Two pay penalty for allowing dogs to foul in Colne street

10:57am Friday 11th January 2013 in News

TWO men from Pendle were ordered to pay £320 for allowing their dogs to foul.

Howard Lewin, aged 45, of Chad Street, Colne failed to appear at Reedley Magistrates’ Court.

But the case was proved in his absence and he was found guilty.

A dog warden witnessed a dog straying and fouling in Junction Street, Colne last August. The dog was traced back to Lewin who was issued with a fixed penalty notice, which he did not pay.

Magistrates found Lewin guilty of the dog-fouling incident and fined him £110, and ordered him to pay a £15 victim surcharge.

In a separate case, Clinton Eyers 33, of Poplar Street, Nelson, also failed to appear before Reedley magistrates.

He was also found guilty and fined £110, and ordered to pay £70 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

Eyers was witnessed allowing his dog to foul on in June last year on Walton Street, Colne.

Coun John David, from Pendle Council, said: “Picking up a dog’s waste is part and parcel of being a dog owner.

“If you’re not prepared to do that, then you really shouldn’t have a dog.

He added: “We do follow up on reports and have an excellent track record of fining and prosecuting irresponsible dog owners.”

Comments (5)

11:02am Fri 11 Jan 13

Izanears says...

Handing out fines is one thing.
Collecting them is another.
Perhaps Councillor David will tell us when the money is in the councils bank account!
Handing out fines is one thing. Collecting them is another. Perhaps Councillor David will tell us when the money is in the councils bank account! Izanears

11:21am Fri 11 Jan 13

George.White.Bread says...

The fine should be treble what it is, disgusting filthy anti social scum who leave their dogs sh1t to rot on the pavement. Maybe a more suitable punishment would be for the owner to have their face rubbed in it.
The fine should be treble what it is, disgusting filthy anti social scum who leave their dogs sh1t to rot on the pavement. Maybe a more suitable punishment would be for the owner to have their face rubbed in it. George.White.Bread

1:22pm Fri 11 Jan 13

tipsy1 says...

at least it will rot, unlike the plastic bags full of sh1t left all over our parks and countryside by the "responsible" dog owners who pick it up then cant be bothered to carry it to the nearest bin
at least it will rot, unlike the plastic bags full of sh1t left all over our parks and countryside by the "responsible" dog owners who pick it up then cant be bothered to carry it to the nearest bin tipsy1

1:41pm Fri 11 Jan 13

midas says...

Izanears wrote:
Handing out fines is one thing. Collecting them is another. Perhaps Councillor David will tell us when the money is in the councils bank account!
The fines don't go to the council they go to the Court. The Council will get their costs, £70, probably deducted from benefits at £5 per week. Although if Mr Eyers was to appear in Court on other matters the £70 would probably get remitted by the Magistrates and the Council end up with nothing.
.
£110 fine after a trial (which they couldn't be bothered to attend) when the fixed penalty is £75 isn't offering any incentive to pay the fixed penalty is it?
[quote][p][bold]Izanears[/bold] wrote: Handing out fines is one thing. Collecting them is another. Perhaps Councillor David will tell us when the money is in the councils bank account![/p][/quote]The fines don't go to the council they go to the Court. The Council will get their costs, £70, probably deducted from benefits at £5 per week. Although if Mr Eyers was to appear in Court on other matters the £70 would probably get remitted by the Magistrates and the Council end up with nothing. . £110 fine after a trial (which they couldn't be bothered to attend) when the fixed penalty is £75 isn't offering any incentive to pay the fixed penalty is it? midas

3:57pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Izanears says...

midas wrote:
Izanears wrote:
Handing out fines is one thing. Collecting them is another. Perhaps Councillor David will tell us when the money is in the councils bank account!
The fines don't go to the council they go to the Court. The Council will get their costs, £70, probably deducted from benefits at £5 per week. Although if Mr Eyers was to appear in Court on other matters the £70 would probably get remitted by the Magistrates and the Council end up with nothing.
.
£110 fine after a trial (which they couldn't be bothered to attend) when the fixed penalty is £75 isn't offering any incentive to pay the fixed penalty is it?
Thank you Midas.
Let me just repeat that it would be good to be informed when the council gets its share of the prodeeds. However much it is.
[quote][p][bold]midas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Izanears[/bold] wrote: Handing out fines is one thing. Collecting them is another. Perhaps Councillor David will tell us when the money is in the councils bank account![/p][/quote]The fines don't go to the council they go to the Court. The Council will get their costs, £70, probably deducted from benefits at £5 per week. Although if Mr Eyers was to appear in Court on other matters the £70 would probably get remitted by the Magistrates and the Council end up with nothing. . £110 fine after a trial (which they couldn't be bothered to attend) when the fixed penalty is £75 isn't offering any incentive to pay the fixed penalty is it?[/p][/quote]Thank you Midas. Let me just repeat that it would be good to be informed when the council gets its share of the prodeeds. However much it is. Izanears

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree