PFD report

Natasha Johnston · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 Oct 2024•Surrey

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
9

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised1

  1. Lack of regulation restricting the number and weight of dogs an individual may walk in a public place
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. Action

    Explore interventions used by local authorities and others to reduce attacks involving large numbers or total weights of dogs.

    Stated by Department for Environment, Food & Rural AffairsStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 November 2024.
  2. Action

    Engage local authorities, police and animal welfare stakeholders to gather evidence on local dog-walking controls.

    Stated by Department for Environment, Food & Rural AffairsStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 November 2024.
  3. Action

    Review the effectiveness of the existing regulatory regime and the need for further national measures.

    Stated by Department for Environment, Food & Rural AffairsStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 November 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.6

  1. Position

    Licensing was not pursued because enforcing it across Surrey’s 10,000-acre countryside estate required resources that its income could not fund.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of regulation restricting the number and weight of dogs an individual may walk in a public place

Wider context from the report

“1. The lack of regulation, both locally and nationally, that restricts the number and weight of dogs that an individual person can walk on their own in a public place. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Explore interventions used by local authorities and others to reduce attacks involving large numbers or total weights of dogs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of this ongoing work, we will engage with local authorities, the police and animal welfare stakeholders to gather evidence specifically on the use of the existing powers to implement controls on dog walking at a local level. We will also explore any other interventions local authorities and others are employing to reduce dog attacks resulting from individuals walking a large number of dogs or a high total weight of dogs. This will allow us to review the effectiveness of the existing regime and the need for any further national measures.”

Source location

Response from DEFRA
Page 2 · response
Published 1 November 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Engage local authorities, police and animal welfare stakeholders to gather evidence on local dog-walking controls.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of this ongoing work, we will engage with local authorities, the police and animal welfare stakeholders to gather evidence specifically on the use of the existing powers to implement controls on dog walking at a local level. We will also explore any other interventions local authorities and others are employing to reduce dog attacks resulting from individuals walking a large number of dogs or a high total weight of dogs. This will allow us to review the effectiveness of the existing regime and the need for any further national measures.”

Source location

Response from DEFRA
Page 2 · response
Published 1 November 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Review the effectiveness of the existing regulatory regime and the need for further national measures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of this ongoing work, we will engage with local authorities, the police and animal welfare stakeholders to gather evidence specifically on the use of the existing powers to implement controls on dog walking at a local level. We will also explore any other interventions local authorities and others are employing to reduce dog attacks resulting from individuals walking a large number of dogs or a high total weight of dogs. This will allow us to review the effectiveness of the existing regime and the need for any further national measures.”

Source location

Response from DEFRA
Page 2 · response
Published 1 November 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Licensing was not pursued because enforcing it across Surrey’s 10,000-acre countryside estate required resources that its income could not fund.

Verbatim wording from the response

“During Spring/Summer 2023, Council officers discussed this issue with a number of stakeholders before developing an options appraisal, with options that ranged from taking no action through to a formal licensing scheme for users of its Countryside Estate (in this case a licence would only apply to Surrey County Council land, because wider licensing is a District and Borough function).”

Source location

Response from Surrey County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 1 November 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

A Surrey-wide countryside licensing scheme was not pursued because it could displace problems and create confusing inconsistent rules across landowners.

Verbatim wording from the response

“During Spring/Summer 2023, Council officers discussed this issue with a number of stakeholders before developing an options appraisal, with options that ranged from taking no action through to a formal licensing scheme for users of its Countryside Estate (in this case a licence would only apply to Surrey County Council land, because wider licensing is a District and Borough function).”

Source location

Response from Surrey County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 1 November 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

A lower dog-walking maximum was not adopted because it could reduce business viability and undermine the engagement and education approach.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Dog Walking Code of Conduct highlights that walkers should only walk the maximum number of dogs that can be safely controlled, with advice for no more than six. This figure was carefully considered; six dogs is the number referred to in guidance from DEFRA on Public Space Protection Orders (please find extract below) and is the usual maximum used by insurers for professional dog walking cover.”

Source location

Response from Surrey County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 1 November 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Dog services and animal welfare licensing are assigned to borough, district or unitary councils.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Currently there is no standardised approach to the regulation of professional dog walkers across England, with a variety of different schemes in place in different areas, or often none at all. The responsibility for providing overall regulation on issues such as the number and weight of dogs being walked sits with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), while ‘dog services’ and animal welfare licensing are a Borough and District (or Unitary) Council function, usually as part of its Environmental Health responsibilities.”

