A couple who let five dogs and four cats live in filthy and hazardous conditions in their home in Sunderland have been banned from keeping animals for 36 months.
Lesley Surtees and Lisa Odgers failed to heed warnings to clean up the animals’ living environment which was strewn with rubbish, animal waste and dirt.
They were handed the ban at a sentencing hearing at South Tyneside Magistrates Court on 24 September following an investigation and prosecution by the RSPCA. Both defendants had previously admitted to failing to meet the animals’ needs and causing them unnecessary suffering by not seeking veterinary treatment for their skin conditions.
The court heard that RSPCA Inspector Helen Nedley had visited the couple’s home in Ridley Terrace on 14 February this year after the charity had received concerns about a dog living at the address.
In her written evidence to the court, the Inspector said: “Upon approaching the property I could see that both of the front windows were boarded up. The door was answered by a male I now know to be Les Surtees. I could see rubbish and faeces on the floor behind the front door and there was a strong smell coming from inside the property.
“I discussed the reason for my attendance which related to concerns about a dog called Tyler reportedly being unwell and being given another dog’s medication and human medication instead of veterinary treatment. Mr Surtees denied the allegation and explained that the dog had been in season and was not eating but she was fine now.
“He was reluctant to let me into the property as he explained that his living room was a nightmare. He explained that he owned five dogs, two cats and a bearded dragon.”
Odgers brought Tyler, a female tan and white Jack Russell type dog, to the front door. She was in reasonable body condition but had fur loss towards her back end. The couple were advised to take her to a vet and told the RSPCA would come back in around two weeks to assess all of the animals and their living environment.
At the beginning of March the officer returned with a colleague and two police officers and they were let into the house. The court heard there were five dogs running loose inside and an ‘overwhelming’ smell of faeces and ammonia.
The floor of the hallway was covered in rubbish and animal waste, with clutter piled up to head height in the bedroom. The living room contained a hazardous amount of white goods, furniture and bike parts and the floor was completely covered in a thick, compacted layer of animal faeces. Sofas and surfaces were coated with dirt and animal waste and were brown in colour.
In further evidence Inspector Nedley said: “In the kitchen I saw a few plastic cat food bowls that were coated in brown dirt and crusty dried food. One bowl had food inside that was covered in fluffy green and white mould. Next to them was a large metal saucepan with dirty water inside. The pan had a crusty brown substance all over the surface and the water was yellow in colour with a coating of froth on the top.”
Five dogs, including Jack Russell Terriers and a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, were seized by the police because of their poor body condition and living environment and placed in the care of the RSPCA. Four cats were also removed, one of whom was found sitting on top of a large pile of rubbish and clutter in the bedroom.
Surtees said the bearded dragon had been rehomed and he showed the Inspector a letter from the PDSA which confirmed that Tyler had been seen for her skin condition.
The animals were taken for veterinary treatment by the RSPCA later that day. The vet who examined them signed a certificate stating they were all in a suffering state, with the exception of one cat who was considered likely to suffer if his circumstances didn’t change.
In her written evidence to the court the vet said eight animals had been suffering unnecessarily for at least two months due to the defendants’ failure to treat their flea infestations which had caused them to lose their fur. She said the changes to their skin and coats indicated this had been going on for many weeks and any reasonable person would have sought veterinary treatment and advice.
All nine animals had not had their needs met because they hadn’t been provided with a suitable environment or protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease, added the vet.
Despite the defendants saying they had ‘scrubbed everything clean and spotless’ and there was ‘no case,’ a thick layer of faeces were still visible on the living room floor when the RSPCA visited again in May after a report that the couple had acquired a kitten, which proved unfounded.
Such was the volume of rubbish still piled up in the bedroom that Surtees became stuck in the doorway, and there was further waste, stained brown walls and broken furniture both inside and outside the property.
In his interview with the RSPCA, Surtees said he bought flea products online after reading their ratings and it “wasn’t his fault” if they didn’t work. He said he didn’t think Tyler’s skin problem was an issue as he had been treating it with salmon oil and it had “improved.”
He blamed Odgers for not cleaning the mouldy food bowls and said he didn’t think to remove them, saying the faeces on the back of the sofa in the living room were fresh and had only just appeared when Inspector Nedley arrived.
In her interview Odgers claimed she was not sure who owned the animals, then admitted they were her and Surtees’ responsibility. She said one of the cats, Socks, who had significant hair loss, had seen a vet, but this was a long time ago.
Both defendants were given a 12 month Community Order, 15 Rehabilitation Activity Requirement Days, an £80 fine and ordered to pay costs of £100 and a victim surcharge of £114.
A deprivation order on the animals, who have been in the care of the RSPCA and private boarding establishments since the start of the investigation, was also imposed by the court. This means the animal welfare charity will now be able to legally rehome them after Surtees and Odgers refused to sign them over.
The animals have made a good recovery, although sadly one of the dogs was put to sleep on veterinary advice – with the consent of Surtees and Odgers – because of her advanced age, poor mental cognition, dental disease and mammary cancer.
