Community Protection Warning - correspondence dated 8th January Helen Spicer-Dent Law and Governance, DMBC. Helen, It is true that I am in receipt of a CPW from Sophie Kendrick, delegated officer - my response is given below. To update, as might have been predicted, one of my neighbours in this 'suite of apartments' has begun to copy the tenant/guest of 157 by parking on the garage forecourt, making access to garages difficult to impossible (depending on length and width of car) and sending the wrong signals to guests, visitors, shoppers and worshippers who are tempted to park in front of my own garage! Police, some ASB officers and even Borough Parking Attendants agree that this is not acceptable - please ask Sophie Kendrick to reconsider her position on this matter. The same 'new tenant', despite initially claiming to be not particularly fond of dogs, has changed his position, possibly in response to the entreaties of his girlfriend, and has started keeping a dog that barks in a loud fashion (usually when the owner is away) all 'round the close! Hideous racket! Sophie Kendrick takes the position that dogs may be kept, even though they tend to bark for no good reason, there is nowhere private for these to be toileted (outside of an apartment) and multi-storey blocks elsewhere in the Borough are enjoying a 'new dogs ban'. For dogs to annoy other residents is clearly a breach of any tenancy agreement, and probably, in many respects, a breach of common law - but Sophie Kendrick is herself a dogperson! Would you, describe yourself as cynophile? I've just returned from walking the High Street - I notice several issues that the Council should be addressing, rather than chasing civilised man, anxious to move his neighbourhood in a forward direction, including more questionable parking, piles of on-street junk and more dog-excrement (in Connops Way, to the rear of these apartments). I must also mention another widespread aspect of antisocial behaviour - my 'new neighbour' returned from a visit to his car parked in front of the garages (after, in fact, being dropped off by an associate), climbed the stairs and then dropped a small, transparent bag that was caught by the 'associate' waiting in the yard below, who then inspected the small, brownish, contents! It seems that M Kendrick, now keen, it seems, to make my life even more of a misery, has sent me not just another doggie, but a druggie! Given that the Housing Ombudsman has already found against the Council and demanded apologies and compensation, could your latest epistle be described as vexatious? What about ASB 19914 in which 157's dog is central, the tenant of 157 was taken away by armed Police (last February) and his apparent nephew has returned with the same dog!!! Could we please join forces in an attempt to solve the problems not only represented by this potentially-fine block of flats, this potentially delightful neighbourhood of The Lye, and even, given that The Dog is the clearest symbol of humanity's abuse of its own environment and that this Council, with others, sets a persistently bad example by leaving its own junk all over the borough, begin saving the world? Less spite, please, more progress! David Austin 162 High Street Lye Village Stourbridge DY9 8LT PS: Only yesterday I had a message from Law and Governance (Mandy Wilcox) suggesting that I "either chase the ward councillor or consider using the complaints systems", but the complaints system is run by Council officials, some of whom are currently being 'rather uncooperative' in various attempts to persuade my elected representative (Councillor Lowe) to get in touch and discuss Council shortcomings - please direct my representative to make contact!   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Ms Kendrick, Re:  Warning of CPN - 18th December I've just had a chat with Daniel Hill of the ASB Department (812242) who told me that you are my designated 'person of contact' with regard to today's charming warning letter - and here I am, doing my best for the neighbourhood, including trying to shift the junk! Dogs are specifically detailed in the warning, so I did suggest to Daniel that you may not be acting in an entirely impartial manner; you are a dog-person, even a dog-owner! Daniel did not know the answer, but critically, do you have a private garden, unlike my neighbours, where your dog may be toileted? Is your dog toileted in public? Regarding the other 'bullet-point' in the warning, I admit to being a little baffled; if you are suggesting that I restrict reports of junk to Waste Enforcement and their procedures as detailed on the Council's website, I largely do - the problem is that much of the junk left hereabouts is left by the Council's own Housing Department and they have their own disposal procedures, distinct from Street Care, and Waste Enforcement will not 'take-on' the Housing Department (as I remarked to Daniel, there must be some metaphorical 'big boys' (or girls) in Housing). The whole process by which Housing deal (or don't deal) with their junk has been heard both by the Ombudsman and the Council's Chief Executive (as was) with Sarah Norman promising to "prioritise Housing Department waste". Progress is not as rapid as we should wish as Housing's junk still sends all the wrong signals to the community, in which we have a Public Spaces Protection Order! This very morning (18th December), I must mention, I discovered several cubic metres of Clearance junk, I'm assuming, on the High Street (image attached) - please persuade colleagues to act more responsibly, improve communication, and setup an enquiry, with yours truly consulted! To end on the second 'bullet point', I would not "encourage" any person to "threaten" any dog - the dog is not likely to understand! Nor would I "encourage" any person to "harm" any dog - that would be contrary to animal welfare legislation; it is not illegal, however, to euthanize (or put-down) a dog (Police use the dramatic term "destroy") as vets perform this task routinely and The Dog, as a bred animal (and thus not natural) is certainly not 'protected'. This matter also found its way to the Crown Court a while ago at which the judge, himself a doggie, stated that I was innocent of the charge of harassing my neighbour over 'er disgusting pet (declaring the case had "little to do with Julie's dog"), but convicted anyway! So much for Britain's judiciary! I was technically discharged and asked to keep away from Julie for six months, which wasn't a problem, as, believe me, 'er's not my type! It seems I have also won the arguments, locally and nationally, over the contentious issue of The Dog - my neighbours (including 157's nephew who continues to park in front of the garages, possibly, as with 'walking' his dog under my kitchen window (also condemned by Police), an act of deliberate antagonism) are in breach of any tenancy agreement and probably in breach of Common Law regarding indecency. Please persuade your colleagues, particularly the cynophiles, to act more responsibly, improve communication, and setup another enquiry, with yours truly consulted! DAustin, 162 High Street, Lye Village, Stourbridge. Civilised Man. PS: As I mentioned to Desnie Dance on Saturday, I tried to suggest to a bunch of dismal, spiteful, schoolteachers (I'm originally an Engineer) a few months ago that, after titillating the children with some tumbling puppies, they should also warn of the danger of an attack, as a toddler, a few days previously, had been killed by a dog just 'over the way' - few British seem to care about our children, so just which of them should be responsible for "Community Protection"?