Source location

Response from Surrey County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 1 November 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

National regulation of professional dog walking, including dog numbers and weights, is assigned to DEFRA.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Currently there is no standardised approach to the regulation of professional dog walkers across England, with a variety of different schemes in place in different areas, or often none at all. The responsibility for providing overall regulation on issues such as the number and weight of dogs being walked sits with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), while ‘dog services’ and animal welfare licensing are a Borough and District (or Unitary) Council function, usually as part of its Environmental Health responsibilities.”

Source location

Response from Surrey County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 1 November 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Local authorities should use existing powers, such as PSPOs, to control dog walking and help prevent dog attacks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“lead. Defra published guidance for local authorities on using the powers in this Act for the control and welfare of dogs in 2014. Many local authorities already use this tool to set a maximum number of dogs walked by one person. In addition, some local authorities, such as Surrey County Council, have introduced dog walking codes of conduct which professional dog walkers can sign up to, while others have introduced licensing schemes for professional dog walkers.”

Source location

Response from DEFRA
Page 2 · response
Published 1 November 2024

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.6

  1. 1

    Keep the Council’s dog-walking approach under review and develop its processes as needed.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 1 November 2024.
  2. 2

    Monitor public and professional dog-walker feedback to review the Code of Conduct’s effectiveness.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 1 November 2024.
  3. 3

    Implement and operate a Dog Walking Code of Conduct, including business sign-up, insurance verification, website listing and responsible-walking guidance.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 November 2024.
  4. 4

    Continue working with partners to improve dog-walking standards and behaviours.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 1 November 2024.
  5. 5

    Improve organisational understanding by completing professional dog-walking training for an officer.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 November 2024.
  6. 6

    Promote the Code of Conduct through outreach events, newsletters, social media and professional dog-walking ambassadors.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 1 November 2024.

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Keep the Council’s dog-walking approach under review and develop its processes as needed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is acknowledged that legislation and guidance around dog walking is an evolving area, but Surrey County Council is committed to continuing to work with its partners to improve dog walking standards and behaviours. The common consensus from discussions with stakeholders in this space (including professional training providers) is that any universal regulation of dog walking needs to be delivered at a national level, likely led by DEFRA. The Council will continue to keep its approach under review, develop its processes as needed, and looks forward to further legislation and clarity on this issue.”

Source location

Response from Surrey County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 1 November 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Monitor public and professional dog-walker feedback to review the Code of Conduct’s effectiveness.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Officers will continue to monitor feedback from the public and professional dog walkers, both formally and anecdotally to review the effectiveness of the Code of Conduct, especially on Surrey County Council’s land. They are also committed to improving their understanding of this work area, with one officer recently completing a professional dog walking qualification so that the Council has a better understanding of their requirements and best practices.”

Source location

Response from Surrey County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 1 November 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Implement and operate a Dog Walking Code of Conduct, including business sign-up, insurance verification, website listing and responsible-walking guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It was recognised that in its role as a responsible landowner, Surrey County Council should also take some form of action to promote positive dog walking behaviour in light of this incident, with a particular focus on Professional (paid) Dog Walkers who are often seen with multiple dogs at its countryside sites. For clarity, the guidance applied by Surrey County Council (that has been referred to by the Coroner), most notably its ‘Dog Walking Code of Conduct’, was implemented in response to the incident involving Ms Johnston rather than being in place prior to the event.”

Source location

Response from Surrey County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 1 November 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Continue working with partners to improve dog-walking standards and behaviours.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is acknowledged that legislation and guidance around dog walking is an evolving area, but Surrey County Council is committed to continuing to work with its partners to improve dog walking standards and behaviours. The common consensus from discussions with stakeholders in this space (including professional training providers) is that any universal regulation of dog walking needs to be delivered at a national level, likely led by DEFRA. The Council will continue to keep its approach under review, develop its processes as needed, and looks forward to further legislation and clarity on this issue.”

Source location

Response from Surrey County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 1 November 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Improve organisational understanding by completing professional dog-walking training for an officer.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Officers will continue to monitor feedback from the public and professional dog walkers, both formally and anecdotally to review the effectiveness of the Code of Conduct, especially on Surrey County Council’s land. They are also committed to improving their understanding of this work area, with one officer recently completing a professional dog walking qualification so that the Council has a better understanding of their requirements and best practices.”

Source location

Response from Surrey County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 1 November 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Promote the Code of Conduct through outreach events, newsletters, social media and professional dog-walking ambassadors.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Surrey County Council officers have hosted multiple outreach events during 2024 to promote the code of conduct, which has included working in partnership with other landowners, such as Guildford Borough Council, to show a collaborative approach and amplify our messaging.”

Source location

Response from Surrey County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 1 November 2024

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026