J D Wetherspoon plc (LON:JDW) has announced a statement re press comment.
The BBC published an article online (“Wetherspoon dogs policy could be breaking the law, watchdog says”, 6 February 2026), which gives a misleading impression of Wetherspoon’s dogs policy and the reasons for it.
Wetherspoon allows assistance dogs , but asks for proof of training documentation from ADUK, an umbrella organisation, which states that its “member organisations work to the highest internal standards of assistance and guide dog training.”
Wetherspoon has taken advice from senior counsel and understands that it should make “reasonable adjustments” to accommodate those with disabilities, but must take into account, also, its responsibilities for the safety of employees and the public.
The main legislation protecting those with disabilities is in the Equality Act 2010.
The duties towards the public and employees are contained in a range of legislation, including the Licensing Act 2003, the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
In formulating policies, account has to be taken of a substantial increase in what the police call “dog incidents “.
For example, the BBC reported (8 October 2025) that there were “31,920 dog attacks on people in England and Wales in 2024”.
The BBC also said (11 April 2025) that Cleveland Police had reported a 163% increase in dog incidents since 2019.
In another example, Gloucester Police reported a 70% increase in dog incidents between 2019 and 2024.
The Financial Times reported (1 August 2025) that “the number of hospitalisations from dog bites has doubled over the last twenty years.”
A graphic example of problems in the hospitality industry is in a BBC report (14 November 2025) in which “a child was bitten by a dog while visiting a Costa Coffee in Kidderminster”.
Wetherspoon itself has seen a big increase in dog incidents, even though only assistance dogs are allowed. 15 staff were bitten by dogs in 2025, compared to one in 2020.
All parties agree that bona fide assistance dogs should be permitted in pubs. The only issue is whether pubs should request documentary proof of training.
Surprisingly, perhaps, ADUK, an organisation which upholds the need for training and issues documentation accordingly, offers legal advice to the public which conflicts with Wetherspoon’s.
ADUK told the BBC that “identification”, or documentation, was not a legal requirement.
ADUK say, in effect, that documentation should not be requested and that pub staff should judge a dog, after entry, by its behaviour.
The flaw in this approach is that the first sign of bad behaviour may be an incident of a customer or employee being bitten.
Wetherspoon chairman Tim Martin said:
“This is a complex area for pubs and other organisations. The interests of those with disabilities need to be protected while, at the same time, employees and the public have to be protected from a substantial increase in dog incidents.
“The BBC article , unfortunately, did not explain Wetherspoon’s broader legal responsibility for the safety of its customers and staff, which we set out in detail for them, and which is the reason for our policy.
“ADUK is an organisation which itself demands high levels of training for assistance dogs, for which it issues documentary proof.
“Yet it is offering, in effect, legal advice to the public, which states that pub companies should not ask for documentation.
“Instead, according to ADUK, pub staff should be asked to make a judgement, after a dog is already in the pub, as to whether it is trained or not.
“It is inevitable, as a matter of common sense, that ADUK’s advice, if followed, will lead to an increase in dog incidents in pubs, and may already have done so, in the absence of sensible checks in advance of entry.
“In contrast, Wetherspoon’s policy clearly provides greater protection for employees and the public, and is consistent with established regulations in areas such as proof of age in pubs and blue badges for parking.”
