Dog Fouling - Please fill in Southwark's Consultation Document

[Tanza]

We have until 5 June to fill in Southwark's Consultation about dog-related issues - consulting on a range of measures including the power to fine/tackle owners who let their dogs foul the streets.

https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/lets-talk-about-dogs/

Today I contacted the very helpful community warden who managed to catch and fine the persistent dog-fouling owner in my street a couple of years ago - to see if he might swing past my road again - but he said things have changed and there is nothing he can currently do - and urged me to fill in this form if we want action on this.

[first mate]

Careful what you wish for https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/sep/08/pspos-new-control-orders-public-spaces-asbos-freedoms

[James Barber]

Southwark Council also undertook such a consultation 18 months ago. I've repeatedly chased for the output of the analysis and was told repeatedly they didn't have the resources to undertake this analysis.

So you can imagine my surprise that the consultation is being repeated.

Perhaps the first consultation didn't give the result that was required?

[Chick]

A lot of the questions were completely irrelevant and frankly cheeky; what is your Sexual orientation. And Is your gender identity the same as the gender you were assigned at birth? And what is your Religion or belief. And What do you consider to be your ethnicity?

I cant see what these have to do with dog shit.

[Chick]

Thanks for this.

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Careful what you wish for

> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/sep/08/psp

> os-new-control-orders-public-spaces-asbos-freedoms

[Chick]

There are bye-laws against dog shit already so why do we need a PSPO?

[tiddles]

Why do the wardens have no power to enforce?

[ianr]

> There are bye-laws against dog shit already so why do we need a PSPO?

There are already the Southwark Composite Dog Ban Byelaws, which specify a long list of public grounds and open spaces as "canine faeces removal areas". http://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1369/Composite%20Dog%20Ban%20Byelaws.pdf

The Explanatory Notes to the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/notes/division/5/5 ) contain the following:

186.The public spaces protection order will be different from the powers it will replace in the following ways:

a. It can prohibit a wider range of behaviour, which makes the new order more like the ?good rule and government byelaws? made under the Local Government Act 1972, but with a fixed penalty notice available on breach (although some current byelaws do allow for fixed penalty notices to be issued).;

b. There will be less central government oversight than with byelaws, and no central government reporting requirements as with designated public place orders. This will reduce bureaucracy; and

c. There will be lighter touch consultation requirements to save costs (for example, there is no duty to advertise in local newspapers).

It also looks, from the examples in the above Guardian article, as if a PSPO can be applied over a very broad area.

[first mate]

Additionally, these new powers are being blatantly abused by councils elsewhere to make money. Powers to fine are contracted out to private companies. A documentary on Monday evening ( Panorama?) showed people being fined for not picking up dog poo, after they had done so and for myriad spurious littering offences- all leading to heavy fines and a potential criminal record.

Proceeds from fines are split between company and council for the first four fines a day. Anything after that goes to the company. Company employees could earn a bonus by issuing more fines a day and each had minimum targets. Secret filming showed one of the in house trainers saying the purpose was to make money.

As others say, the council already have the power to fine for littering, including dog poo. The purpose of this whole exercice is to try to find other ways to extract money from locals...much the same for totally unnecessary double yellow lines I suspect. Locals should resist with all their might.

[first mate]

Actually, thinking on I wonder what the legal position is for a council warden (presumably under instruction from those higher up) to refuse to assist a local in terms of existing powers on littering, and instead advise them to fill out a consultation form online as a solution?

James, wouldn't the council have a legal duty to reasonably carry out its role to to keep streets clean under existing powers?

[siousxiesue]

I filled this in and left all personal questions blank.

Pointed out we already have the bye-laws and community wardens in place to tackle this problem. Just needs some regular hi-vis patrols and fines handed out.

[Take Note]

Totally agree with siousxisue. A blanket borough-wide order is both reactionary and punitive and will not do anything to solve all the revolting dog mess on our streets and public spaces. People who don't pick up don't because they don't want to - or are too busy to notice it happening in the first place. far more patrols needed.

Also when was a resident, "attacked by a pack of dogs"? (As per the Southwark Survey) Surely this terrible event would have made the news?

Come on....

[Nigello]

I did what Siousxiesue did. Don't see why we need another layer of bureaucracy where laws exist already (and why they want to know about whether I've changed gender or my age is baffling).

[nununoolio]

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Additionally, these new powers are being blatantly

> abused by councils elsewhere to make money. Powers

> to fine are contracted out to private companies. A

> documentary on Monday evening ( Panorama?) showed

> people being fined for not picking up dog poo,

> after they had done so and for myriad spurious

> littering offences- all leading to heavy fines and

> a potential criminal record.

