Agenda item

The Lead Councillor for Environment and Regulatory Servicesintroduced the report submitted to the Committee.  He advised the meeting of the Council’s statutory responsibility to have measures in place to respond to stray dogs found in the Borough and the appointment of Dogbusters in 2019 to provide a stray dog collection and reception service on behalf of the Council.  The Lead Councillor for Environment and Regulatory Services noted that the report set out the Council’s responsibilities, details of the stray dog service, relevant statistics, contract management, complaints, and the contract review timetable and process. 

The Senior Specialist for Licensing and Community Safety indicated that the Council had a duty to respond to stray dogs and no kennelling facilities of its own, hence the need to procure an outside contractor.  

During the ensuing discussion a number of suggestions were made and clarifications offered:

• In reply to a request to provide the cost to the Council of the contract with Dogbusters to aid scrutiny of the service, the Senior Specialist for Licensing and Community Safety indicated the commercial sensitivity of the cost and undertook to seek advice about sharing the information with Committee members.

• Members questioned Dogbusters’ handling of communications with members of the public.  With reference to another stray dog service provider operating in the county, and the lack of contact details and publicly available information for Dogbusters, a member of the Committee questioned the transparency and accountability of the Council’s contractor.  In addition, the specification used in the procurement process in 2019 was challenged given that the stray dog service provided by Dogbusters was apparently used by just one other council. 

• In reply to questions, the Senior Specialist for Licensing and Community Safety advised the meeting that since 2019 the Council had received three complaints relating to Dogbusters and that the company had dealt with over four hundred stray dogs in the same period.  He suggested that Dogbusters was careful about divulging to members of the public any details about stray dogs in its kennels due to concerns about the public accessing their facility in order to reclaim their dogs without paying the fee, as had happened with the previous contactor on a number of occasions; however, he indicated that the contractor should respond positively to finders of stray dogs contacting them to request information about whether the dog had been returned to its owner, and any matters of concern could be referred to officers to investigate. 

• In response to questions raised by the Committee, the Senior Specialist for Licensing and Community Safety advised that Dogbusters facilities were inspected regularly by Council officers, there was a contract monitoring schedule with regular meetings, and the contractor was accountable to the Council.  He indicated that Dogbusters was a licensed boarding kennels located in the Surrey area, rated as a five-star facility, the highest rating available under the Licensing Regulations, and with the exact location judged commercially sensitive for reasons of security. 

• The Senior Specialist for Licensing and Community Safety confirmed that Dogbusters had been awarded the contract to provide the service after an open procurement exercise, with tenders scored on both cost and technical specification.  He indicated that the contract was about to be re-tendered and included areas such as staff training, kennel management, rehoming unclaimed dogs, the provision of emergency medical treatment, dealing with customers, and returning dogs to owners. 

• A member of the Committee questioned the quality of the Dogbusters website and the public’s perception of both the service and, by association, the Council.  The same member of the Committee asked how many complaints had been made direct to the contractor, besides the three formal complaints received by the Council about the service.  The Senior Specialist for Licensing and Community Safety suggested that the quality of the information provided to customers could be included within the service specification when the next contract was put out to tender.  He indicated that the expectation was for the contractor to manage service complaints made directly to them.

• A member of the Committee asked about the seven-day holding period, the rehoming of unclaimed dogs and the possible role of breed club rescue societies, the value of councillors viewing facilities at the stray dog service, and whether the police used the same boarding kennels.  The same member of the Committee queried the number of dogs rehomed or placed in foster care (36) and the number returned to owners (7) in the current year and noted the likely usefulness of a site visit to speak to the contractor. 

• In reply to the above questions, the Senior Specialist for Licensing and Community Safety advised that the seven-day holding period was legislated whereby dogs legally become the property of the Council after this period, however during this time every effort is made to reunite the dog with their owner.  He informed the meeting that Dogbusters worked with a number of foster families and other rescue centres, including Battersea Dogs Home.  In reply to a comment about Battersea Dogs Home, the Senior Specialist for Licensing and Community Safety indicated that the contractor was specifically instructed to never euthanise a healthy dog or pass one along to a charity that would.  He advised that many dogs which are unclaimed are not ‘pedigree’ breeds which would enable the use of a charity for that breed.  He suggested that the specification for the new contract would consider the rehoming arrangements.  The Senior Specialist for Licensing and Community Safety advised the meeting that he was not aware whether the police used the contractor.  The meeting was advised that an increase in the number of dogs being rehomed or sent to foster care in the current year was due to owners not reclaiming their dogs, possibly as a result of an increase in dog ownership during covid and dogs not being microchipped or microchip details not being updated by owners. 

• A member of the Committee suggested the merit of Councillor oversight or involvement in the contract preparation process, including consultation about the specification of the contract when it was re-tendered, and ensuring Councillors had a clear understanding of the contract management process and elements of the procurement process, together with information on the costs paid by the Council for the current service.  The Chairman expressed support for these sentiments and suggested to the Lead Councillor for Environment and Regulatory Services the value in a consultation with councillors with a view to improving the specification of the next contract when put out to tender.  In response, the Lead Councillor for Environment and Regulatory Services indicated his support for input from Councillors.

RESOLVED:  (I) That the Executive be requested to ensure Councillor involvement in the processes for the procurement, contract preparation, and contract management of the stray dog service.

(II) That the Lead Councillor for Environment and Regulatory Services ensure details of the cost and fees paid to Dogbusters for provision of the stray dog service be provided to Overview and Scrutiny Committee members.