wightdogs.com ISLE of WIGHT DOGS and OWNERS

Has anyone noticed the latest signs on the beach walk from Sandown to Shanklin??  They have been stuck on the lamp posts at the start of Lake and continue all the way to Shanklin.  "DOGS MUST BE KEPT ON LEADS"   Or something similar.

They have only just appeared as I checked with a couple of dog walkers down there and they had not seen them before.

What's going on?? 

How can the IOW Council just decide to make this their RULE ? 

What can be done??

Any ideas?

Its certainly news to me too Kate.

Dog must be on leads on roads and on pavements alongside them as this is a requirement of the Road Traffic Act.

However this esplanade is not a road, the service vehicles that use it have to do so without causing any danger to other users ( I believe that under health and safety rules they should also display a yellow flashing light, but this is just ignored by the council)

I understand that it is possible for the local highway authority to make an order under Section 27 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requiring dogs to be kept on leads on specific public rights of way. Although these would require the approval of the police and are rarely used, and I am certainly not aware of this being implemented anywhere on the Island.

The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 empowers local authorities to designate areas of land (including footpaths) where dogs must be kept on a lead.

However there is no requirement either in the Dog Control Orders currently in force, or in the proposed changes to them which we are in the process of being consulted on, for dogs to be on leads in this area. A requirement for having dogs on leads is one of the offences that would be included in a  Dog Control Order, under the General Principles as set out in the  DEFRA guidance.

4  The Dog Control Orders (Prescribed

Offences and Penalties, etc.) Regulations

provide for five offences which may

be prescribed in a dog control order:

(a) failing to remove dog faeces;

(b) not keeping a dog on a lead;

(c) not putting, and keeping, a dog

on a lead when directed to do

so by an authorised officer;

(d) permitting a dog to enter land from

which dogs are excluded;

(e) taking more than a specified number

of dogs onto land.

If the council are putting up notices stating otherwise they are doing so without first going through the public consultation period which they well know is a requirement of them in introducing a Dog Control Order.

I maintain that to require dogs to be kept on leads in areas that are shared by cycles puts the dog, the owner and the cyclist at risk.

As when the dog is on the lead, especially an extending lead, it is at a distance from the owner but is linked to them. In a narrow, often crowded, area such as an esplanade the cyclist might well not see the lead and attempt to pass between dog and owner, with disastrous effect.

Its strange when you think about it that for all those years it was the councils job to stop people cycling where there were pedestrians, due we were told to the danger they posed to us.

Yet now those same "experts" from the councils are actively encourage cyclists to use footpaths.

Odd really how they could have all got it so wrong for so many years isnt it?

And now, so it appears, the council are going to the extremes of misleading us by putting up notices which they know are incorrect in order to stop us endangering cyclists on a footpath when it is us that actually have the right of way.

By contrast have you noticed the sign that has appeared at Appley in Ryde. This has got to be a case of the council attempting to cover themselves in case someone is injured by a cycle on this footpath.

And it is another example of pointless signs because regardless of the sign cyclists are required by law to not endanger other users of the footpath by their actions.

Other examples of pointless signs are the ones stating that we must clear up after our dogs. Firstly its the law that you have to clear up and I hardly think that anybody doesn't know that they have to do so.

So what is the point of the signs.

We dont have signs saying "no shoplifting" or "no vandalism" do we?

There is no point to the signs other than the councils obsession with  meaningless awards, in this case the Green Flag award.

The primary criteria of which is supposedly public safety in a public park. But just ask the people living in the houses behind the park if youare in any doubt about the danger from golf-balls, as they get them in their gardens and these are outside the park.

The signs are a total waste of our money by an out of touch council attempting to appear to address problems solely to satisfy the quangos that award these ridiculous meaningless accolades. IMHO

The council have announced on their website that as from the first of April the Fixed penalty Notice fine for having a dog off a lead will be £75.

However if they are putting up notices stating dogs a required to be on a lead in areas where they arent, as in this situation, they are having their usual success at clarifying the situation. Could they care less?

http://www.iwight.com/home/council_fees/Dogservice_fees0609.pdf

I have walked regularly on the Sandown to Shanklin Beach since my original comment (December). I have made a point to chat to other dog walkers to ask whether they knew of or were aware of the 'Must Keep Your Dog on a Lead' Signs that appeared on the lamp posts. I have not found one person who knew of this NEW REGULATION.  Most of them were happily walking along with their pets OFF the lead anyway! 

What has happened to our poo bags?? Does anyone know?