>

> Proceeds from fines are split between company and

> council for the first four fines a day. Anything

> after that goes to the company. Company employees

> could earn a bonus by issuing more fines a day and

> each had minimum targets. Secret filming showed

> one of the in house trainers saying the purpose

> was to make money.

>

> As others say, the council already have the power

> to fine for littering, including dog poo. The

> purpose of this whole exercice is to try to find

> other ways to extract money from locals...much the

> same for totally unnecessary double yellow lines I

> suspect. Locals should resist with all their

> might.

Scaremongering again FM?

All proceeds from fines issued by Southwark Council staff go directly to central government, not to the Council and certainly not to the staff issuing the fines.

If someone pays a fine they are issued with, they will not have a criminal record. The penalty notice (fine)is issued as an alternative to taking someone to court for a minor offence. It is considerably cheaper for both parties and has the added benefit of not topping up any solicitor's bank balance.

[nununoolio]

Take Note Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Totally agree with siousxisue. A blanket

> borough-wide order is both reactionary and

> punitive and will not do anything to solve all the

> revolting dog mess on our streets and public

> spaces. People who don't pick up don't because

> they don't want to - or are too busy to notice it

> happening in the first place. far more patrols

> needed.

>

> Also when was a resident, "attacked by a pack of

> dogs"? (As per the Southwark Survey) Surely this

> terrible event would have made the news?

>

> Come on....

As was clearly stated in the 'Why introduce a PSPO?' section, it says "Residents have reported being attacked and frightened by 'packs of dogs'." This isn't the Council just deciding to pick on dog owners, it is the Council responding to complaints and concerns from members of the public. Of the complaints listed, I have personally witnessed "people being frightened by packs of dogs" (their perception. A dog owner may consider it 'just playing') on several occasions, "a child being knocked over by a dog" on one occasion, and dealt with "attacks on animals within Southwark?s Cemeteries and parks and open spaces" on more occasions than I can remember. The latter includes serious dog on dog attacks. I can assure you it isn't much fun standing guard over a mutilated fox or squirrel in the middle of January for up to two hours waiting for the RSPCA to arrive.?

[nununoolio]

Chick Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are bye-laws against dog shit already so why

> do we need a PSPO?

The bye-laws can only be enforced by taking someone to court. It would cost thousands yet would yield penalty fines in the low hundreds at best. Also, a PSPO would enable council officers to penalise dog control issues as well as dog fouling.

[nununoolio]

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually, thinking on I wonder what the legal

> position is for a council warden (presumably under

> instruction from those higher up) to refuse to

> assist a local in terms of existing powers on

> littering, and instead advise them to fill out a

> consultation form online as a solution?

>

> James, wouldn't the council have a legal duty to

> reasonably carry out its role to to keep streets

> clean under existing powers?

Eh??

[first mate]

Nunoolio,

That may be the situation now but find out a little more about how these new powers are being used elsewhere.

I am not sure of costs of summary conviction at a magistrates court but surely the purpose is to deter repeat offences not raise money? Under existing Bylaws offenders can be fined on summary conviction and they can also be removed from the park. The DDA section 3 is devoted to dogs dangerously out of control- and yes that could be a matter of perception.

Tell me who will enforce the new PSPOs, if we get them?

Of course, one quite simple solution to some of this would be for the council to allow some dog training sessions within the parks, a great way to educate and remind the public about how their dogs should behave in the real world, but the council stopped any use of the park for training long ago.

The council seems not the least bit concerned about dogs walked offlead on the public streets.

See http://manifestoclub.info/psposreport/

[Take Note]

I agree FM re: training. That goes for walkers and owners.

Nunoolio all you did was quote what I did - I'm well aware of what it says on the site; I have read it, too. What I asked was where is the evidence of residents being attacked by packs of dogs?

Also, I get that some people are afraid of dogs. When dogs are playing they run around, sometimes barking. Have you ever stood in a primary school playground at lunchtime? Children run around screaming and playing - sometimes they play fight and knock each other over. Like children, some dogs are full of energy and need to let off steam - obviously in a controlled way - this can't be done on a lead.

I'm afraid of lots of things: But that is MY issue - no-one else is to blame.

[nununoolio]

Take Note Wrote:

> Nunoolio all you did was quote what I did - I'm

> well aware of what it says on the site; I have

> read it, too. What I asked was where is the

> evidence of residents being attacked by packs of

> dogs?

I listed incidents I have witnessed or had reported to me.

