Dog Poo and Litter!
-
Posts
-
Wrexham Council tweeted today…
Since April 1, 41 fines have been issued for people failing to pick up after their dogs.Thanks for the update.
Please can we have the number of litter fines since April 1 also.
Noting that Wrexham Council have not tweeted the number of litter fines so thanks Wrexham.com for raising awareness of the disparity compared to dog fouling albeit the figures provided from Wrexham Council I guess.
So the model seems to be the same in Wrexham as has been reported in other towns and cities.
41 fines for dog fouling compared to 591 fines for littering.
Considering also that this is during the honeymoon period when the enforcement is hoping to be reported in the media as a positive outcome.
41 x £75 = £3075 vs 591 x £75 = £44325.
Total £47400.So if Wrexham Council and Kingdom have the same contract or similar to other towns as reported in the media this means that so far Wrexham Council have to pay Kingdom around £40 to £55 per correctly issued ticket so around £30k. (632 tickets x £50 = £31600)
If this is the case should not the story be reported that so far Wrexham Council owe Kingdom £30k in fees so far and will only be paid the value of the tickets ie £75 successfully paid.
Whether the fines are paid is not guaranteed, more an if, a butt or a maybe, to use the Wrexham Council twitter wit.So possibly the only ones making any money will be Kingdom leaving Wrexham as has happened with other councils out of pocket.
Possibly somebody could find out if this is the case ?£44k Worth Of Litter Fines Issued During April On Behalf Of Council
I really don’t understand why you are so perturbed Katia by the fact that Kingdom are likely to make a profit from the exercise or that WCBC possibly may make a yet undefined loss.
As much as I am against the Draconian route that has been adopted, surely the whole point of the exercise was to assist in ensuring that streets and open spaces were kept free of refuse and faeces.
If WCBC are not in a financially sound position to carry out such a task internally, what is wrong with subbing the task out and minimising the cost implications to WCBC and still achieving the end result?
Finally, was this meant to be a money making exercise or to ensure a cleaner environment?As the Council face financial restraint the project was probably seen as income generating. I didn’t realise that there was any possibility that the Council could lose money on the project! What happens when people don’t pay up ?
I would hope that if they don’t pay the fine they would be pursued via the courts – and before someone says ” ooh it will cost more, blah, blah blah – just because you do not agree, its still an offence which carries a fine which must be paid. [I don’t agree with lots of things the wife says, but I have to obey – its the law!]
The alternative to fining for dropping litter etc. is to not! And we all know how effective that has been in recent years, unfortunately there has been a major decline in public respect, self-responsibility and being prepared to do a bit yourself – just blame the council, police, teachers and everyone else etc.
Oooh! it makes this grumpy old man mad!!Possibly a typo, but 490 + 32 + 11 = 533 not 553 ?
Hence 522 litter penalties compared to just 11 dog pick up failures.So just to check before congratulating the enforcement team for resulting in the almost disappearance of dog poo around Wrexham – why has enforcement not been similarly successful in reducing litter and wrongly discarded fag ends ? Surely if enforcement is modifying behaviour as suggested the dog poo penalties and litter penalties would be reducing at a more equal rate ?
Obviously it is all too easy to draw the conclusion that the main thrust of enforcement is chasing the low hanging fruit fag throwers. Maybe its just that dog owners are more intelligent than smokers on average and have changed their ways.
In the whole of June only 11 dog fouling fines that is remarkable.“Throughout June there were a total of 553 incidents, with 490 penalties issued for people failing to dispose of cigarettes; 32 for those failing to deposit of other littler and 11 for dog owners who failed to pick up after their pets.
This is an increase on the 405 fixed penalty notices issued across the County Borough in May.
The reduction in dog fouling, which has been a well documented problem across the County Borough has been welcomed by Ashley Houston-Birch, Team Leader at Kingdom Security.”490 Fined For Dropping Cigarette Butts & Decrease in Dog Fouling Across Wrexham
[quote quote=114031]Noting that Wrexham Council have not tweeted the number of litter fines so thanks Wrexham.com for raising awareness of the disparity compared to dog fouling albeit the figures provided from Wrexham Council I guess.
So the model seems to be the same in Wrexham as has been reported in other towns and cities.
41 fines for dog fouling compared to 591 fines for littering.
Considering also that this is during the honeymoon period when the enforcement is hoping to be reported in the media as a positive outcome.
41 x £75 = £3075 vs 591 x £75 = £44325.
Total £47400.So if Wrexham Council and Kingdom have the same contract or similar to other towns as reported in the media this means that so far Wrexham Council have to pay Kingdom around £40 to £55 per correctly issued ticket so around £30k. (632 tickets x £50 = £31600)
If this is the case should not the story be reported that so far Wrexham Council owe Kingdom £30k in fees so far and will only be paid the value of the tickets ie £75 successfully paid.
Whether the fines are paid is not guaranteed, more an if, a butt or a maybe, to use the Wrexham Council twitter wit.So possibly the only ones making any money will be Kingdom leaving Wrexham as has happened with other councils out of pocket.
Possibly somebody could find out if this is the case ?£44k Worth Of Litter Fines Issued During April On Behalf Of Council
<iframe class=”wp-embedded-content” sandbox=”allow-scripts” security=”restricted” src=”https://www.wrexham.com/news/44k-worth-of-litter-fines-issues-during-april-on-behalf-of-council-113855.html/embed#?secret=7vD77xVvmv” data-secret=”7vD77xVvmv” title=”“£44k Worth Of Litter Fines Issued During April On Behalf Of Council” — Wrexham.com” marginwidth=”0″ marginheight=”0″ scrolling=”no” frameborder=”0″ height=”557″ width=”600″></iframe>
[/quote]As I said its all a money making exercise. Don’t PAY – NO NAME = £0 fine
[quote quote=116848]
As I said its all a money making exercise. Don’t PAY – NO NAME = £0 fine
[/quote]According to recent figures all of the councils using Kingdom’s services have achieved better than a 60% payment rate.
Ergo less than 40% of succeed in paying nothing.
Joan, it could be the tactic of refusing to give personal information could work in big cities where people are more incognito.
In Wrexham it would be too easy to identify offenders.[quote quote=116850]
As I said its all a money making exercise. Don’t PAY – NO NAME = £0 fine
According to recent figures all of the councils using Kingdom’s services have achieved better than a 60% payment rate.
Ergo less than 40% of succeed in paying nothing.
Joan, it could be the tactic of refusing to give personal information could work in big cities where people are more incognito.
In Wrexham it would be too easy to identify offenders.[/quote]In all the years I have walked around town the faces I see I know less & less. Your argument is valid but still as I say let those that point the finger prove what ever. Even if you have been caught more than 1ce if you never give details then obviously they never know who your person (birthcert, more to come on that later) is.
Reflecting on your points Joan – it would be interesting to compare the successful payment rate in larger towns / cities to smaller towns.
Are Wrexham shoppers being taken for fools ?
In fact, do any of these enforcement companies patrol large cities – or do they find ” protecting local communities ” more lucrative ?
Using the tactic of not giving personal information may probably be de rigueur in somewhere like Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester or Camden etc.I honestly don’t think it would work in Wrexham.
With so few dog-fouling penalties issued the poo is almost an irrelevance already but it will be interesting to learn how many fag throwers pay their fines over the next few months.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
