A Brighton woman says she is going to stop joining litter picks and graffiti blitzes after being unfairly fined by the council for almost taking her schnauzer into a no-dog zone.
Carol Homewood was taking her dog Ralph to the vets when she was pounced on by an enforcement officer and fined £80 there yesterday afternoon.
Today, Brighton and Hove City Council said they were cancelling the fine and said they would be putting up new signs at the Western Road entrance to the square to replace some which had been vandalised.
But Ms Homewood says she is still furious, and has called on the council’s enforcement team to tackle more important issues, such as beach littering and fly-tipping.
Ms Homewood said: “I don’t believe I even got to the bottom of the steps into the park.
“I asked him why he didn’t tackle the real crime in the streets of Brighton, the rubbish all over our streets, and beaches etc. But no, this makes the council easy money.
“It’s always been a bugbear of mine, the way the council fine people for dropping cigarette butts, etc and not tackling the real issues. Ok, it’s wrong to drop cigarette butts, take dogs into a dog free park, I’m not saying it’s right, but let’s put things into perspective here and tackle the real issues.
“This will be the last time I ever bother to help on a tidy-up day, or spend my time painting out grafitti on our walls in an attempt to try to make Brighton look a better place for us, and for our visitors.
“This is just a money making scheme, targeting innocent people who are going about their day.”
A council spokesman said: “We have reviewed this matter and can confirm we will be cancelling the fixed penalty notice we gave Ms Homewood.
“We would like to apologise to her for the stress this issue has caused.
A public space protection order for dog exclusion is in place within some of our open spaces across the city, including Norfolk Square Gardens.
“Signage about this had been in place, but this was recently vandalised and had to be removed.
“Without the signage the dog exclusion may not have been clear to people coming from Western Road, despite our floor stencil.
“We will be putting new signs up to make this clear.
“We would like to invite Ms Homewood to contact us direct on 01273 295 063 or environmentalEnforcement@brighton-hove.gov.uk if she wishes to discuss this further with us.”
People who ‘nearly’ do things attract the attention of the nearby Norfolk Road Whatsapp group, too. Be prepared for a bit of plantation shutter twitching should you move into this street.
Sit tight, the ‘community leader’ will be out to investigate soon.
‘pounced on by an enforcement officer’
This is inflammatory language which can have real world consequences for the enforcement officers.
The officer was doing exactly what they are paid to do, issue tickets to people breaking the rules.
All of these types of fines can be appealed and in this case it was, and seemingly rightly so.
Ms Homewood was actually told she didn’t have any right of appeal in this case, save taking the council to court.
And I think that fining someone when they are on the verge of breaking the rules, rather than having actually broken them, warrants the use of the word pounced.
❤️
After years of these small gardens being used solely as a dog toilet the council agreed to enforce the law. Not a new law, but one that has been in existence for decades. Initially they asked dog walkers (toileters) to take their dogs out of the Square and if they complied there was no ticket. Those who refused, and there were some, were quite rightly issued a ticket. After this initial period of “grace” the wardens simply enforced after new signage was painted. Where is this context in your article. Do you totally trust Ms Homewood or have you spoken to the warden who issued the ticket. Just looking for balanced context and not a one sided opinion.
We spoke to the council who employed the warden, who told us they cancelled the ticket, and talked about the signage currently being inadequate because of vandalism.
For what it’s worth, I do trust Ms Homewood though, as she’s someone I’ve been in contact through Brighton and Hove News with for several years now. She’s a well known and respected member of the community.
On this one incident. So Ms Homewood is regular informer? Ms Homewood, as a pillar of the community, should have been very well aware it is a no dog Square. The signs have been there for my 14 years here. The entrance from the vets has one there. No Dogs is not new, just enforcement! If your article stopped at the grievance of one person about an over zealous warden that would be fine, but it doesn’t. It goes on to her opinion about what should be enforced and what shouldn’t. It goes on to imply the very enforcement is wrong. Have you spoken to the residents of Norfolk Square about why they asked for enforcement. Did you speak to other dog users as to why they disregard the bye law? Why is a stencil saying “No Dogs” insufficient? There are plenty of places you can take a dog. Even if we accept she didn’t know (as many of the vets dog owners “don’t know”, why is enforcement wrong and what kind of community member refuses to carry out other good work because she thinks dogs should go where they like and doesn’t like being told off.
So just to clarify, your headline should have been “Dog owner who uses Norfolk Square vets and is fully aware that it is a “No Dog” Square, objects to that law now being enforced and uses recent sign vandalism as loophole to get off ticket. There you go, honesty!
And speaking to the council is not finding out what actually happen. Brighton Council has no backbone and that’s why Norfolk Square has got into the state it has. It’s why people think they can just ignore whatever law doesn’t suit them, because there are no consequences. When there are they go bleating that its unfair. BHCC just give platitudes.
Ms Homewood did not know Norfolk Square was a dog free area, no.
Why not? Ignorance is no defence. I didn’t see the sign is no defence. Because other people walk their dogs there, so it’s OK? Not because there have always been clear signs stating “No Dog”. There were signs on the two lampposts for years. They came down and new ones were put at the entrances so better seen. So youre actually making my point. Because there is not enforcement people think they can do things that sign say they can’t. And when finally the council actually do something, people say “well you’ve never done anything about it before, so I thought it was OK”. Sounds like Ms Homewood’s appeal wasn’t really tested. And back to my other point. Why does she not want to pick up litter because she was caught. Not much of a respected community member in my view. Litter bothers her, dogs don’t?
Councillors, and all who value democracy, need to be very wary of these ‘Friends of …. ‘ groups, who have proliferated across the City over the last 20 years or so, albeit initially with noble intentions and deeds, and most of whom are not incorporated in any formal way (it being deeply regrettable that, since 1997, BHCC has never got around to developing a formal structure for the official recognition (and disciplining when need be!) of such voluntary groups).
Just because one happens to live close to a BHCC public facility, and even tho one might assist in some way to keep it in good shape, must never be grounds for BHCC giving such persons and groups a greater say (behind closed doors – per GDPR!) than that given to all other City taxpayers.
Yet, generally speaking, most ward councillors appear to love privileging such groups, presumably hoping to gain electoral advantage from the group’s speaking well of them via social media?
But back to this specific case of ‘No Dogs’:
The whole concept sounds so ludicrous that one has to question what ambiguous and misleading material was used by BHCC officers to bamboozle councillors into ever voting for such a nonsense (if it ever did get voted on as such)?
It being widely understood that the PSPO regulation, applicable to all Public Spaces (particularly including on our streets) across our City is intended primarily to prevent drinking, and probably drug-dealing/taking, and camping, so not to regulate dogs (except, possibly, for 3 or more at a time by professional dog-walkers?). One wonders what other surprising diktats might also have crept in? No kissing or cuddling, perhaps?
The lunacy of our bullying Council is that almost everything it wants to punish, by the issuing of crazily-expensive PCNs,is already covered by national legislation. But BHCC usually can’t be bothered to gather sufficient ‘proof’ to put a suspect before the Magistrates (where, on fairly winning a conviction it can usually be awarded a payment of its costs)!
Almost every right-thinking citizen seems likely to recognise that dogs need to be admitted to any BHCC open space or park – provided no more than two; kept on a lead at all times by a person aged at least 14, and with that person held responsible for putting any droppings into a nearby BHCC poo-bin (not always present or well-maintained?), surely?
So what’s next?
BHCC spending taxpayers money on purchasing chip-scanners for vigilante groups to monitor whose cat is going unaccompanied into the park at night to socialise and to hunt?
And lastly; vigilance is also needed to parry the insidious efforts of various groups to get BHCC to spend our money on a return to the Victorian concept of gated parks, but with such groups holding the keys, and ultimately controlling who gets into a park or open-space, which actually belongs to all of us!
Yes, deplorable things can, and sadly do, happen in our parks sometimes but, truth be told, in our City at the weekend there are probably more adolescent drugs runners delivering £50 or £100 wraps of quality ‘gear’ to affluent front-doors than there are poor addicts on the street (or in the parks) trying to ‘score’ a £20 wrap of mostly adulterated rubbish!
Just when will our ostensibly liberal-minded councillors bend themselves to the arduous task of putting re-hab that works, long-term into place for our City’s unfortunates?
For example, alcohol de-tox for just 10 days residential (when 3 months or longer is often needed for success) would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetically sad – both for the patient, and for us taxpayers whose valuable money gets wasted on such ineffective tick-box ‘interventions’.
So, Councllors – please put our Council’s bullying and repressive culture into the past, and concentrate more on positive work to improve the tone and the realities of life in our City!
I witnessed a certain individual exceeding their authority (they had none), by taking it upon themselves to shout at and abuse a delivery driver, who had parked haphazardly for a very short period. The poor driver was probably on a zero hours contract and had hundreds of deliveries to make, with very little time for breaks. In response, the driver advised procreation.