I have asked the council for an explanation Kate and will post their reply

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you in my capacity as webmaster for the wightdogs.com website as it has been brought to my attention that signs stating that there is a requirement for dogs to be on leads have been stuck on lamp posts along the beach walk from Sandown to Shanklin.

There is no requirement, either in the Dog Control Orders currently in force or in the proposed changes to them, for dogs to be on leads in this area. Although as you are aware a requirement for having dogs on leads is one of the offences that would be included in a  Dog Control Order, under theGeneral Principles as set out in the  DEFRA guidance.

I understand that it is possible for the local highway authority to make an order under Section 27 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requiring dogs to be kept on leads on specific public rights of way. Although these are rarely used and I am certainly not aware of this being implemented anywhere on the Island.

Therefore would you please inform me under what authority the council are erecting notices stating otherwise in order that I can clarify the situation to the 155 council tax paying members registered with the wightdogs.com website.

--

Yours Sincerely

  (on behalf of wightdogs.com)

Could the appearance of these signs have anything to do with the Quality Coast awards once again?

As in the Encams criteria for their "Category A - Resort Bathing Beach" it states "Dogs should be kept on leads on the seafront"

Are the council attempting to satisfy this mandate by sneaking in a dogs on leads ruling without going through the proper procedures?

We await the response to our email and will keep you informed.

Dogs

Before an award can be made:

A dog bye-law or control order excluding dogs from at least part of thebeach (to include the bathing area) during the bathing season should be in place

The dog bye-law or control order should be managed and enforced

Dog bins and appropriate signage should be present

Dogs should be kept on leads on the seafront

Well Kate as you can see we emailed the council on the the 21st January and as yet we have heard nothing.

The councils complaints procedure states that a complaint will be acknowledged within three working days: http://www.iwight.com/home/complaints.asp

The complaints procedure:

Stage 1: Your complaint will be acknowledged within three working days and the NCO will let you know which Service Manager is investigating your complaint.  Following a full investigation, you will receive a reply (within 20 working days).

As anyone who has complained to the council will know this failing is standard practice, but for the uninitiated I will explain how the council can get away with ignoring their own published  procedures.

Its quite simple really as if you are not satisfied with how the council handle your complaint the only course of action open to you is to go to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO). However the LGO will only investigate a complaint if they consider you have suffered "a significant personal injustice" due to maladministration, but even in the complaints they do actually  investigate the LGO only find maladministration in 1.71% of them, and they don't have to investigate your complaint at all if they choose not to. (Oh and they wont define what a significant personal injustice is either)

Now if you click here there is a link to the Ombudsman's forums where there are two forums, one for the LGO discussion forum and the other one is a discussion forum which deals with all of the other Ombudsmen. eg

Parliamentary, Health Service, Financial, European, Legal Services, Estate Agents, Housing, Prisons and Probation and the Energy Supply Ombudsman.

As you can see the LGO forum has well over 8000 posts from users, and the forum for all the other ombudsmen combined has had a total of 50 posts. Which will leave you in little doubt of how the LGO go about their business and why councils can behave as they do.

Further interesting reading can be found about how the LGO operate in these links to the many websites that have been set up specifically to demonstrate how the LGO consistently  handle complaints about councils:

http://www.ombudsmanwatch.org/

http://www.bushywood.com/local_government_ombudsman.htm

http://local-government-ombudsman-lgo.blogspot.com/

http://lgowatcher.blogspot.com/

http://www.letsfixbritain.com/ombudsman.htm

Kate has kindly forwarded us a photo of one of the offensive signs in question which appear on every other lamppost.

Although we are still waiting for the council to state under what authority they have erected signs stating dogs have to be on leads in this area. Let us in the mean time take a look at the accuracy of the actual information on both of these signs, other than dogs haveing to be kept on a lead. 

The top one states that it is a requirement to clear up after dogs under The Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996.

 This is incorrect as The Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 has been repealed. In fact this sign should state the Dog Control Orders (Prescribed Offences and Penalties, etc.) Regulations 2006 and the Dog Control Orders (Procedures) Regulations 2006, which implement sections 55 and 56 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (prescribing offences and penalties to be contained in, and procedures and forms for making, dog control orders), together with the other sections of the Act relating to dog control orders.

The second sign states that the maximum penalty for failing to have a dog on a lead is £100.

 This also is incorrect as if it were an offence in this area it would be a Fixed Penalty Notice offence once again under the Dog Control Orders, specifically: The Dogs on Leads (Isle of Wight) Order 2008. The fine would be £75, or £50 if payed within 10 days. If the alleged offender went before the court and was found guilty the maximum fine that could be imposed would be £1,000.

The same fine scale would apply to the top notice but this would be issued under The Fouling of Land by Dogs (Isle of Wight) Order 2008.

