Council in Derbyshire accused of returning neglected dogs to owners
South Derbyshire District Council says it's priority is to act lawfully
For years a Derbyshire council is said to have repeatedly told staff and rescue centres to return dogs and puppies back to owners they know have mistreated and abused them.
Following uproar over the handling of a recent animal welfare case involving 12 dogs and seven puppies, more information about South Derbyshire District Council’s alleged long-standing “pattern of behaviour” has been disclosed.
In mid-April, 19 animals are said to have been surrendered to the council by a farmer after officials found them in significantly bad conditions, the worst they have ever seen, with vets assessing their condition and experienced staff shocked and appalled at the “squalid” situation.
Following this voluntary surrendering of the animals, the dogs were handed over to Crowfoot Kennels in Church Broughton for rehoming.
However, council officials ordered that the animals be returned to the owner, leading to Crowfoot pulling out of its 18-year contract with the council, a senior department head at the council resigning in protest and three further staff being suspended on alleged gross misconduct.
The RSPCA, police, local MPs and Derbyshire Dales District Council are all now involved in that investigation.
Former postholder up to 2024, Dennis Bateman, aged 68, was the principal community safety enforcement officer at the council until he also resigned, after 10 years, citing undue pressure from the authority’s legal team over animal welfare cases he says are virtually identical to the April incident.
Mr Bateman, who was also in the police force for 33 years before joining the council in 2014, told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: “When I heard of the events of April I was shocked and saddened to hear of what had happened to the officers involved on the day, who were acting solely with the best interests of the dogs involved.
“It was a case of ‘here we go again’. I am relieved it is all out in the public arena.”
Mr Bateman claimed the situation involved a “sinister agenda” on the part of the district council “which has resulted in the loss of one exceptional manager and more than likely more officers to follow”.
He claimed: “It is my true belief that there is an agenda within the senior management to disband the community safety enforcement team, thereby removing what they see as a thorn in their side.
“Elected members need to investigate, review practices and take action to bring about change.”
Mr Bateman claims that following a change in senior management in 2022, there was a different approach to animal welfare cases, which he says became entirely “risk averse” and “self-serving”.
He claims the approach switched to focus on clear, easy and risk-free wins and not to take on cases which would lead to potentially high costs and a pull on overall resources.
Mr Bateman said his resignation followed “almost daily battles with officials and at times senior management”, including “a failure to support enforcement officers in the prosecution of offenders and other legal matters”.
He referenced four further cases in which issues were faced with officers intervening in an animal welfare incident, with the owner surrendering mistreated and unwell dogs, with the council later ordering staff to return animals in three of those incidents – all of which were in 2022.
Mr Bateman said this involved 19 animals from a premises in Hilton in January 2022; 13 animals in Linton in June and 24 animals from a different premises in Hilton also in June.
He also detailed an incident in Walton on Trent in June 2022 in which 58 animals – dogs and puppies – were surrendered in total.
Mr Bateman’s team allegedly faced “significant pressure” due to the cost burden this placed on the council, saying this was “all cost-oriented, not about the animals”.
He said: “Cost before caring, I suppose.”
With the first Hilton incident, staff are said to have already arranged for the unwell animals to be fostered outside of the area, so they were not returned to the owner.
In the second Hilton incident all animals were rehomed but the team is said to have faced “pressure” from the legal team over the actions of staff, with the increased impact on resources and costs to the council.
Meanwhile, a “particularly nasty and disturbing” welfare case in Linton in 2022 had involved staff finding puppies left in cages with their deceased mothers who had died during birth, with the babies at “deaths’ door”, starving, having never been fed, and living in their own mess.
The council took the owner to court and successfully prosecuted them but Mr Bateman claims a deprivation order was never presented to a judge by the authority, so the council ordered for the animals to be returned to the owner, despite the proven charges.
However, these animals had already been placed into the care of a dog rescue who refused to disclose their location or return the puppies.
The LDRS has also spoken to a dog rescue organisation which had worked with the council but ceased all contact after the Linton incident in which it claims to have been “harrassed” for months to return dogs it had legally been given via a welfare case and successfully rehabilitated and fostered.
It had received a number of dogs in 2022 and by 2024, following successful council prosecution and two years of rehabilitation by the rescue centre, it says it was contacted by the council ordering it to return the animals by the following week.
The rescue centre refused to comply, feeling there was a direct threat to the animals if they were returned to their former owner, who had left the puppies in crates with dead dogs, saying they would “suffer”.
It said the council sent it “threatening legal letters” and threats to take the rescue staff to court over the issue.
An employee told the LDRS: “They were relentless in their pursuit of me. Me and my colleague were horrified by what they were doing and terrified for the dogs that they would be sent to their deaths.
They were sent letters for four months from August until November 2024, before the rescue centre accused the council of “harassment”, with no further contact made.
After seeing the recent April 2026 incident play out on Facebook, they said: “I was not surprised because it was all so familiar. This is actually something people want to see their money spent on, that is clear from the reaction.”
They too, say from their interactions with the council, the focus shifted to “easy wins” due to the high legal legwork and potential cost of kennelling.
A district council spokesperson said: “The council’s priority in all cases is to act in accordance with its statutory duties, lawfully, and proportionately, while ensuring any action taken is robust and capable of withstanding legal scrutiny.
“It would not be appropriate for us to comment on specific cases or individuals, particularly where there may be ongoing or past legal proceedings, or where confidentiality and data protection obligations apply.
“Decisions in these cases are made based on the evidence available at the time and in accordance with relevant legislation, professional advice, and established procedures.
“We are aware that differing perspectives may arise in complex enforcement matters.
“However, we do not recognise the characterisation that decisions are driven by irrelevant factors.
“With regard to claims about historical cases and internal culture, we would strongly encourage any individual with specific concerns about alleged wrongdoing or professional conduct to raise these through the council’s formal complaints or whistleblowing procedures, where they can be properly reviewed.”
The LDRS is aware that a referral via whistleblowing procedures has already been made.