The same individual ‘intervened’ following reports over something completely innocuous that I was doing in the privacy of my own home. On another occasion, the curtain twitchers reported me for another innocuous activity out in the street and I was ‘investigated’.
This group is completely unaccountable and the result is that I feel like I’m having to self-monitor my activities to avoid the attention of these out of touch, privately-educated ‘centrists’. They assume that support from local Green councillors gives them licence to report on and interfere with other people’s legitimate activities.
Thankfully, a vacancy will arise in August and hopefully no-one else will fill it!
Please tell us the name of the street so that the intervening old busybody can be shamed if not named.
Meanwhile a builder was fined a ridiculously low £600 for a far more serious crime of illegally dumping waste. In comparison, £80 is highly excessive.
“Pounced” is a very appropriate description in this case. The enforcement officer should have had the sense and decency to just tell the owner that it was not permissable to take her dog there. But of course, that would have meant less of an income for our greedy, money-grabbing council, that would not have been of place in the Soviet Union. This sort of nonsense should be remembered when election time comes around.
I’ve already named the street in an earlier comment, but this particular individual is moving soon to begin a new life on another continent, so hopefully things will settle down.
This individual to their credit has done good work at Norfolk Square, as have others. However, support from local councillors has given the individual licence to overstep the mark and behave as some kind of community gatekeeper and sheriff, which is unacceptable.
I am fascinated with what innocuous activities you were involved with to arouse such curiosity.
“Almost every right-thinking citizen seems likely to recognise that dogs need to be admitted to any BHCC open space or park”
Actually, given the generally poor standard of training/control shown over dogs in the city, at least one dog-free green space would be greatly appreciated. It would see support from parents, people with disabilities, anyone who wants to eat a picnic without getting half of it slobbered on, etc.
Some Guy raises an interesting point above – however it was suggested that the Conditions-of-Admittance be no more than two dogs, always on a lead (or possibly tethered if pic-nicking on the grass), and always under control.
Which should ensure that no visitor to a park gets “slobbered on” by someone else’s dog (unless they want to be, which curiously some people do seem to like!).
But naturally the same selfish personalities likely to disregard such sensible rules are also likely to take dogs into whatever dog-free areas Some Guy wishes to see!
So what to do about that?
Firstly plenty of 4-person benches in the parks, some of which could be designated as dog-free; potentially even a dog-free zone in the larger parks; and since almost certainly we cannot afford the full-time Park Wardens of yore (except possibly in a few of the City’s very largest parks) a Freephone no. clearly displayed in multiple places by which a BHCC Enforcement Officer can be called-out on a rapid-response basis (i.e. not more than 15-20 mins).
Indeed; such a rapid-response team has been needed for years to attend ‘noise nuisance’ on Friday & Sat evenings/early mornings.
Many victims consider the Council’s standard response of: ‘Please keep a noise-diary’ to be grossly inadequate!
On most occasions the need is clearly for immediate intervention and cessation of the noise!
Apparently, for late-night disturbances, whatever Enforcement officers the City Council might be able to send out can find it too intimidating to actually get the noise halted on the spot!
To which there seems to be at least a couple of responses:
1. Encourage all enforcement staff to become warranted as Special Constables (with time-off for that + a salary premium as a realistic inducement) and;
2. A special arrangement with Sussex Police for an immediate response whenever a Council officer considers that a Police presence is urgently needed to avoid violence, and/or to prevent a suspect from absconding.
Where there’s a will there is almost a way – we just need Council Officers and Councillors to make time to ‘think out of the box’, but in creative and sensible ways, surely?
Great balanced investigative journalism! Basically “Dog owner doesn’t believe council should enforce laws that affect dog owners”, they should concentrate their resources on things she cares about. Norfolk Square is not somewhere you bring your dog for exercise. It is a tiny garden. Dog owners bring their dogs here for one reason. To use the small areas of grass as a toilet then go back home. The owners care so much about their little pooch that they can’t be bothered walking down to Hove Lawns or St Annes Wells where they are welcomed. It’s because there has been no enforcement that dog owners have taken the Mickey. That’s what happens if there in absolutely no enforcement. What is it about the entitlement of dog owners that they don’t think their should be any laws that
affect them
A small park like that one is to sit and enjoy the grass. When stuck in flats in a centre of a city one needs green spaces like this. You can’t safely sit on grass that you know dog walkers are causing a mess on. “cleaning up” after a dog still leaves something nasty to end up sitting in.
