A DOG had to be put to sleep after her owner failed to provide the correct skin cream for six weeks.

But Kevin Bartley has not been banned from owning animals after a sheriff accepted he had tried to care for his pet despite being homeless at the time.

The Scottish SPCA said it was disappointed in the ruling and hoped Bartley would reconsider whether he owns pets in future.

The 24-year-old, formerly of Onslow Road and now of Melrose in the Scottish Borders, had previously denied causing Storm unnecessary suffering by failing to provide ongoing veterinary attention for a chronic skin condition, causing the dog pain, distress and intense itching and poor quality of life.

A Scottish SPCA officer had given evidence at a previous trial hearing but last week, Bartley reconsidered and pleaded guilty.

Bartley's defence solicitor said: "He has reflected on the evidence and my instructions were to tender a guilty plea.

"He was residing with his partner. It was both him and his partner who cared for her [Storm]. The skin condition came to light and both him and his partner were giving her medication.

"From growing up he was in a family home with a dog. When he was residing with his then partner, they purchased a dog and it may be he would consider having a family dog in the future. It's not something he is considering at the moment.

"The dog was in his possession from 16 months old. Throughout that time, she was otherwise a fit dog and cared for in an appropriate manner, other than this failure over a six-week period.

"He told the investigating officer he had been applying Diprobase [cream] to the dog albeit not the medication required.

"He was trying to treat the dog."

Sheriff Simon Fraser said: "It would appear to be accepted by the inspector that he cooperated and seemed concerned about the dog and there was a lapse of about six weeks and he failed to take any steps.

"My impression was he appeared to otherwise have care and concern and the inspector said the condition could not be improved and she had to be put to sleep."

Turning to Bartley, the sheriff said he was satisfied the correct punishment was a fine.

He said: "I'm not persuaded I need to make a disqualification because the omission was for a short period of time when in a difficult personal situation.

"There was no suggestions of fault in need of care before this. He had complied with earlier advice of the Scottish SPCA. It emerged in evidence that you were otherwise concerned for the welfare of your dog, who was described as otherwise well cared for and well fed."

Bartley, who has a previous conviction for cannabis cultivation, was fined £250.

Speaking after the case, Scottish SPCA Inspector Jen Connolly said: “We respect the decisions of the courts and appreciate there are many factors taken into account when passing sentence, however we are disappointed in the sentence handed to Bartley.

“Storm’s condition could have been easily controlled by veterinary treatment which Bartley failed to provide.

“We hope that Bartley will give serious consideration about his suitability to care for other animals in the future.”