Statements on the Board of Agriculture’s ability to charge differentiated fees depending on the application method at the time of registration; also criticism of the agency for inadequate and incorrect information about the ability to pay the fee in cash

The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that there is nothing to prevent  the Board of Agriculture from setting different fees for registering dogs and cats depending on how the application was made. The evidence in the case is insufficient for the Parliamentary Ombudsman to be able to give an opinion on whether the difference in the fee amounts is justified by the principle of full cost recovery. The findings in this respect do not give rise to any criticism on the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s part.

The Board of Agriculture is criticised, however, for the insufficient clarity of the information on the agency’s website about the ability to pay in cash and for the agency incorrectly indicating that the fee in question could not be paid in cash.