Blaenau Gwent could get dog mess fine hike

Blaenau Gwent could get dog mess fine hike

(4865926)

Argus-Mark 11-01-13 Picture of the Day Walking the dog, Ridgeway (4865938)

First published in News

BLAENAU Gwent Council is to consider increasing fixed penalty notices for littering and dog waste from £75 to £125.

At a meeting of the executive scheduled for April 2, councillors are to discuss and either grant or deny approval to increase the fines for fixed penalty notices for litter and dog control order offences in Blaenau Gwent.

A report which will be presented to councillors recommends fixed penalty fines for Litter and Dog Control Order Offences should be increased to £125 (and £100 for early payment within 14 days) from Monday April 14. The current fine is £75 (or £50 if the penalty is paid within 14 days of issue).

The council recently appointed Price Waterhouse Cooper to review cost recovery opportunities for services and the Litter and Dog Control Order Enforcement Service was reviewed. Modelling undertaken by PWC has shown that the price increase has the potential to generate an additional £76,117, and as a result, an additional £76,177 in income was inserted into the 2014/15 Revenue Budget that was approved by full council on March 7.

But some residents think the price hike could hit the most vulnerable members of society.

Julian Price, 48, from Blaina, is a ward clerk at an elderly psychiatric unit. He regularly walks his dog Sandy, a Labrador, and believes the price hike will unfairly hit the most helpless.

He said: “They seem to be clamping down on almost every place there is to walk your dog. I know people who have been fined even when there wasn’t a sign to say it wasn’t allowed.

“It’s quite sneaky and it’s a lot of money, especially for people who do not work. I work in mental health care and I know a lot of people who have been fined, who aren't in work and may not even realise they could be at risk of being fined.

"But they don’t seem to take that into account and are taking off people who don’t have anything.

“It’s little things with this council. First the toilets, then the street lighting, now this. But the little things add up. People are definitely feeling the squeeze.”

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:55am Wed 26 Mar 14

Lliswerry Man says...

How can people try and justify not cleaning up after dogs, and using the excuse it will affect those who do not work? or on low incomes.

If you cannot afford to pay a fine for not cleaning up after your dog, then clearly you cannot afford to own a dog and the bills that come with dog ownership.

I own a dog, I take it for walks and I clean up after it, it is not rocket science. Those who choose not to are merely lazy or do not deserve to own a dog.

I do not see how anybody for any reason thinks it is okay to let a dog simply mess in a public place and leave it there.
How can people try and justify not cleaning up after dogs, and using the excuse it will affect those who do not work? or on low incomes. If you cannot afford to pay a fine for not cleaning up after your dog, then clearly you cannot afford to own a dog and the bills that come with dog ownership. I own a dog, I take it for walks and I clean up after it, it is not rocket science. Those who choose not to are merely lazy or do not deserve to own a dog. I do not see how anybody for any reason thinks it is okay to let a dog simply mess in a public place and leave it there. Lliswerry Man
  • Score: 3

9:25am Wed 26 Mar 14

davidcp says...

"PWC has shown that the price increase has the potential to generate an additional £76,117, and as a result, an additional £76,177 in income was inserted into the 2014/15 Revenue Budget that was approved by full council on March 7"

At least, unlike speeding fines, they admit it's about revenue.
"PWC has shown that the price increase has the potential to generate an additional £76,117, and as a result, an additional £76,177 in income was inserted into the 2014/15 Revenue Budget that was approved by full council on March 7" At least, unlike speeding fines, they admit it's about revenue. davidcp
  • Score: 7

9:39am Wed 26 Mar 14

Trefor says...

This is all about the Council turning by-laws into fiscal regulation to raise money towards the rest of their money wasting projects.

In order to be issued with a fixed penalty ticket for allowing a pet to foul in public ( which is not illegal, the by-law makes it illegal NOT to pick it up and properly dispose of it) the ACT of FOULING has to witnessed, normally by some inane cretin who will stand idly by (paid for out of the rates we pay) , waiting for such events to happen, they ALLOW them to happen, otherwise they have no evidence, and then pounce with a fixed penalty ticket.

If a pet owner then fails to pay the FINE it will be increased, probably by a Magistrate who is also a Councillor in another life, with another hat on, if they then fail to pay that increased fine the same Councillor/Magistrat
e may commit the otherwise totally law abiding citizen to prison, (Putin is alive and well and his spawn are living in the Valleys).

