Dear Councillor, Thank you for the few words just now. I recently provided a copy of a message to Executive Response (given below) concerning dogs in Council apartments - please acknowledge receipt of that message, and indeed this message! This matter has been with us both for nigh twenty years, but Officials will not engage; it is plain that dogs should not be kept in these apartments (though I am a leaseholder, the Council owns the freehold), with a 'menacing attack dog' the subject of my most recent message - dogs of even the most meek variety should not be kept as there is nowhere private, or secluded, where they may be toileted. Yesterday [5th July], I had a call from PC Breckles with a warning that I am liable to be arrested (again) over these issues, despite the fact that my own life is constantly threatened by the local dog-lovers; a dog recently appeared with a new neighbour (at 161 High Street DY9 8LT) barely three metres from my own front door, who also issued a threat (along with the dog-lovers of 157 on the ground floor) - that civilised man is regularly put second to the local dogs is the most graphic reflection of the state of this Borough. Some use the new Renters' Rights Act as justification with its stipulation that, "a tenant may keep a pet at the dwelling-house ...such consent is not to be unreasonably refused by the landlord" - but that allows the Council to 'reasonably' disallow dogs as, here, there are no suitable grounds where they may be 'serviced'. Whether any given official, or indeed Councillor, is a cynophile should not be relevant - Councillor Peter Lowe is a dog-lover but, I understand, has a private rear garden; I don't know the status of the relevant Cabinet Member who I suggest is involved, but Community Officer Sophie Kendrick, is, I suspect, still 'savagely pro-dog', even though I won the latest court battle - given that significant victory, I don't see why yet another court hearing should be necessary, let alone an arrest. Officials and Police are, together, so cruel and so brutal, they're refusing even to shoot me! David Austin, 162 High Street, Lye Village, Stourbridge DY9 8LT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recent message to Executive Response, copied to Mo Hanif: Attack-dog in Council premises - FS-Case-839812199 - 29th June ER, The issue of a rather large, rather mean, attack-dog has been with us for a while (see below); this morning (29th June) I rang 101 to see if Police can take action, as suggested by Sophie Kendrick, Community Housing Officer - these are my recent notes: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Friday 19th June - dog again off lead, walking between car and rear door of apartments [151-156 High Street] - has been around possibly for a week! 101 20th June 2026 - Rottweiler still present - Shabir - will look into the matter and "see what we can do". 29th June - 0330 - dog bounding about High Street, off-lead. Frightening. Driver of red Mini Cooper, FM08 LRK, is apparent owner. 101 - 0340 - we do not Police "potentials" (ie dog is potentially dangerous, especially in shared apartments) - "not a matter for us". LT59 RXN is car driven by visiting associate - white Suzuki. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Given that the Council holds the freehold for these apartments, owns the surrounding communal spaces and indeed manages the adjacent roads and footpaths across which this hound was bounding this morning, shouldn't responsibility be taken, rather than finding a means to dodge the issue? DA Earlier messages: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FS-Case-839812199 - dangerous dog in set of apartments 151-156 DY9 8LT Dear Communities, There's been a prompt response to this serious issue, but I'm surprised that you claim a "lack of identifiable information regarding the owner" - I have supplied the apparent owner's vehicle details (a red Mini Cooper, FM08 LRK - an image is available) from which identities can likely be determined; I'm also baffled by the response which includes an "absence of any supporting evidence or recorded incidents" - I'm trying to prevent a nasty incident and proactive, or preventative, measures are part of any authority's responsibilities, are they not? Additionally, this is a repeat of an earlier issue and it is possible that Police or Council took action then, and it also seems that previous action, over a different, mean, dog in the same set of apartments was taken a while ago - I have found a message, copied below, of December that covers this issue; I have already made contact with Police, but as the landlord of these apartments (including the enveloping communal greenspace likely to be abused by this horrid hound) please take action to remove this dog. DAustin 162 High Street Lye Village Stourbridge 22nd December 2025: Dear Communities, Another large attack dog has appeared in the neighbourhood! This is an apparent Rottweiler that is kept in apartments 151-156 High Street, DY9 8LT and is toileted in Connops Way, with its 'walk' also incorporating the High Street, to the front of the apartments. 