Bayside Council, well-known for covering some of Melbourne’s wealthiest regions, including Brighton and Beaumaris, is currently under heavy scrutiny for its treatment of a widowed pensioner.

The council has reportedly slapped a widowed pensioner with a $288 fine for allowing her Shih Tzu, Clarie, to be on her own driveway without a leash.

This situation has raised questions about the role of local councils and their approach towards their residents.

The incident came to light when a neighbour reported the pensioner's actions to the council.

A woman was fined for allegedly allowing her dog to roam on her driveway without a leash. Image source: Freepik.

The council's decision to penalise the pensioner has been met with widespread criticism, with many calling it an insensitive and callous act.

Dean Hurlston, President of local government watchdog Council Watch, described the incident as 'absolutely disgusting'.

Hurlston's sentiments echoed the growing discontent among Victorians and Australians at large about the role of their local councils.

'What’s the role of the council—is it to be a moral crusader and police enforcement agency, or is it to provide service that we all pay good money for and deliver good things?' he wondered.

Hurlston pointed out that residents are unhappy with the state of their streets and the lack of maintenance.

'The council is not doing its job. People aren’t satisfied with it…They’re not getting good service and that extends across all councils,' he claimed.

In light of the incident, Hurlston encouraged the pensioner to dispute her fine.

He suggested that she should take her case to the Magistrates Court and explain her situation.

'Magistrates are often very empathetic, especially to a widow. [Clarie] is probably her companion now,' he said.

'It’s really, really immoral behaviour. Judges are usually going to be much more sympathetic and probably let you off.'

Hurlston's comments reflect the sentiment that councils should be more understanding and compassionate towards their residents. He criticised the neighbour who reported the pensioner's actions, stating that communities should look out for each other rather than resorting to such behaviour.

'It’s really feeding into the narrative that councils are there just to punish people,' he added.

Key Takeaways

• A Melbourne council is under scrutiny for fining a widowed pensioner for having her dog on her driveway without a lead.
• The Bayside Council imposed a fine of $288 after a neighbour reported the alleged offence.
• Dean Hurlston, president of local government watchdog Council Watch, labelled the incident as 'absolutely disgusting' and criticised the council for poor service and management.
• Hurlston urged the pensioner to challenge the fine in court, while also condemning the neighbour who reported the situation.

What are your thoughts on this incident? Have you had similar experiences with your local council? Share your stories and opinions in the comments below.

 

[Suzanne rose]

Old news again

I think I know your problem. You are a phycic and see these stories before they are posted

 

[Baz1960]

She’s a widowed pensioner with the dog on her property that’s all you need to know anything else is what you are creating just like that insensitive neighbour

Plenty more needs info needs to drop. Irrelevant whether a pensioner or not.

 

[Baz1960]

Dog is a Shih Tzu, small dog, hardly threatening. Dog was on owner's driveway, so still on own property.

Small dog is irrelevant, driveway, may have been public. More info needed.

 

[Sandie1952]

Plenty more needs info needs to drop. Irrelevant whether a pensioner or not.

I didn’t say she was a widowed pensioner the article did I just quoted the article you can’t read?

 

[Baz1960]

I didn’t say she was a widowed pensioner the article did I just quoted the article you

I didn’t say she was a widowed pensioner the article did I just quoted the article you can’t read?

so if I can't read, why did you reply with a written response? Lol

 

[Scaveola]

Yeah, I can't figure councils out at times. My neighbours 2 dogs repeatedly jumped over our boundary fence and attacked my 2 dogs and went me also. Cost a few thousand dollars over two of the dogs attacks..had recorded dates & times they jumped over had had photo evidence and reported it to council. They also menaced walkers on the road a few times. According to council they "took appropriate action". Neighbour would only paying $1000 of the vet bills. Now the neighbour has 4 dogs plus have had litters of pups (12 dogs at one stage) and most days they bark and carry on all day. Where was justice for my dogs and they continue breaching council animal laws. At least neighbour extended the height of their fence, so no more jumping over it.

it's illegal to have that many dogs.

 

[Scaveola]

Yeah, I can't figure councils out at times. My neighbours 2 dogs repeatedly jumped over our boundary fence and attacked my 2 dogs and went me also. Cost a few thousand dollars over two of the dogs attacks..had recorded dates & times they jumped over had had photo evidence and reported it to council. They also menaced walkers on the road a few times. According to council they "took appropriate action". Neighbour would only paying $1000 of the vet bills. Now the neighbour has 4 dogs plus have had litters of pups (12 dogs at one stage) and most days they bark and carry on all day. Where was justice for my dogs and they continue breaching council animal laws. At least neighbour extended the height of their fence, so no more jumping over it.

it's illegal to have that many dogs.

Unfortunately when you live on shared property there are rules regarding pets and you must obey them
It says she was warned on several occasions and chose to ignore these warnings .
These little dogs can be quite snappy on occasions, I know I have two.
We don't know the full story, perhaps this little dog was getting into the neighbours garden, toileting in inappropriate places, etc
At the end of the day she took no notice of the warnings after having been spoken to on several occasions, so therefore she was fined.
She bought this on herself
What the fact that she is a widow had to do with it I don't know.

Yes, the fact hat she was a widowed pensioner has nothing to do with the situation, I supposed it's stated for sympathy value!