As you can see we have here the usual sloppy incompetence which we have come to expect from the Dog Service, who between the five of them manged to hand out a total of 10 fines in total for the whole Island last year.

It appears to be beyond them to do anything right, in fact I found all of this information on the IW councils own website, so why are we puting up with a Dog Service that arent fit for purpose and are a drain on our already severely compromised resources?

OK lets see what they have to say about our latest email, as we have said before this is standard practice for this council,

to totally ignore their own published policies and procedures....shamelessly

It would prove a very interesting exercise to take them to the Ombudsman and the Information Commissioner respectively, and to report that stage by stage on the website should we not get answers here.

URGENT - FORMAL COMPLAINT - URGENT - FORMAL COMPLAINT - URGENT

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to you to Formally Complain following the email which I sent on 21st January 2010 ( copied below).

My Formally Complain is in two parts:

Firstly that I received neither acknowledgement or reply to my email of 21st January 2010. Also in that email I specifically requested information from the council which was: under what authority the council are erecting notices stating that dogs must be on leads in the area referred to.

The council is required to respond to a request for information within 20 working days. That time-scale has been exceeded. I require an explanation as to why I never received an acknowledgement or reply within the councils stated time-scale. I also require the requested information at your earliest convenience. Failure to comply will result in my raising the matter with the Information Commissioner.

Secondly I wish to register as a Formal Complaint the situation regarding the signs referred to

.

The councils Dogs On Leads Order states it applies to:

SCHEDULE 1

This order applies to:

(i) Each and every length of road including adjacent pavements and verges, within the administrative area of the Isle of Wight Council

As the area in question is not a road these signs are incorrect and as a consequence are undermining this order.

--

Yours Sincerely

Mr xxxxxxxxxxxx.  (on behalf of wightdogs.com)

As I had still heard nothing from the council on the 27th February I again wrote to them requesting a review of their decision to withhold the information:

Dear Isle of Wight council,

Would you please forward this email to whoever carries out Freedom of Information Act reviews.

On the 21st January I requested the council to inform me under what authority they are stating dogs must be on leads in the area of Sandown referred to in the email copied below. As I have not received this information I am writing to request a review of the councils decision to withhold it.

--

Yours Sincerely

Today (17th March) I received an email from the council stating that the signs in question "were placed there a considerable length of time ago and were in fact due to be removed" and that they "had now been removed". Although this confirms that they were incorrect we have not yet had an explanation of why they were erected or why they remained there if they were not accurate.

Therefore I have once again had to email the council in a final attempt to gain access to this information which I am entitled to. Any further delays and we can now raise the matter with the ICO

Dear Isle of Wight council,

On the 27th February 2010 I wrote to the council requesting a review of the councils decision to wit hold the information I had requested regarding the signs referred to in your email copied below.

Although your email confirms my assertion that these signs were incorrect, I had in fact requested the council to inform me under what authority they were stating dogs must be on leads in the area.

My understanding is that the Isle of Wight council became a unitary authority on April 1 1995, are you implying that these signs were erected prior to this date?

Even if this were the case the council have been displaying erroneous signs here for a long period and I am still awaiting the information, which I originally requested on the 21st January 2010, which was under what authority the council were displaying signs, in this area, stating that having dogs on a lead was a requirement.

As I have already requested, on the 27th February 2010, that the council review the information request and I consider that I have already made every reasonable effort to obtain this information.

--

Yours Sincerely

As the only reply received stated that the council does not know when they erected the signs or under what legal authority they did so, I will be reffering this Information requst to the Information Commisioner as a complaint.

It is not acceptable to me that the council have compromised the freedoms of dog owners by randomly erecting signs informing us that we would be fined for exercising a right, when we were fully entitled to do so.

"The Isle of Wight Council does not hold information as to when the signage was erected so subsequently can not confirm under what authority they were stating dogs must be kept on a lead"

I have also made a Freedom Of Information request via the whatdotheyknow.com website for details of any fines issued by the council due to these signs misleading the public.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/fines_for_failing_to_keep_dogs_o#outgoing-65684

Further the Freedom Of Information request  which I made to the IW council to be informed of the number of fines and prosecutions for dogs not being kept on leads in the area where these signs were displayed, I have received a reply that states there have been none.

"There have been no fines issued, or prosecutions brought during the last

five years"

Which means that although the signs were installed by the council,  the information was completely false, they are unaware of the legal authority under which they randomly erected the signs and for the last five years they have not even attempted to enforce the "Dogs on leads" rule, which they accidently misinformed the public over, but thought was correct all along!