Dear Plus,

The Housing Department have recently been in touch and I replied using their own reference and email address, but no further response regarding this important issue has been received; could Plus send a reminder?

There was a brief mention of cats in the correspondence but this message will be confined to dogs, very much the greater concern; though a leaseholder, many of my near neighbours are Council tenants and only three, as far as I'm aware, of the fifty-three households nearby, include a dog in their 'domestic arrangements' - but these three animals create considerable problems.

One woman complains that she has not been able to utilise the drying-area to the rear of her apartment because of the dogs - a very disappointing situation, wouldn't you say? Another neighbour, from the same terrace in Connops Way, DY9 8UD, reliably tells me that the doggie in his 'suite of apartments' is 'less than assiduous' as to when he retrieves 'is pet's excrement. The dog-owner who walks 'is noisy pet (barking again this morning disturbing the good mood brought about by an early Tawny) in the drying-area of the Love Lane flats (that overlook Connops Way) clearly is not bothered, either, that some have to witness 'is dog defecating under their windows - how revolting! A close neighbour, Philip 'Frothy' Bradley of 157 High Street, DY9 8LT is not concerned that his new pet is killing-off the communal front lawns and still less bothered that others might be repulsed by the otherwise-attractive recent white-out being decorated yellow; ugh!

Astonishingly, Housing consider that toileting a dog in a drying-area, specifically, is not a breach of tenancy conditions, even though, as I have pointed-out, the Conditions of Tenancy that appear on the Council's website, as at 25th January, state, "Any animal(s) must not do anything which causes, or is likely to cause a nuisance, annoyance or disturbance to any person residing, visiting or otherwise engaged in a lawful activity within the locality"; this covers a 'multitude of sins' and barking, noted as a problem across the Borough, is singled-out as an example of a "nuisance, annoyance or disturbance" - do you think, Plus, that 'Ousing are being deceptive here, even deceitful?

I have speculated that a change of personnel, to include an Area Manager that is 'cynophillic', might be responsible, but it's not just officials that are being 'casual', or discriminatory, in their approach; Cllr Laura Taylor, Cabinet Member for Housing, has not corresponded with me since April, and Cllr Karen Shakespeare, Cabinet Member for Public Realm (some of these dogs defecate on public land that is not directly Housing's concern) has not communicated for years - could Plus ask the Monitoring Officer to try to persuade these Councillors to keep in touch?

Before proceeding, I must put-in a lighter reference here - the Labour Party's one-time Cabinet Member for Housing (Cllr Gaye Partridge - an unlikely name for a dog-person!) has a pet that will only defecate, it's admitted, on public grounds, that is, it will not 'perform' in its own rear garden, so it has to be toileted on the street, in the park (perhaps the potentially-delightful Wollescote Park) or in the local Lye and Wollescote Cemetery (even). Could it be said, Plus, that a true Tory will toilet its dog on private grounds whereas the Socialist will share its dog's products with the rest of us?

Is the Council likely to suggest an appeal to the Ombudsman? Possibly – but, it is also an arm of Government, directed to conserve resources, and I've just received a response concerning the abuse of the Borough's managed greenspaces; the LGO must consider, apparently, “whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint” - the adjudicator considers, bizarrely, despite the vituperative hatred associated with this issue, that there is no adverse impact on this resident's way-of-life, so, Plus, just what is the point of the Ombudsperson?

The Council might even suggest a Judicial Review; but the British Judiciary is at best inefficient and woefully self-serving; when I complained about another doggie neighbour harassing yours truly whilst I was litter-picking the High Street, I was the one that Duds' ASB chose to have arrested (and I'm still awaiting the response to my official complaint (ref: SR-000442980)) with the ultimate outcome being a certain Judge Challinor, another cynophile, despite agreeing that I was not the guilty party and that the case had "little to do" with the complainant's dog, upholding the magistrates' conviction! What use, Plus, is the Judiciary?

"Sarah's Stitch-Up" is not the only case where the authorities have failed civilised man; I have complained through WiMP's official procedures that it has not taken action against another local dog-person (whose threatening dog is the loudest in the neighbourhood and who is the worst local dog-fouler) after much threatening behaviour and an assault (The Lye's version of the Liverpool Kiss - see "Western Front"), in front of maybe hundreds of witnesses, at a public meeting held on the High Street (known as Farmer's Rut) - there has been no recent communication, so the Council can't recommend, despite recent reforms, approaching the Police, can it, Plus? 

I have also officially complained that the Police are refusing to take action against my close neighbours, despite logs, crime numbers and witnesses (see "Home Front"); one of them, who has professed a liking for Frothy's dog, is becoming more and more of a pest - it is probably Carole's degree of intoxication that gives rise to the spillages of a variety of food and drink on the stairs (probably moving to and from Frothy's flat) and the amount of shouting down the stairwell - no response here regarding Colin Smart's guest's abuse of the communal areas or the outcome of any inquiry as to which of these three has spitefully damaged my handsome letter-box! Is this because the Council is unduly sympathetic towards the dog-person? Again the Council have not responded to my official complaint (specifically relating to Frothy's conduct ref: SR-000440347) - could Plus send ASB a reminder?

Finally, Plus, we are fighting a pandemic, the defeat of which will be made easier by greater compliance with any Covid measures which, in turn, is enhanced by a clean and tidy environment; given the heightened awareness, are any colleagues alarmed by the bacteria, ticks, and viruses brought by a dog into the home, which would include my own potentially-delightful residence with its shared access?

DWAustin
Old Indignant of The Lye
The Last Civilised Man
www.dwaustin.net
@da1955