Why not issue these otherwise idle jobsworths who issue these tickets with poop bags, if they witness a pet owner walking away from an offending poo they could speak to them, ( but for that they would have to engage a brain) take their name and address, but issue them with a poo bag, a small roll of which the grateful ratepayers would pay for, if they then failed or refused to clean up the mess, hit them with a fine of £500.

And, for the record I am a pet lover, a pet owner and a poo picker upper.
This is all about the Council turning by-laws into fiscal regulation to raise money towards the rest of their money wasting projects. In order to be issued with a fixed penalty ticket for allowing a pet to foul in public ( which is not illegal, the by-law makes it illegal NOT to pick it up and properly dispose of it) the ACT of FOULING has to witnessed, normally by some inane cretin who will stand idly by (paid for out of the rates we pay) , waiting for such events to happen, they ALLOW them to happen, otherwise they have no evidence, and then pounce with a fixed penalty ticket. If a pet owner then fails to pay the FINE it will be increased, probably by a Magistrate who is also a Councillor in another life, with another hat on, if they then fail to pay that increased fine the same Councillor/Magistrat e may commit the otherwise totally law abiding citizen to prison, (Putin is alive and well and his spawn are living in the Valleys). Why not issue these otherwise idle jobsworths who issue these tickets with poop bags, if they witness a pet owner walking away from an offending poo they could speak to them, ( but for that they would have to engage a brain) take their name and address, but issue them with a poo bag, a small roll of which the grateful ratepayers would pay for, if they then failed or refused to clean up the mess, hit them with a fine of £500. And, for the record I am a pet lover, a pet owner and a poo picker upper. Trefor
  • Score: 4

10:14am Wed 26 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

£125 is approximately the price of a house in BG. How are they going to get the cash from those who don't own houses?
£125 is approximately the price of a house in BG. How are they going to get the cash from those who don't own houses? Dai Rear
  • Score: -4

10:21am Wed 26 Mar 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Lliswerry Man wrote:
How can people try and justify not cleaning up after dogs, and using the excuse it will affect those who do not work? or on low incomes.

If you cannot afford to pay a fine for not cleaning up after your dog, then clearly you cannot afford to own a dog and the bills that come with dog ownership.

I own a dog, I take it for walks and I clean up after it, it is not rocket science. Those who choose not to are merely lazy or do not deserve to own a dog.

I do not see how anybody for any reason thinks it is okay to let a dog simply mess in a public place and leave it there.
Incredible that you get neg markings for writing common sense eh? Gives a very interesting view of the mindset of the pointless cretins who think otherwise.
[quote][p][bold]Lliswerry Man[/bold] wrote: How can people try and justify not cleaning up after dogs, and using the excuse it will affect those who do not work? or on low incomes. If you cannot afford to pay a fine for not cleaning up after your dog, then clearly you cannot afford to own a dog and the bills that come with dog ownership. I own a dog, I take it for walks and I clean up after it, it is not rocket science. Those who choose not to are merely lazy or do not deserve to own a dog. I do not see how anybody for any reason thinks it is okay to let a dog simply mess in a public place and leave it there.[/p][/quote]Incredible that you get neg markings for writing common sense eh? Gives a very interesting view of the mindset of the pointless cretins who think otherwise. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: -1

10:24am Wed 26 Mar 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

I think Julian Price needs to have the keys to the medicine cabinet at work removed from his charge. I just don't understand his objections. If people want to avoid being fined, then they clean up after their pets. Pretty straightforward if you ask me.
I think Julian Price needs to have the keys to the medicine cabinet at work removed from his charge. I just don't understand his objections. If people want to avoid being fined, then they clean up after their pets. Pretty straightforward if you ask me. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: 9

12:56pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Woodgnome says...

Full marks to BG. Newport should follow suit.
Full marks to BG. Newport should follow suit. Woodgnome
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Woodgnome says...

Trefor wrote:
This is all about the Council turning by-laws into fiscal regulation to raise money towards the rest of their money wasting projects.

