Mme/Sir,

I notice that this correspondence has suddenly become anonymous!

1) Does that mean that this highly personal issue is to be processed with Artificial Intelligence?

2) Apparently, I "need to email us to confirm the referral to this Service accordingly." I would indeed like to refer - please acknowledge.

3) In terms of 'oversights' by the Council, I don't know where to start! Perhaps it's best to mention one of the most recent communications, from Dawn Squire on 20th July; M Squire claims "some of your reports do not amount to ASB and appear more in respect of your feelings towards dogs and/or people who share differing lifestyles".

4) Sharing the planet with others of differing lifestyles can be hard work; I try to ensure that, on the whole, my neighbours cannot 'hear me, see me or smell me', including the use of an expensive sanitation system - but one of my antagonists within ASB Case 19914 appears so drunk that she cannot control her own bowels, leading to defecation on the communal landings! And another has brought a dog into the house with nowhere private, or even secluded, where it may be toileted - no communication has been received regarding my official complaint of damage, by 157's dog, to the communal lawns, and my attempts to repair the lawns have undoubtedly contributed to the series of highly abusive remarks, direct threats and assaults!

5) I cannot recall any communication from any agency that has acknowledged the problem of this human defecation, and certainly not made any suggestions, or taken-up any of my own suggestions, to tackle this 'issue'; regarding the problem of 157's dog's bodily functions, I cannot recall any agency considering that it is acceptable for a dog to be kept under these circumstances (that is with no private grounds for toileting) - indeed, in the last conversation I had with a Council official, in recent days, she conceded, even though a dog-owner, that she would not be able to countenance keeping a dog in a flat and just on Wednesday (27th July) I was in personal conversation with a mature gentleman, another public servant, who conceded, without a prompt, that the public toileting of dogs was a form of "indecent" behaviour - a breach of Common Law with an unlimited penalty!

Regarding the 'outcome' I am seeking, the current situation is at least 'hostile' - the Council should engage in a more serious manner in an attempt to resolve this dispute and not simply indulge denial.

DAustin