between a member of the public and Hounslow council in respect of case reference: 1145/21JAN21.

"The dogs were seized in relation to the alleged offences relating to Section 5 of the Animal Welfare Act and taken into the care of Animal Protection Services who are investigating that alleged offence."

"The dogs were seized by the Metropolitan Police and transferred into the care of Animal Protection Services."

"The dogs never physically moved into our kennels at Hounslow, and were transported to an offsite facility arranged by Animal Protection Services. I’m afraid I would not be able to give you the contact details for them, as I don’t in fact know their address."

"I am afraid I would not be of much help therefore, the enquiry has to go to Animal Protection Services. We had worked with them as we would have done with other outside organisations such as the RSPCA etc, but have no links or affiliations to them, so any animals in there care are entirely separate to our own."

It is noted that after 9 months of you investigating all charges have been dropped.

1. We understand the Met police provided the court warrant that licensed the seizure of these dogs. Was this on the advice and evidence provided by the charity Animal Protection Services (APS)?

2. What due diligence activities did the police perform regarding APS in order to confirm that APS were a suitable organisation to be contracted to remove the dogs (property) from the premises?

3. If MPS did no due diligence, why not?

4. Did the police qualify any evidence provided by doing their own investigation?

5. If not why not?

6. The above email states APS did the investigation not the police. Why did APS do the investigation?

7. What due diligence did the Met. police carry out to decide that APS had the relevant experience and skillset and qualifications to do those investigations on the polices behalf?

8. Does the met. police have a contract with the charity APS?

9. Why did the Met police choose not use the much more experienced RSPCA to seize these animals?

10. Why did the police allow the dogs (property) to be seized and removed by an organisation not recognised as being competent to do this?

11. What checks were carried out to ensure the premises where the dogs were removed to were suitable?

12. If APS were not contracted by the police to remove the dogs (property) then why did the police and Hounslow council encourage and support this theft?

13a) Why did the police allow the dogs (property) to be removed by this org and b) why have the police not ordered the release and return of the dogs (property) to their legal owner?

14. Why are the police now permitting extortion and blackmail by APS who are demanding fees from the legal owner for the upkeep of dogs seized during this bogus operation.

15. The owners of these dogs had full paperwork to cover all aspects of ownership INCLUDING the section 5 offences that the police alleged prior to the seizure of their dogs. Why did the police not check this paperwork prior to going to court for the warrant?

16. Why did they not check the documentation before supporting APS to seize the dogs?

Decision

I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 40(5B) - Personal Information.

Reason for decision

The Metropolitan Police Service neither confirms nor denies whether any other information relating to Questions 6, 13b, 14, 15 and 16 is held, as the duty under Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’) to confirm or deny whether information is held does not apply by virtue of the following exemption:

Section 40(5B) - Personal Information.

This is because a statement confirming or denying whether any other information is held would potentially unfairly disclose or infer personal data.

Disclosure

I have decided to disclose information relating to Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13a.

We understand that your request relates to the following animal welfare incident that is reported on Hounslow Council’s website:
London Borough of Hounslow - Taking Action to in the Borough to uphold animal welfare

The MPS are unable to confirm or deny any additional information beyond the information that Hounslow Council have published on their website. To the extent that some of your questions are not inextricably linked to Personal Data or constitute Personal Data, a partial disclosure to your request has been provided below.

Q1 - We understand the Met police provided the court warrant that licensed the seizure of these dogs. Was this on the advice and evidence provided by the charity Animal Protection Services (APS)?

The court warrant was obtained by Hounslow’s Animal Control and not the MPS.

Q2 and 3 -
What due diligence activities did the police perform regarding APS in order to confirm that APS were a suitable organisation to be contracted to remove the dogs (property) from the premises?
If MPS did no due diligence, why not?

Checks on the organisation were conducted before the warrant was applied for and at that time there were no concerns to warrant any further checks. All recommendations were positive, including those from RSPCA officers, DogLost, who already have a good relationship with various forces, and officers of Kent Police.

Q4 and 5 -
Did the police qualify any evidence provided by doing their own investigation?
If not why not?

No further police investigation was required at the time as this was being progressed by Animal Protection Services and Animal Control who were managing the warrant.

Q7 - What due diligence did the Met Police carry out to decide that APS had the relevant experience and skillset and qualifications to do those investigations on the polices behalf?

This due diligence was carried out by Hounslow Animal Control prior to the warrant being obtained and there were no concerns raised. The MPS have undertaken a lot of work with Hounslow Animal Control and we had no information to warrant any concerns with the partners they were working with.

Q8 - Does the met. police have a contract with the charity APS?

The MPS do not have a contract with Animal Protection Services.

Q9, 10 and 13a -
Why did the Met police choose not use the much more experienced RSPCA to seize these animals?
Why did the police allow the dogs (property) to be seized and removed by an organisation not recognised as being competent to do this?
Why did the police allow the dogs (property) to be removed by this org?

The RSPCA were spoken with prior to the warrant being obtained who raised no concerns with Animal Protection Services. At no point did the MPS have any information to suggest that Animal Protection Services were not competent. Also to confirm this was a council obtained warrant (and not a warrant obtained by the MPS), therefore the council decided on the partners they worked with.

Q11 - What checks were carried out to ensure the premises where the dogs were removed to were suitable?

This was managed by Hounslow Animal Control who are a registered animal charity and who have worked with the RSPCA. There were therefore no concerns to warrant further checks on where the dogs were being taken too.

Q12 - If APS were not contracted by the police to remove the dogs (property) then why did the police and Hounslow council encourage and support this theft?

All dogs were removed due to welfare concerns.

Advice and assistance

I thought that it would assist to address some of the issues highlighted within your request in a more general sense.

Individuals are able to provide feedback to the MPS via the MPS website should they have a complaint about a specific incident: MPS Feedback - Thanks and Complaints

If the information constitutes your own personal information, you can make a Right of Access (ROA) request under the DPA. You can submit a ROA request to the MPS by completing the following form: Request Information about yourself or someone else. You can also request the ROA application form from any MPS Police station.

It may also be beneficial to direct your queries and concerns to Animal Protection Services.