|Dog fouling fines Issued||With-held|
|Fines for other offences issued||With-held||With-held||With-held|
|Prosecutions for fouling||With-held||With-held||One|
|Prosecutions for fouling-successful||With-held||With-held||Zero|
|Prosecutions for other offences||With-held||With-held|
| Prosecutions for other offences-successful||With-held||With-held|
|Fines for fouling contested||With-held||With-held||One|
| Fines for other offences contested||With-held||With-held||With-held|
|Fines for fouling that went unpaid||With-held||With-held||Zero|
|Fines for other offences that went unpaid||With-held||With-held||With-held|
|Number of wardens employed||With-held||With-held||Five|
In the table above all information for 2006-07 was withheld in our recent requests, the figures given above were obtained through previous requests made by us in 2007.
Specific locations of the 10 fouling fines issued 2008 - 09
Suitability of the Dog Wardens - Checks?
In addition we requested details of what systems the council have in place for checking the suitability of the dog
wardens they employ. Including working with the public in general, and more specifically with coming into contact with children through the nature of their employment (hanging around parks, beaches, children's play areas etc)
Together with details of checks undertaken into their honesty, integrity and any checks on their medical history with regard to their psychological make-up, ie delusion, persecution history of bullying etc. This information was also With-held
Cost Of Wardens and Bins
|Annual cost of employing dog wardens||£93,585|
|Cost per unit of dog bins||£183.09-£285.66 + £84.24 average £234.37 + £84.24?|
|Number of dog bins on Island||440|
|Life expectancy of bins||Three year warranty|
We requested the costs, for the last twelve months, paid to the contractor who currently empties the dog bins and dispose of the waste.
The councils reply: "The dog bins are emptied as part of the street cleaning contract which also includes routine cleaning and litter picking of streets, emptying of dog bins and litter bins and removal of flytipping and the overall value of the street cleaning contract is around £1.4 million per annum. Further breakdown is not available."
We asked to be informed of the method the council employs in disposing of the dog faeces collected from their dog bins.
The councils response: "Council employs a contractor to collect and dispose of the waste generated from dog bins. Currently it is disposed of at Standen Heath landfill site"
Conclusion Bins: Although it costs us in excess of £100,000* for the 440 dogs on the Island, which have a life expectancy of three years(?) The bins have separate collections, of the dog waste and general rubbish from the litter bins, the whole lot then goes to landfill.
* bins per unit average £234.37 x 440 = £103,122 it is not clear if the bin liners are included or extra. Liners per unit £84.24 x 440 = £37,065 (£103,122 + £37,065 = £140,187 Bins + Liners)
Conclusion Wardens: At a cost of £93,585 to employ the five wardens for the year 2008/09 only ten fines were successfully issued for dog fouling. Each fine, in real terms, cost us £9,385
Costs of Dog Wardens Vehicles
|The number of dog wardens vans the council currently has||With-held|
|The individual cost of purchasing one of the vans||With-held|
|The combined cost of insuring your dog wardens vans per annum||With-held|
|The combined running costs, other than insurance ie fuel, road-tax etc.per annum.||With-held|
|The average life expectancy, prior to the need for replacement||With-held|
We asked to be informed of the number of stray dogs caught by the Island dog wardens, during the last twelve months. And the amount of these impounded for over 24hours.
Costs of previous Dog Control Orders (2008)
We requested a breakdown of the full costs incurred by the council of holding the last public consultation, prior the introduction of the Dog Control Orders in May 2008.
|Formulating the proposals|| Not supplied |
|Advertising, and other means of informing the public of consultation||£125|
|Analysing the responses received and responding accordingly||Not supplied|
|Re-formulating the proposals and repeating the process||Not supplied|
|Introducing the finalised proposals (erecting signage)|| Signs £150|
|Introducing the finalised proposals (employing and training dog wardens etc)||Not supplied|
In addition we requested that given the short period that has elapsed since the completion of the last process for introducing the Dog Control Orders, we also would like to be supplied with the evidence that warrants the need for this further consultation and shows it to be a fair and proportionate response to existing problems. This information was with-held We are awaiting a review on this point. as DEFRA guidance states:
29 "It is also important for any authority considering a Dog Control Order to be
able to show that this is a necessary and proportionate response to problems
caused by the activities of dogs and those in charge of them"
We have now received a reply from that review, although the council have not supplied the evidence we have requested they have confirmed that Encams requires them to extend the beach bans. Also the report by the dog service on their recommendations is included. Full details are given on the Draft Proposals page of this website.
