TWO Chard men who were keeping two cats in appalling and squalid conditions have both been banned from keeping any animals for the next five years.

When an RSPCA inspector called at the address of one of the men she was greeted with an overwhelming stench of cat urine and faeces.

When she entered the bathroom where the animals were being kept she found them in a state of distress and neglect and lying on a urine-soaked cushion and blanket.

The room was covered in dirt and walked-in faeces, including pools of diarrhoea, and the two cats were very subdued, sat in a hunched position and were heavily soiled.

One was in a very poor condition and appeared emaciated with its spine, ribs and pelvis easily felt. It also had minimal muscle tone and was described as being in a “life-threatening condition”.

They had dirty ears and flea dirt throughout their coats which were wet with urine and “smelt appalling”. There was some food and milk in a bowl, but no water was available.

When Michael William Stephens and Troy Draycott appeared before Somerset Magistrates the court heard that both men had diagnosed learning difficulties and were happy to sign the cats over the RSPCA immediately after buying them via a Facebook advert.

Stephens, 28, of Old Town Flats and Draycott, 31, of Holyrood Street both pleaded guilty to a charge that between March 31 and April 13 this year at an address in Chard, they caused unnecessary suffering to a black and white cat called Lexi by failing to investigate and address the cause of its poor bodily condition and weight loss.

They also admitted causing unnecessary suffering to a black male cat called Blade by failing to provide veterinary care regarding to an infected lesion to the animal’s hock and otitis extrema.

Prosecutor Edward Hand said that on April 13 RSPCA Inspector Anne Daniel attended a first floor flat in Chard where Stephens lived and was alerted to a strong smell of cat urine and faeces.

Draycott also arrived and found the two one-year-old cats in the distressing state.

“They admitted they were jointly responsible for the animals and when interviewed cooperated with the officer,” he said.

“When asked about the way they had treated the cats, from the outset both said they would sign over ownership of them which they did on that day.”

They were assessed by a veterinary surgeon who said the cats had high levels of flea dirt and were soaked in urine.

They also had mites and ear infections and Blade had a urine-soaked underside, skin lesions and stunk of ammonia.

Lexi’s body condition was anaemic, her temperature was very low and she was in a life-threatening condition.

However the court heard that both cats had since responded to treatment, were in full good health and would not be returned to the defendants.

Defending solicitor Ray Peters said that Stephens and Draycott were joint owners of the cats and had both been diagnosed with learning difficulties and other mental health conditions.

“They discussed the possibility of owning an animal of some sort but were of the opinion that the accommodation they had was not suitable,” he said.

“However they noticed an advert on Facebook for two kittens being sold by a friend and, perhaps somewhat foolishly, they went and had a look and immediately fell in love with them and had them.

“Initially they were at Draycott’s home but the housing association was not prepared for him to have pets so they moved them to Stephens’ flat where they were rescued from.

“When the inspector attended they both immediately agreed and were delighted to be able to sign the animals over because they realised they were not able to look after them as they should have.”

He said the regret was that they did not do anything earlier but added that they now didn’t have any animals and did not wish to have any.

For both offences the magistrates ordered that Stephens and Draycott should be disqualified from owning animals, keeping them, participating in keeping them and being able to control of influence the way in which they are kept or helping to transport them for the next five years.

They also ordered each defendant to pay £150 towards court costs.