I walk past this tiny little garden area every morning and every morning there is a grubby man drinking cider. Sometimes his hand is down the front of his pants and he never disposes of his can. There is never anybody pouncing on him with a handy fine ….. yet it clearly states No Alcohol.
Just so you know, Brighton and Hove Evironmental Enforcement manager phoned me and hugely apologised for the way this was dealt and is sending the guy for further training. They admitted they were in the wrong. I don’t come into town with my dogs unless it’s a walk along the seafront. I’m well aware of dog free beaches. If I’d known it was a dog free area I would not have entered the gardens. I stepped down two steps so wasn’t even in the actual gardens before I was stopped. Zero council signage on the main OPEN entrance into the garden. If there had been signage and I’d not seen it, I’d have paid the fine. Him telling me there was signage on the other entrances is beyond ridiculous when I walked in from Western Rd and not the other entrances. They were in the wrong and admitted it.
Oi. Wankpackboy.
Seen this?
I also know Carol and the type of person she is. Before you throw any more toys out of yer pram, tell us…… what do you do for others?
Or are you just one of the regular selfish feckers that isn’t even from here that wants to impose your own selfish attitude on others?
When Carol was interviewed I can well imagine how pissed off she was and threw out other comments. Something that any of us are entitled to do when we are wronged by the system.
Mr Harland. As I said. The article should have been about an over zealous warden who should not have “pounced” before someone entered the Square. But as you see that isn’t where the article went. Ms Homewood doesn’t like the council enforcing things she doesn’t agree with. She thinks they should enforce her priorities. Do other people’s priorities matter? My point was about the context of the article.
The implication is that because of this particular enforcement Ms Homewood is going to withdraw her support for litter clearance. Is that how we deal with laws we don’t want to see enforced as we have a dog?
Maybe you should address why in principle dog owners shouldn’t comply with laws relating to dogs using the Square. Just about all using Norfolk Square are fully aware of the signs but choose to ignore them as they want to take their dog for a crap.
I also find it somewhat suspicious that a disputed FPN makes such news. There must be hundreds who object to theirs daily in Brighton.
Kind rega4ds
And to answer your other point Mr Harland, I live very near Norfolk Square. I bought there specifically because it is a dog free garden I could use as I have no outside space. There are very few areas in Brighton that are. I am not keen on dogs running around gardens and have never been able to use this small space as I intended, because of the prevalence of dogs using it. I am just disappointed that Ms Homewood doesn’t support my issues as well as hers, but I guess that’s human nature.
I apologise if you genuinely did not know. However I find it difficult to understand that any dog owner who uses what I assumed is the vet in Norfolk Square is not aware that that very Square is and has always been a dog free zone. The vets should put a sign up. There have been signs there since I moved here and unfortunately they have been ignored by many entitled dog owners who believe their dog should be allowed to go to the toilet in any garden. I’m afraid it is my belief and experience that dog walkers have increased in the square simply because there has never been enforcement and they have always got away with it. That is not a reason not to start enforcing the bye law. I believe there should have been a period of warning and I understand there was. It was only after this period that the wardens started issuing tickets. If you continue to just warn, people just ignore it as that is of no consequence.
I have seen people being asked to leave the Square with their dog and refuse. You therefore have to then move to issuing tickets. However, in these days of technology’s I don’t understand why a warning cannot be recorded on the council system and the second encounter be fined. There are two sides to every story and this reporter jumped straight to your’s with no comment on my points at all. It is also clear from what the reporter has said that this has been given such provenance because of who you are and an element of influence you have so the article is very much one sided.
I genuinely didn’t know, as I said. Ive recently moved to this vets and my two previous visits i was dropped off by car, and as I said I don’t bring my dogs into town, they don’t like it. I totally agree that the vets should also stick a sign up, not that that would have made any difference to me on my walk to it, however I’d be aware on future visits. The enforcement guys film footage was watched by his manager. He was totally in the wrong, as I knew at that time, so this is not one sided, his manager agreed. Had I been wrong I’d have paid. You can’t prosecute people without signage up. All I did was walk my dog to the vets, it’s hardly crime of the century, meanwhile other serious offences are left unchallenged, and that’s my point.I am just a local resident with a passion for our town and its history, that’s it. If I’ve committed an offence, I’d expect to be fined along with everyone else.