In order to be issued with a fixed penalty ticket for allowing a pet to foul in public ( which is not illegal, the by-law makes it illegal NOT to pick it up and properly dispose of it) the ACT of FOULING has to witnessed, normally by some inane cretin who will stand idly by (paid for out of the rates we pay) , waiting for such events to happen, they ALLOW them to happen, otherwise they have no evidence, and then pounce with a fixed penalty ticket.

If a pet owner then fails to pay the FINE it will be increased, probably by a Magistrate who is also a Councillor in another life, with another hat on, if they then fail to pay that increased fine the same Councillor/Magistrat

e may commit the otherwise totally law abiding citizen to prison, (Putin is alive and well and his spawn are living in the Valleys).

Why not issue these otherwise idle jobsworths who issue these tickets with poop bags, if they witness a pet owner walking away from an offending poo they could speak to them, ( but for that they would have to engage a brain) take their name and address, but issue them with a poo bag, a small roll of which the grateful ratepayers would pay for, if they then failed or refused to clean up the mess, hit them with a fine of £500.

And, for the record I am a pet lover, a pet owner and a poo picker upper.
As soon as folk start calling people "jobsworths" for doing their job they all lose credibility.
[quote][p][bold]Trefor[/bold] wrote: This is all about the Council turning by-laws into fiscal regulation to raise money towards the rest of their money wasting projects. In order to be issued with a fixed penalty ticket for allowing a pet to foul in public ( which is not illegal, the by-law makes it illegal NOT to pick it up and properly dispose of it) the ACT of FOULING has to witnessed, normally by some inane cretin who will stand idly by (paid for out of the rates we pay) , waiting for such events to happen, they ALLOW them to happen, otherwise they have no evidence, and then pounce with a fixed penalty ticket. If a pet owner then fails to pay the FINE it will be increased, probably by a Magistrate who is also a Councillor in another life, with another hat on, if they then fail to pay that increased fine the same Councillor/Magistrat e may commit the otherwise totally law abiding citizen to prison, (Putin is alive and well and his spawn are living in the Valleys). Why not issue these otherwise idle jobsworths who issue these tickets with poop bags, if they witness a pet owner walking away from an offending poo they could speak to them, ( but for that they would have to engage a brain) take their name and address, but issue them with a poo bag, a small roll of which the grateful ratepayers would pay for, if they then failed or refused to clean up the mess, hit them with a fine of £500. And, for the record I am a pet lover, a pet owner and a poo picker upper.[/p][/quote]As soon as folk start calling people "jobsworths" for doing their job they all lose credibility. Woodgnome
  • Score: 1

1:35pm Wed 26 Mar 14

OldSlugs says...

Its an optional 'tax' if you dont own a dog, you dont have to pay it, own a dog but clean up after it like socially responsible citizen should do with out complaint, again you wont pay it. But be a selfish , lazy, ignorant dog owner who couldn't give a **** about anyone else & get caught not cleaning up after your dog too right you should get hit in the pocket every time. Same goes for those that chuck litter. I'm happy that BGCBC raise as much money from this as they can.
Its an optional 'tax' if you dont own a dog, you dont have to pay it, own a dog but clean up after it like socially responsible citizen should do with out complaint, again you wont pay it. But be a selfish , lazy, ignorant dog owner who couldn't give a **** about anyone else & get caught not cleaning up after your dog too right you should get hit in the pocket every time. Same goes for those that chuck litter. I'm happy that BGCBC raise as much money from this as they can. OldSlugs
  • Score: 9

2:57pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Natalie88 says...

How can anyone use the excuse "there wasn't a sign" ? It doesn't matter where your dog messes it needs to be picked up, when they first introduced fines I thought it was disgusting/embarrasi
ng when my nan would stop in the middle of the street to pick the dogs mess up but now I think its disgusting if I see someone not picking it up. I have an alaskan malamute, so being a large dog she produces a lot of waste but I chose the breed so it's still my responsibility to clean up after her.
There's no excuse for it, you can get bags for free!
How can anyone use the excuse "there wasn't a sign" ? It doesn't matter where your dog messes it needs to be picked up, when they first introduced fines I thought it was disgusting/embarrasi ng when my nan would stop in the middle of the street to pick the dogs mess up but now I think its disgusting if I see someone not picking it up. I have an alaskan malamute, so being a large dog she produces a lot of waste but I chose the breed so it's still my responsibility to clean up after her. There's no excuse for it, you can get bags for free! Natalie88
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree