‘He barks like any other dog’: woman slapped with barking fine on back of single complaint

A Dingley mum has been slapped with a fine over a single complaint about her german shepherd’s barking. But she is disputing the “ridiculous” $83 penalty — and she has the backing of plenty of neighbours.

Nadia Liu will contest a fine issued from Kingston Council over dog Leo. Picture: Wayne Taylor

Despite the backing of 14 neighbours who say her dog isn’t a barking nuisance, Nadia Liu has been slapped with a fine on the back of a single complaint.

Kingston Council has issued the schoolteacher with a $83 infringement notice even though they confirmed in a letter that an “overwhelming” number of nearby residents had no problem with german shepherd Leo.

Ms Liu said she was confused, angry and would fight the fine.

She has spent hours gathering pages of evidence including barking logs and a gathering signatures from her Dingley Village neighbours for a petition defending Leo’s behaviour.

“Despite me proving Leo was not in fact a nuisance — and the council officer telling me my neighbours told him he was not a nuisance — based on (the complainant’s) opinion alone, they are issuing me an infringement,” she said.

“It’s all so ridiculous.”

The dispute began in May when a council officer visited Ms Liu to say a complaint had been made about three-year-old Leo disrupting the peace.

“I told council I would happily look into it and asked my neighbours to help so we could work out if he was barking when I left the house,” Ms Liu said.

“The complainant was filing vague reports which included two-hour barking sessions, some on days when I was home … how could a dog be barking for hours on end without me or the people directly next to me not hearing it?”

MORE NEWS

MIRACLE CAT SURVIVES LANGWARRIN HOUSE FIRE

THUGS USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO STREAM FIGHTS ACROSS SOUTHEAST

CARRUM CAFE FALLS VICTIM TO LEVEL CROSSING WORKS

After hearing no unusual noise, Ms Liu was shocked when the officer reappeared in late June, issuing a notice to comply — threatening consequences if no action was taken.

Ms Liu agreed to start a log of every single bark made by her dog, including over the two-week winter school holidays when she was home each day.

“Leo barked once at 9.30am when the kids ran down the hallway,” one entry reads.

“Barked for less than five seconds when a loud car passed the house.”

Ms Liu said Leo’s barking was never consistent, lasted only for a few seconds each time and occurred only as a result of triggers such as a loud car, chasing a ball or another dog walking past the house.

Leo did not make any noise when the council officer sat outside her property across two one-hour visits.

As well as keeping a log, Ms Liu doorknocked homes, collecting the responses of 14 neighbours who all agreed to speak with the council if required and say they had no issues with Leo.

Kingston Council planning and development acting general manager Paul Marsden said the council took nuisance matters “seriously”, and relied on evidence supplied by the complainant.

“Although other neighbours are stating they have not been affected, this does not change the experience of the complainant … and in this instance, we have no reason to doubt (the complainant’s) credibility,” he said.

Mr Marsden said the proximity of the neighbour could not be disclosed due to privacy reasons and that Ms Liu has the option to appeal the fine and take the matter to court.

“If the fine remains unpaid the council will issue a penalty reminder notice … this would eventually get escalated to Fines Victoria to pursue.”

But Mr Marsden said an unpaid fine would not result in the council removing the dog from the premises.

Ms Liu said she was disappointed Kingston Council laws “didn’t fit with any other Victorian law that requires substantial evidence to prove an infringement”.

“Leo has food, water, toys, a backyard and is always walked … he’s a great dog, and well trained,” she said.

“He’s never been aggressive, is very gentle and loves a rub on the belly.”

[e-mail]