Breeder fined for keeping dogs in ‘filthy conditions’; she ignored council warnings
A BREEDER who had up to 35 dogs at her premises has been ordered to pay more than £1,500 for keeping her animals in what a court was told were filthy and dangerous conditions.
Julia Newton Winfield, 45, of Cromore Close, Coalville, in Leicester, failed repeatedly to improve the dogs’ living standards, while selling puppies for up to £900 each.
Her website states she has Labradors, Golden Retrievers, Cocker Spaniels, all varieties of Poodle, Cavaliers and labradoodles.
She pleaded guilty to failing to comply with conditions of her breeding licence at her premises in Shaw Lane, Markfield.
Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council, which brought the prosecution, told Leicester Magistrates’ Court that Winfield repeatedly refused to work with environmental health officers who wanted her to improve standards. Officers visited the kennels over a period of time, and during September and October said they found the premises in such a filthy state that the dogs were endangered.
The air quality was ‘very poor’, they said, which created a significant risk of disease, and the kennels were in a poor state of repair, with sharp rusty edges putting dogs at risk of being injured.
Parts of the kennels had no lighting or heating, the court was told, contrary to the conditions stipulated in Newton Winfield’s licence. She was prosecuted after she failed persistently to manage the premises and did not do any maintenance.
Newton Winfield was banned for four years from operating any breeding establishment, fined £860 and ordered to pay £600 costs and victim surcharge of £86.
Afterwards, the council chief environmental health officer, Rob Parkinson, said: “This is an excellent result for the environmental health team and a strong warning that we will not tolerate sub-standard conditions that can lead to poor animal welfare within those premises we have a legal duty to regulate and licence.
“Officers spent a lot of time trying to educate the operator in an attempt to secure the required standards of welfare for the dogs but the advice was ignored and so there was no choice but to take legal action.”