|
|



West Tamar Council Enquiries: Jonathan Linster I Sarah van Tienen Phone : (03) 6323 9300 Fax: (03) 6323 9349 20 June, 2007 Dear Sir/Madam ALLEGED NUISANCE DOG BARKING COMPLAINT Thank you for your recent report of an alleged dog nuisance. West Tamar Council have put together an alleged dog barking complaint package to fulfil the requirements of State Legislation, allow fairness to all parties concerned, and to gather true and accurate information. Resolving alleged dog barking complaints can be a Lengthy, difficult and complex issue and although most aggrieved parties would like immediate action, the reality is that alleged dog nuisance complaints are difficult to resolve due to reasons such as, a. Barking is very subjective, with many different interpretations as to what is a nuisance. The degree of annoyance, therefore, varies with the location of the dog, and the tolerance of the complainant. b. It is extremely difficult to collect reliable and permanent evidence of the frequency, and loudness of a dog’s barking. Should court proceedings be required to abate the nuisance a high standard of evidence is required. c, An alleged barking complaint may in some cases be one aspect of a neighbourly dispute; council needs to ensure complaints are not vexatious. d. Dog owners are seldom bothered by their own dog’s barking and often unaware that it is causing a nuisance to others. Some dog owners have difficulty in believing that their dog barks excessively. This is usually because the dog barks when the owners are out, when they return home the dog stops barking, or decreases it’s barking to a more acceptable level. For the reasons listed above, it is therefore crucial that the aggrieved party approach the dog owner as soon as the dogs barking becomes a nuisance. In a vast majority of cases, when the dog owner is made aware in a courteous, informative and neighbourly fashion, the problem is usually resolved. Never send or leave an anonymous letter as this often leads to bad feelings, and causes a breakdown in communications. After approaching the dog's owner and the alleged nuisance has not improved within 14 days, you need to send a signed/dated letter, giving details of the alleged barking complaint and return to council using the reply paid envelope supplied. Council will then informally contact the dog owner and surrounding neighbours (your details remain anonymous throughout this process), The dog owner will be offered advice and informed of the consequences if the alleged nuisance, if proven, is not abated. If after 28 days there is no improvement in the dog’s behaviour, you will need to complete the enclosed official complaint form (blue copy) and return it to the council with the appropriate fee. Upon receipt of the official complaint form council will formally investigate the complaint. You will need to start the barking diary (green copy) and return it to council after 14 days continuous rnonitoring. (At least two other barking diaries will be offered to various neighbours in the vicinity to complete). As part of the official investigation it is usually a requirement to obtain signed statements from you as the complainant, as well as at least two other witnesses from separate households within close proximity of the alleged complaint who are also willing, if required, to attend court If after the official investigation, the alleged complaint is not resolved, the general manager will consider from the evidence of the investigation whether the complaint has substance. The general manager at this stage, may institute proceedings. Upon receipt of at least three dog barking diaries, statements and other evidence council has several options; - Monitor the problem for a further 14 days if minimal change has taken place Issue a legal notice demanding immediate abatement of the nuisance Issue a $2OO infringement notice Instigate court proceedings against the dog owner Notify you the complainant, of insufficient evidence to proceed You and other witnesses may be called upon to give evidence in court if required, but court will only be used when all avenues to abate an alleged nuisance have failed and sufficient evidence has been gathered to proceed. Yours Sincerely Jonathan Linster / Sarah van Tienen ANIMAL MANAGEMENT OFFICERS |
The letter reproduced below is an example of the hurdles that councils devise to deter the victims of barking offences from complaining. This letter from the West Tamar Council may be sent to anyone in its region wanting to officially report an alleged barking offence. It starts off quite well with its accurate portrayal of some of barking's causes but then degenerates into absurdity by stipulating legally unsupportable requirements before it will take action. Any council may ask for anything from any complainant, but no complainant is obliged to do anything more than the legislation requires of him. Basic requirements are listed in the Dog Control Act 2000, the barking provisions of which appear elsewhere in this website under BARKING LAWS. This list of stipulations from the West Tamar Council, if complied with, can defer that council's remedial intervention for months while the suffering barking victim sets about doing the council's job for it in compiling a barking diary and soliciting support from probably unwilling neighbours. Such requirements, while sometimes appearing reasonable, are actually quite specious. Their real intent is to shut the barking victim up and defer council action indefinitely, preferably forever. Councils, despite their superficial courtesies (if you're lucky!) see the legitimate complainant as the pest, and not the dog. It is the council that will be prosecuting the offender, if it can't find any way to avoid it, and not the complainant. It is the council's task therefore to amass sufficient provable evidence to support its case in court, should the offender choose to deny his offences. It is NOT the complainant's task to amass evidence in support of THE COUNCIL's case. Australia's anti-barking activists are unanimous in recommending no contact between the complainant and the offender. |
An elderly pensioner at Grindelwald, in this council's area, has lodged 4 formal barking complaints over recent years. The West Tamar Council has charged her $20 each time, this being the complaint fee it requires to initiate its investigation into such allegations. On each occasion the council has declared that it has not found sufficent evidence to substantiate the complaints and after declaring this lady's complaints have no substance it has swiped her fees. It refuses to give them back. |