Ryedale District Council (05C09026)

Licensing                                       Maladministration, but no injustice

31 May 2007

An investigation into complaints about Ryedale Council’s handling of a zoo licence conditions finds that records were not properly kept of informal inspections, but no evidence to suggest any reason to be concerned about animal welfare. In her report, the Ombudsman finds no fault on allegations that the Council had failed to require conservation measures in the zoo’s licence, or that it had not carried out inspections, but she criticised its lack of record keeping.

‘Ms Campbell’ (not her real name for legal reasons) complained about the Council’s handling of conditions attached to a local zoo operation licence.

The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council in relation to the complaints that it failed to include conservation measures in the licence conditions, or that it failed to include conditions recommended by a special inspection of 2006. She also found no fault in the Council’s reliance on the input of specialist vets approved by DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), and said it seemed both inevitable and reasonable.

The Ombudsman said there was no evidence to suggest there was any reason to be concerned about animal welfare or other standards at the zoo. On the contrary, the evidence from periodic inspections by specialist vets approved by DEFRA suggested that the zoo management was both appropriate and effective.

However, the Ombudsman did find maladministration by the Council in relation to the 2002 Regulations in its failure to consider imposing conditions requiring conservation measures, and in not keeping systematic records of the informal inspections that were part of the statutory system of monitoring and control. She recommends the Council to develop a systematic approach to its inspections, and to record the results.

Date Published: 28/10/08