Costs incurred of supplying information
|Dog Wardens, Dog Bins costs (iw09/9/31641)||£125.00|| 5 hrs |
|Advertising/evidence etc (iw09/9/17334)||£66.50||2.66 hrs|
|FPN Dog fouling (iw09/9/13193)||£66.75||2.67 hrs|
|Cost of the only prosecution for dog fouling (iw09/9/28532)||£37.50||1.5hrs|
In this request I asked for the names of two dog warden whose attitude towards me I had complained about, the council refused to supply the names on the grounds of the Data Protection Act. The only information that was supplied from this request was how many dog wardens the council had in their employ between 6th May and 6th Sept. 2009. The answer was five and apparently to inform me of this took over two and a half hours work at a cost of £66.75
|TOTAL||£437.50|| 17.5 hrs|
The majority of the information that the council have with-held was due, according to them, to the cost of the information they had supplied exceeding the limit of £450. Now as far as we are concerned all the information is relevant to the forthcoming consultation. Not only are the council refusing to supply all the information marked red to us, but they have implied that should anybody else request the information about their dog wardens performance they will consider that to be a "campaign" and will include their request in the £450 limit that wightdogs requests have already exceeded. Consequently they have found a way of not supplying this information that we as council tax payers should have access to. Which is the whole point of the Freedom Of Information Act.
Therefore we made another information request for a breakdown of the cost of supplying the information up to the limit which is £450. We could make this additional request as it wasn't about the dog wardens therefore it couldn't be included in the £450 limit that they are applying to those requests. As you can see they have included, in their total, the £75 cost of supplying information which wasn't even supplied, how can it take three hours work to refuse to give us the information? And it appears that just telling us they had five dog wardens amounts to over £66. We have requested a review.
Whether they have supplied us with information that IW council have With-held
|Havant Borough Council|
|Portsmouth City Council||Awaiting Response|
|Gosport Borough Council||Awaiting Response|
|Fareham Borough Council||Supplied|
|Eastleigh Borough Council|| Supplied|
|Southampton City Council|| Supplied|
|New Forest District Council||Supplied|
Request for information made by me as a citizen and not as webmaster of wightdogs
I requested details of any representations, complaints etc. which have been made to the council regarding the conduct of their enforcing officer, in the issuing of a FPN. Including details of any allegations that have been made, including, but not limited to:
| The enforcing officers honesty in their version of events being|
brought into question
|The enforcing officer being rude|
|The enforcing officer making threats|
|The enforcing officer targeting individuals|
|The enforcing officer issuing FPNs out of spite|
|The enforcing officer assaulting individuals|
| The enforcing officer stating they were not intending to issue a|
FPN but changing their mind on being informed that a complaint was
to be made regarding their conduct
| The enforcing officer not giving their name when requested to do|
| The enforcing officer failing to mention in their notes, which|
are legal evidence, that witnesses were present, even if a witness
was presented to the officer at the time and it was clearly stated
that they were a witness
|The enforcing officer fabricating evidence|
I require this information as these questions reflect points which were included in a statement I made to the police regarding an encounter I had with one of the councils dog wardens. I was later advised to pay the Fixed Penalty Notice, rather than risk a criminal conviction by challenging the offence in court, and to pursue the matter through the councils complaints procedure. I have completed the first stage of that two stage process, and I have informed the council that I will proceed after being supplied with information requested under the Freedom Of Information Act. The information in the table above is required for that complaint and I have requested a review of the decision to with-hold it, as the previous conduct of the councils enforcing offices is obviously relevant to my complaint. That review has been refused and I now have complained to the information Commissioner. However that complaint could potentially take years, due to their backlog, but I am limited to a twelve months time scale following the incident to submit a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. All in all they have it very nicely sewn up between them.
I have included this information here as the council have also withheld a great deal of the other information listed above which was requested by me as the webmaster of this website. They have referred to the information I have requested in my role of webmaster for this site as a reason for not supplying the information to me in my personal requests, and vice versa. The information they have supplied as you can see is an embarrassment to the council.The council consider me to be vexatious and an unreasonably persistent complainant. However they are not permitted under the Freedom of Information Act to classify me personally as being vexatious, only the specific request I make under the Act can be classified as such. The council have recently offered me a £250 "time and trouble" payment for a complaint regarding inaccurate dog beach signs at Ryde, which I had no choice other than to continually pursue as they continued stating the signs were accurate. When after over a year of my continually reiterating this complaint they finally backed down, they offered me the payment. Unreasonably persistent or Reasonably persistent?