Councillor slates Waipa 'pimps' who dob in neighbours
* 10 warning letters,
* 49 signs being seized,
* 35 parking infringement notices,
* Four litter infringements notices,
* Eight warning letters on vehicles which were advertised illegally for sale on roads,
* Five warnings for bikes on footpaths,
* Six warnings for skateboards.
Council staff and contractors also responded to 220 noise complaints, 39 nuisance complaints, 19 fire and smoke complaints and 422 animal complaints.
(...)
Mr Webber was unimpressed with such "pimping", particularly given the number of instances where complaints were not upheld. He said it highlighted how people would far rather complain to council than talk to their neighbours if they had a problem. "It is a sad day when we prefer to pimp on someone. The country is going backwards." I sooooo agree. Read the editor's note!!!
____________________________
The editor of this blog's note:
Well this report comes at a very good time because one of my neighbours complained about another neighbour's dog, and that neighbour thought it was us.
So they rang the Dog Control Guy on us and complained about some friendly dog barking while we were playing with the dogs in the backyard.
This is our city's policy... ANY ONE can complain ANONYMOUSLY and guess what happens?
I wrote a letter to Enforcement Unit in Christchurch, dated: Saturday, July 25, 2009
I was visited by your unit yesterday by a Dog Control Officer since he said that he received two complaints about dogs barking on my property. I explained that I was playing ball with young dogs in the backyard.I would like to make you aware that we have recently been given a note placed in our letterbox by our neighbour who lives at (ADDRESS WITHHELD) Road , who recently moved in, and who recently has been visited by with the SPCA or by CCC Animal Control because someone complained about their dogs.
As you know, complainants are anonymous. We would like to point out the effect of this rule. Because our neighbour thinks it was us who complained it appears they retaliated by complaining about some playful barking and alerting that occurred over a very short period of time.
We want your unit to go to the person who complained about the neighbours at (ADDRESS WITHHELD)Road and explain the ramification of anonymous complaint. As a consequence we are now uncomfortable directly experiencing the flak of this. Also tell the person who complained that they should TALK directly to their neighbour instead of getting your Inspectors involved.
Here's the content of the written note delivered to our letterbox. It was addressed from (ADDRESS WITHHELD) Road and delivered July 21, 2009. I quote:
We know that you complained about our dogs , (PARTNER'S NAME) said we are going to be here along time. You don't know anything about us. Don't come here again. Thanks.
I know you are just moaning about me because you have nothing else to do. We have had it before so nothing new. People causing trouble not needed.
We would like your Dog Control Unit to visit our neighbour at (ADDRESS WITHHELD) and assure them that it was not us who complained.
As I explained to your inspector, we are the type of neighbour who walks wandering/visiting dogs back home; we are the type of neighbour who takes the time to be neighborly and takes the time to get to know them. We are not the type of neighbour to get a third party involved in disputes. We would rather have a good talk and assist when ever possible. We wish to protect this healthy community reputation.
Regards,
(keep watching this blog for the updates on this neighbour's PIMPING problems.)
3 Comments:
At 1:23 p.m.,
Anonymous said…
Dog Control Act 1996
Section 55 Barking dogs
(1)Where a dog control officer or dog ranger has received a complaint and has reasonable grounds for believing that a nuisance is being created by the persistent and loud barking or howling of any dog, the dog control officer or dog ranger may—
(a)Enter at any reasonable time upon the land or premises, other than a dwellinghouse, on which the dog is kept, to inspect the conditions under which the dog is kept; and
(b)Whether or not the dog control officer or dog ranger makes such entry, give the owner of the dog a written notice requiring that person to make such reasonable provision on the property to abate the nuisance as shall be specified in the notice or, if considered necessary, to remove the dog from the land or premises.
(2)Any person on whom notice is served under subsection (1) of this section may, within 7 days of the receipt of the notice, object in writing to the territorial authority against the requirements of that notice.
(3)The territorial authority shall consider the objection and may confirm, modify, or cancel the notice.
(4)No objection under this section shall be considered unless 7 days' notice of the date and time when and the place at which it is to be considered have been given to the objector, who shall be entitled to be represented and to be heard and may submit evidence and call witnesses in support of his or her objection.
(5)Upon the determination of the objection, the territorial authority shall give to the objector a further notice stating the decision of the authority, and, if the effect of the decision is to modify the requirements of the dog control officer or dog ranger, shall set out those requirements as so modified.
(6)As from the lodging of an objection with the territorial authority, and pending the receipt of a further notice upon the determination of the objection, the notice setting out the requirements that are the subject of the objection shall be deemed to be suspended.
(7)Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,500 who, having been served with a notice under this section,—
(a)Fails or neglects to comply with that notice (not being a notice that as [sic: has] been suspended under subsection (6) of this section) within 7 days of its receipt by that person:
(b)Fails or neglects to comply with any notice as modified or confirmed by a territorial authority under subsection (3) of this section within the time specified by the territorial authority.
At 1:30 p.m.,
Anonymous said…
The officer concerned merely carried out his/her duty in investigating the complaint as required under the dog control Act 1996. I assume no further action was taken in issuing abatement notices? were the dogs concerned seized and removed from the property? Probably not.. As you are no doubt aware the Privacy Act 1966 prevents local authoroties publishing complainants details until the matter goes to a Council Hearings Committee or court proceedings are undertaken. Is it any wonder people wish to remain anon, given the recent shootings and home invasions that occur in our communities?
I wish I could publish my details, but unfortunately my position in Govt requires all public statements to recieve clearance. :)
At 2:08 p.m.,
Natalie's Life said…
The reason that I wrote the letter was two folds:
1) was to tell the neighbour that complained to us that it wasn't US who complained about their dog...
I have CC'ed then the letter and put it in their letter box. We wanted to speak to them, but they made it VERY clear that they didn't want us to talk to them again.
2) I want to make the City Council aware of the damage that this policy has on the neighbourhood's trust in their neighbour.
Dobbing in a neighbour is just the stuff makes people more angst about their neighbours.
I would like to start a Neighbourhood Dogwatch where all the neighbours meet each other and their dogs, and if they do happen to see their dog wandering the street,
1) they'll know the dog and know that it's not a threat,
2) they'll know where to send the dog back home
3) save the Dog Pound Officer the trouble of doing more work.
I know that the Dog Pound Officers have their jobs to do... but I also want them to go back to the first neighbour who complained and tell them the havoc that THEY created in the neighbourhood. All they could have done was go up to them and talk to them about their dogs.
By the way, I have never heard their dogs bark. Quite frankly, i didn't even know they HAD dogs !! until I heard an occasional bark.
Personally, I think that the neighbour who complained about their dogs, after only having moved into the neighbourhood, was a shitty thing to have done!
Post a Comment
<< Home