1) The owner, an apparent male, drives a small red/black hatchback, possibly a 'new Mini'. 2) This animal may not appear on the list of banned dog-breeds, but a similarly-threatening dog appeared for a few months in the same block a while back and, with its owner, then departed - rumour has it that the authorities took a dim view of such a menacing hound being kept, by Julie Davies, in shared accommodation and some 'pressure' may have been applied; whatever, the pet, which took five minutes to evacuate its bowels, under my kitchen window, every morning, itself considered at least unreasonable by local Police, formed the centrepiece of the renowned case, Sarah's Stitch-Up. 3) Residents, visitors, garage users and even volunteer litterpickers such as myself, should not have to risk an encounter with this beast and note that children often visit these apartments, with other relatives; please act to move-on this revolting, potentially dangerous, dog. 4) On the subject of local dogs, Lisa Sheriff, of 164 High Street, has filed a complaint of harassment, which is rather mean given that we have had an online exchange for years, sometimes covering other social issues, and that she admits her dog is walked, and toileted, in public whereas I perform, at considerable expense, in a toilet-bowl; Lisa's pets have created a considerable racket (indeed the yapping is still with me as I write) and create a stink smelled throughout her suite of apartments. When M Sheriff suffered a 'personal crisis' a while back, Police, trying to establish a means of entry into the premises, had to negotiate the dog-excrement in front of 164's windows - please note that Police officers during the recent interview were not prepared to concede that this revolting, improper behaviour, on the part of dog-owners constitutes a breach of common law, specifically, "outraging public decency", and that the tenant, with pets upsetting neighbours, is clearly in breach of any tenancy agreement. My suggestion, with an inducement, that an indoor cat is obtained, still stands, though I do, of course, respect the new instruction that no contact is made. 5) Another notorious local dog-walker is Kristian Baines who has also filed for harassment; it is true that I have met Baines whilst litterpicking and have requested that he retrieves 'is dogs' excrement (and keeps both dogs on leads, which he now does) - one of the worst aspects of life in Blighty is that I feel obliged to observe my neighbours toileting their dogs so that I can 'invite' them to pick-up; makes life barely worth living! Next time I'm arrested and bundled into a Police van to be carted away to the Oldbury Custody Suite, a rather sickening experience, should WiMP simply shoot? The principal investigating officer also seemed unaware, during the interview, of the documented attack by M Baines (who claims a sight impairment) on my legs; I still have the scars and damage to the nerves - it's possible that Baines' complaint is a counter-claim. Is Baines, very friendly with an associate of the aforementioned Julie Davies, a Council tenant? Monies can be made available, again, of course indirectly via the Council or Police, for an indoor cat, and even a guide-cane! Whilst at the keyboard I must remind the Team that I've suffered another fortnight of a buzz, or hum, in my apartment - this has been witnessed by the Council's Mike and Wayne, but the source remains unidentified; the use of my bathroom is at least unpleasant and the use of my bedroom, as a bedroom, is impossible; please don't send another ambulance - the last pair were both doggies! DAustin From: Dudley Council (noreply@myemail.dudley.gov.uk) Date: 05/21/26 14:38 To: mail@dwaustin.net Subject: Our response to FS-Case-839812199 Dudley Council Dear David Austin, FS-Case-839812199 - 21/05/2026 08:42 Thank you again for getting in touch, please find our response. At this time, due to the lack of identifiable information regarding the owner and the absence of any supporting evidence or recorded incidents, the Council is limited in the action it is able to take. Should there be concerns that a dog is dangerous or poses an immediate risk to public safety, this must be reported directly to West Midlands Police, who hold responsibility for enforcing legislation relating to dangerous dogs. If any further specific information becomes available, such as the owner’s name, address, or details of the dog (e.g. breed), along with any supporting evidence, the Council will be in a better position to review the matter, investigate further, and liaise with relevant partner agencies where necessary. You can send any supporting evidence/information via the MYDudley App or email StourbridgeHEC@dudley.gov.uk