> Also, I get that some people are afraid of dogs.

> When dogs are playing they run around, sometimes

> barking. Have you ever stood in a primary school

> playground at lunchtime? Children run around

> screaming and playing - sometimes they play fight

> and knock each other over. Like children, some

> dogs are full of energy and need to let off steam

> - obviously in a controlled way - this can't be

> done on a lead.

> I'm afraid of lots of things: But that is MY issue

> - no-one else is to blame.

I agree dogs should be able to run around and play/let off steam. I'm not sure I agree that a cemetery or nature reserve would be a suitable location and certainly not somewhere that is both of these things.

[nununoolio]

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Nunoolio,

>

> That may be the situation now but find out a

> little more about how these new powers are being

> used elsewhere.

Will do.

> I am not sure of costs of summary conviction at a

> magistrates court but surely the purpose is to

> deter repeat offences not raise money? Under

> existing Bylaws offenders can be fined on summary

> conviction and they can also be removed from the

> park. The DDA section 3 is devoted to dogs

> dangerously out of control- and yes that could be

> a matter of perception.

The point I was making about the byelaws is that it would cost the council thousands to take people to court. Nothing to do with making money but to do with not having the budget or resources for so many legal actions.

> Tell me who will enforce the new PSPOs, if we get

> them?

I imagine it would be wardens/enforcement officers.

> Of course, one quite simple solution to some of

> this would be for the council to allow some dog

> training sessions within the parks, a great way to

> educate and remind the public about how their dogs

> should behave in the real world, but the council

> stopped any use of the park for training long

> ago.

Not sure that is the case. There is a dog training group in the north of the borough. I don't think the council would be able to fund you to do it but you should apply for a licence and see what happens.

> The council seems not the least bit concerned

> about dogs walked offlead on the public streets.

This is a criminal matter. "Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 it is a criminal offence for a dog to be on a designated road (ie. a public road) without being held on a lead." Not something the Council has powers to deal with. This may change with the introduction of a PSPO.

>

> See http://manifestoclub.info/psposreport/

[first mate]

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Nunoolio,

>

> That may be the situation now but find out a

> little more about how these new powers are being

> used elsewhere.

Will do.

> I am not sure of costs of summary conviction at a

> magistrates court but surely the purpose is to

> deter repeat offences not raise money? Under

> existing Bylaws offenders can be fined on summary

> conviction and they can also be removed from the

> park. The DDA section 3 is devoted to dogs

> dangerously out of control- and yes that could be

> a matter of perception.

The point I was making about the byelaws is that it would cost the council thousands to take people to court. Nothing to do with making money but to do with not having the budget or resources for so many legal actions.

You only have to take a few people to court and win before word gets round. Yes, there'll be the odd repeat offender but most will desist and we are talking about a magistrates court not full judge and jury. Think you are scaremongering there Nunoolio.

> Tell me who will enforce the new PSPOs, if we get

> them?

I imagine it would be wardens/enforcement officers.

Oh really, there are very few park wardens. Do you think the job of enforcement might have to be contracted out to a private company?

> Of course, one quite simple solution to some of

> this would be for the council to allow some dog

> training sessions within the parks, a great way to

> educate and remind the public about how their dogs

> should behave in the real world, but the council

> stopped any use of the park for training long

> ago.

Not sure that is the case. There is a dog training group in the north of the borough. I don't think the council would be able to fund you to do it but you should apply for a licence and see what happens.

As I am sure you know, there used to be someone who did it on Peckham Rye. The council did not have to fund it, those attending paid a nominal fee direct but then, for no apparent reason, it was stopped.

Clearly you are very pro PSPOs and determined these should go through. I do not share your apparent faith that they will only be applied for the common good. We will have to agree to disagree.

> The council seems not the least bit concerned

> about dogs walked offlead on the public streets.

This is a criminal matter. "Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 it is a criminal offence for a dog to be on a designated road (ie. a public road) without being held on a lead." Not something the Council has powers to deal with. This may change with the introduction of a PSPO.

The council has powers to make an order under section 27 of that Act- has Southwark ever done so? An awful lot of people have complained about dogs off lead on streets but you seem to be saying that only now, using PSPOs, would the council suddenly take an interest?

>

> See [manifestoclub.info]

[tomskip]

Can anyone put this thread into plain English?

[nununoolio]

I would post back to First mate with all the quotes but it might break the internet!

[nununoolio]

Although I do have to ask First Mate this. In what way is pointing out the council can't afford to take on several court cases 'scaremongering'. They would be criticised for wasting public money.