Pet Ownership Ban for Hanwell Couple Who Neglected Cat

Failed to get treatment for wound that became infected

Fluffy's wound was so severe he had to be put down. Picture: RSPCA

March 6, 2025

A couple from Hanwell has been banned from owning a cat for ten years after admitting to animal neglect.

45-year-old Razia Mahmoud and 49-year-old Younus Mahmoud both of Townholm Crescent, Hanwell, pleaded guilty at Willesden Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday 25 February following an RSPCA investigation.

Concerns had been raised to the RSPCA that their black and white cat Fluffy had not received treatment despite a severe would to his face.

RSPCA Inspector Mike Beaman visited their home in April last year after concerns for the welfare of a with a wound to his face were reported.

He said “As I approached, I saw a black and white cat on the footpath then on the front garden of the property. As I got to the cat it was obvious he had an injury to the left side of his face and possibly his eye. It looked infected and was smelly.”

(He spoke to the owners and they agreed for him to take Fluffy to a vet. An initial vet exam showed there was a cut under the left eye, with dead, black skin around the wound, pus was oozing out and had a strong smell. After they had cleaned the wound, they could more clearly see that the wound covered most of the left-hand side of his face and was down to the exposed bone. The vets advised Inspector Beaman that the prognosis did not look good due to the amount of dead skin there was. The vet confirmed the cat was suffering and so Inspector Beaman contacted the police to begin the investigation.

Mrs Mahmoud told Inspector Beaman that Fluffy would get into fights with foxes and cats and that this injury had happened a week ago.

The court heard how the vet report stated that Fluffy was examined thoroughly at RSPCA Finsbury Park Hospital. The cat weighed just 2.87kg with a low body condition score of 2/9 due to his prominent lumbar spine, ribs and pelvis, minimal muscle mass and pronounced abdominal tuck. Fluffy had a “large, foul smelling wound approximately 4cm (1.57in) in diameter, containing pus and necrotic (dying) tissue, below the left eye.”

The area of dead tissue covered approx 40% of the diameter of his skull. Fluffy was also dehydrated, several of his teeth were fractured and he had an intestinal worm infection and a mild fever.

The report added, “A chronic wound of this nature would have caused the animal physical stress due to inflammation, disruption of blood supply, leading to necrosis which is inevitably painful, and in turn causing suffering. Fluffy also suffered psychological stress through a change in demeanour displaying aggression, together with the inability to carry out natural behaviours effectively such as grooming and eating, leading to poor coat quality and reduced appetite, through low body condition score. The person or persons responsible for the care of Fluffy failed to meet the needs expected of a reasonable owner, through failure to seek timely veterinary attention, in turn failing to provide basic care, protect from pain, suffering and injury, therefore leaving Fluffy in a position of ongoing suffering. This could have been avoided or reduced had veterinary attention been sought in a timely manner.”

Fluffy was humanely euthanised by vets on welfare grounds in order to end his suffering because of the severity of his wound, the lack of surrounding healthy tissue and an inability to close the wound under general anaesthetic and it limiting his ability to eat.

Inspector Beaman added, “This was a sad case which resulted in the death of a young cat who was suffering from an awful and extremely severe wound. Once the full extent of the wound was revealed, it was hard to imagine the amount of pain Fluffy must have been going through. He was in a very sorry state.”

In mitigation, the court heard that the couple had intended to seek assistance and tried to treat the injury but were only aware of injuries shortly before the RSPCA attended as they alleged the cat had run away for a few days; however, this had not been mentioned to the RSPCA throughout their investigation. Their guilty plea was also taken into account and that they showed genuine remorse, had no previous convictions, and were going through health and financial difficulties.

Mrs Razia Mahmoud was also sentenced to a 12-month community order including 15 Rehabilitation Activity Requirement days and 150 hours of unpaid work. She was ordered to pay £200 in costs and a £114 Victim Surcharge. Mr Younis Mahmoud was also sentenced to a 12 month community order which includes 15 Rehabilitation Activity Requirement days, a £450 fine in lieu of unpaid work, and a £114 victim surcharge, as well as £200 in costs. The couple were both disqualified from keeping cats for 10 years.

Pet owners can find a range of practical help and advice on the RSPCA’s dedicated cost of living hub. The charity has also launched a dedicated phone line for those looking for support (0300 123 0650).