![]() Rover, Pawshake, and Tailster do not appear to make any real effort to police that pet carers offering regulated services such as home boarding or daycare are licensed by their local authority. ![]() Lack of regulatory oversight: One major concern is that these platforms appear to state it is up to pet care advertisers to ensure they comply with state and local laws. These platforms serve as marketplaces that connect pet owners with pet sitters, dog walkers and boarders, often without enforcing stringent qualifications or licensing requirements. and even share it with our local authorities? Blog/post/socialise? Dog care services such as Rover, Pawshake, and Tailster are controversial, and despised by many pet owners and licensed pet carers for several reasons. So… How about if we plaster information like this everywhere we can - blogs, Facebook community groups etc. ![]() Councils have to comply with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which restricts obtaining such information ‘covertly’, therefore, they find it difficult to find and engage with unlicensed boarders – if they say to Rover for example, they’re from the Council (overt), they ignore them, but if they engage as a possible customer its covert! If the relevant local authority are advised of the offender’s address as part of a complaint, they can, in principle, immediately investigate and take appropriate action, but it’s difficult for them to intervene otherwise. The issue LAs have with adverts on social media, or on sites such as Rover, is that the ‘advertiser’s’ home address is not visible unless the LA carries out an investigation. As we understand it councils cannot go after Rover’s customers as they are protected by law. Updated Allegedly, Defra and local authorities are powerless to take on the likes of Rover.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |