TC09663 - [2025] UKFTT 01250 (TC)

The Appellant engaged 33 dog-handlers during the relevant period. The dog-handlers are required to have attained a National Association of Security Dog Users (“NASDU”) Level 3 qualification for “Passive/Proactive Drug Detection Dogs” and/or a NASDU Level 4 qualification for “Explosive Detection Dogs”. In addition, they need to have a valid NASDU Level 3 or 4 Certificate for each detection dog that is deployed. The certificate is for a “Handler and Search Dog” team. NASDU and the National Canine Training and Accreditation Scheme (“NCTAS”) both provided “Training and Accreditation” to the handlers and their dogs. The handlers, and their dogs, had to undergo re-accreditation every year. NASDU also required the handlers to do a certain number of hours of training per month. Records were kept so that if the end-client wished to see the training record, the Appellant could request it from the handler and pass it on. This was specific to the handler; rather than handler plus dog. Retraining was required every three years. The training involved upskilling and refreshers. It took three days and culminated in a test over five different papers. The handlers were also required to be SIA-licensed.

One contract between the Appellant and a dog-handler is described as a “Contract for Services (self-employed)” and identifies the job-title “Doghandler” as follows:

“Contract for Services (self-employed)

The parties to the contract:

Mr Rowland Stone, Managing Director of

Tyler Security Limited

…

You may be required to work at any of the Tyler security Limited’s clients in the UK on a temporary or permanent basis.

Date of employment commences:

Job Title: DOG HANDLER”

The standard “Terms and Conditions” at provide, inter alia, that:

“Supplier Personnel: the Supplier’s employees or agents who may be provided to perform the Services and who shall be under the direction, supervision and control of the Supplier.”

The dog-handlers attended venues personally, but did not contract directly with the Appellant’s end-clients. They were, however, an indispensable part of the service provided by the Appellant to its end-clients in order for effective searches to be carried out. The Appellant was required to ensure compliance by the dog-handlers with applicable laws, regulations, orders, directions and codes of practice. It was the Appellant’s responsibility to enforce codes of practice and see that the dog-handlers followed directions.

The Appellant had a “Disciplinary Procedure” in place in respect of the dog-handlers. If a handler committed misconduct on site, Mr Stone would investigate the matter. If the end-clients complained that searches were not being carried out in the agreed manner, Mr Stone would investigate in order to understand whether there was a reasonable explanation for what had occurred. Where things were not done according to the necessary standards, remedial training might be offered, or Mr Stone might simply not use the handler again. The Appellant also provided the handlers with two months’ initial training (which they paid for), and provided further periodic training. This was part of the NASDU licensing process. This training had an element of assessment; handlers or dogs could fail and be withdrawn. The handlers would, upon arrival at a client’s venue, sometimes be made to sign a document containing “Health and Safety” rules, rules regarding social media posts, and other similar rules.

Wimbledon, for instance, has site rules which include health and safety requirements. PPE has to be worn as a health and safety requirement. If this was not done, it would be picked up by the cameras at the venue. The Appellant was, generally, required to ensure the handlers complied with the terms of the contract between the Appellant and the end-client. If a loss was caused by a dog-handler engaged through the Appellant, it was the Appellant’s insurance against which a claim would be made. While the dog-handlers had insurance, it did not cover matters such as a missed explosive, or a dog biting a member of the public at a venue. The handler and the dog operate as a team, so it was not possible for someone else to carry out searches with the handler’s dog, or vice-versa.

The Appellant notified the dog-handlers of a job by sending them a “Job Sheet”, as follows:

Mr Stone selected which handlers to send the job sheets to. The job sheet informed the handlers that work was available for a particular client, at a particular time and place, for a particular number of hours. The job sheet also set out the type of work required at a high level (e.g., “Explo” for an explosive dog), and any other requirements. The handlers are required to provide at least three days’ notice if they are unable to accept the ‘deployment’, and are assumed to have accepted it if they do not say they are unable to do it. The handlers invoice the Appellant based on the number of hours that they have worked.

Some clients requested that the handlers follow a particular “Dress Code”. Mr Stone preferred the handlers to have a ‘corporate’ appearance, stating that:

“all the clients that we have insist on a corporate dress”

A failure to adhere to dress code was confirmed to reflect badly on the Appellant by Mr Stone. The client would be entitled to direct a handler who was not properly attired to change into suitable clothing.

Some venues had “Inductions” provided by the end-client. For Tideway, this lasted three days and the handler received a certificate at the end. Part of the induction was spent on scenarios. The handler was tested on what they would do in particular situations. For Fulham, this was a briefing on matchday, with a health and safety element. For handlers unfamiliar with the venue, someone would talk them through matters, show them around, and explain how things were done in that particular venue. Mr Stone might also attend the induction.

The dog-handlers were part of a larger security operation run by the clients. Each venue had a “Security Manager” (or equivalent role). Their contact details were given on the job sheets, as follows:

There was a hierarchical command structure at the venues, involving the security manager, those working in the control room and the rest of the client’s security apparatus. The security manager is responsible for security on site and generally determines what searches would be done. The “Search Manager” (or the equivalent role in the client’s security set-up) supervises and checks that the searches are being done as they are meant to be done, in liaison with the “Search Adviser”. They liaise not only with the dog handlers, but with the staff responsible for body searches. Sometimes the police would determine where searches were needed if there had been a threat. That information would be cascaded down to the dog-handlers through the security manager. Where something went wrong, and there was no search adviser on site, the handlers would liaise with the security manager. If requirements changed on the day, that would be communicated by the security manager to the handlers.

The dog-handlers might also be briefed on the work they were required to do at the start of each day. Sometimes there was a written “Briefing”. Where there was no written briefing, the handlers would speak to the security manager upon arrival. Sometimes, a ‘lead handler’ would attend the briefing and then cascade any information down to the other handlers. Ultimately, the information came from the end-client.

The handlers were given a “Search Sheet” or “Tasking Sheet” detailing what searches to carry out, where, by what time, and in what order. A full description of the tasks allocated to individual dog-handlers was contained on the individual tasking sheets. The search adviser directed the handlers as to the tasks they were to perform. The handlers did not have discretion to do different tasks to those shown on the tasking sheet. The tasking sheets were signed and returned to the search adviser, confirming that all had been done as required. If tasks were not done, it was the search adviser’s job to re-task so that they were done. At Wimbledon, the handlers were also required to inform the control room when some of the tasks were completed.

Sometimes the Appellant would also provide a search adviser who discussed the client’s requirements with the client, and devised a search ‘matrix’. On the day, the security adviser functioned as a ‘fixer’. The decision as to how many dogs were needed, and how long the searches would take, was made by the clients in conjunction with the search adviser. On the day, the search adviser would issue directions to the handlers at the venue by giving them the tasking sheet and telling them what they needed to do. If something went wrong and there was a search adviser on site, the handlers would liaise with them. The search adviser may also re-allocate tasks between dog-handlers.

The dog-handlers followed the directions of the end-client as to what kinds of searches to carry out, and where to do them, provided that those directions were safe and not unreasonable. The search advisers directed the individual handlers as to the tasks that they were specifically required to perform. The dog-handlers followed the directions of the end-client as to the manner of the searches, once again provided that those directions were reasonable. Clients might also have their own protocol as to what to do in case of a suspect package. Upon making a find, but before starting a search, the handlers would have to call the site control room and inform them of the find.