​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Alert

Rotorua Lakes Council will close midday Friday 20 Dec 2024 and reopen Monday 6 Jan 2025. Building services & LIMs are on hold until 10 Jan 2025. Visit our Property & Building section for more information.

Contact

Search

22 August 2024

Date:
Categories:
Media Enquiries

Media: Local Democracy Reporter

Topic: Dog data error

Enquiry

I have spoken with Jared Adams about the issue of his dog being incorrectly identified as not microchipped, and being fined two years in a row for the same issue.

While his issue related to microchipping, the apology he received blamed the error on a “data anomaly” - Adams now questions what the true number of dog owners the council should be chasing up actually is, with the 1019 unregistered dogs it was chasing through the courts.

“I’m not unique in this.”

Phone calls, emails, in-person visits and Facebook messages - Adams said he tried “every possible avenue” to prove his dog was microchipped and get the fine dropped.

Frustrated, he even contacted chief executive Andrew Moraes and mayor Tania Tapsell.

Adams said he “gave up” and when he headed to the Rotorua District Court to pay it, he was told it was dropped, 10 days after he received a reminder to pay it on July 09.

He got there at about 2pm.

When he got home, he found an emailed explanation waiting for him, sent at 3pm.

Council staff told him he received the infringement after a “data anomaly”.

“The infringement was incorrect, has been reversed and requires no further action from you. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, and apologies if it caused any distress,” an email to Adams read.

Adams claimed problems with the council’s new IT upgrade were not unknown, and instead of being honest in the issues, “the good dog owners are being punished”.

He understood there was a multiplication of his dogs in the system, resulting in a “ghost dog”.

The same issue happened last year, and Adams said he was told then it was resolved.

He did not believe it should take someone contacting the council’s chief executive or elected members to have had the fine dropped.

As well as response to the above may Iplease ask:

Can it please be explained how the council came to the figure of the 1019, and through what time period?

Of the 1019 dog owners, how many have paid the fine? How many have said it is incorrect?

How many dog owners were sent infringements for not microchipping?

How many of these have been contested?

What is the council's understanding of how common this data anomaly issue is?

What portion of infringements sent are likely to have been sent in error?

What is the council doing about this?

How can the council have confidence in its data if instances like this are happening, two years in a row?

Is the council chasing up the impacted dog owners themselves or are they relying on self-reporting? Will they be sending affected owners letters/emails to let them know?

Were all the fines the same amount? If not, what is the variation?

Any other services impacted or just dog registrations? For example, parking fines, rates?

Is an investigation underway into the issue?

How many complaints were received before this started?

How many in total were received?

When did they begin investigating the fault and how long did it take to find a resolution (and what was the resolution)? What did that cost?

Can the below please be updated:

Response

From Group Manager Community and District Development, Jean-Paul Gaston:

He did not believe it should take someone contacting the council’s chief executive or elected members to have had the fine dropped.

We appreciate that this issue has been frustrating for Mr Adams. Mr Adams is correct that the data anomaly referred to was a duplicate dog profile. While Council has taken all reasonable steps to ensure data accuracy during its database transition, there is always a small residual risk of human error such as this while staff are being trained and are becoming familiar with the new way of working.

As well as response to the above may I please ask:

Can it please be explained how the council came to the figure of the 1019, and through what time period?

This number reduced further with 1001 infringements being sent to Court. The figure is relates to the registration status showing as unregistered in Councils database prior to generation of invoices for the impending new registration year. This is calculated annually as dog owners are required under the Dog Control Act to register every year by June 30.

Of the 1019 dog owners, how many have paid the fine? How many have said it is incorrect?

The Court is still dealing with individual infringements. Council is currently confirming with Ministry of Justice the exact numbers that have been upheld, are yet to be heard, or have been waived/referred back to Council. We are unable to supply numbers at this point.

How many dog owners were sent infringements for not microchipping?

272 microchipping infringements are recorded.

How many of these have been contested?

Fifty one were sent to Court. This does not however necessarily mean they were contested as this part of the process is between the Court and the dog owner. The infringements were sent to Court as they were unpaid. (note to the reporter only – Council is not advised if the owner showed up to Court to contest the infringement or not).

What is the council's understanding of how common this data anomaly issue is?

This particular data anomaly has been caused by human error. The system cannot generate duplicate customer/animal profiles on its own. The issue has since been corrected.

What portion of infringements sent are likely to have been sent in error?

Eleven were reversed due to duplicate records.

What is the council doing about this?

Ongoing training for staff is being offered in a variety of subjects.

How can the council have confidence in its data if instances like this are happening, two years in a row?

Like any business, we continue to do all we reasonably can to identify issues and resolve them.

Is the council chasing up the impacted dog owners themselves or are they relying on self-reporting? Will they be sending affected owners letters/emails to let them know?

Anyone suspecting that an infringement is incorrect should follow the process (summary of rights) listed on the reverse of the letter so that it can be looked into. Council has been in contact with those who had issues with micro chipping infringements.

Were all the fines the same amount? If not, what is the variation?

Microchipping Infringement fines are set by the Government.

Any other services impacted or just dog registrations? For example, parking fines, rates?

We are not aware of other issues.

Is an investigation underway into the issue? How many complaints were received before this started? How many in total were received?

All people known to have been affected have already been contacted and advised to ignore duplicate infringements. Historically, duplicate records also occurred from time to time due to human error. This is a quick fix when a duplication issue is identified.

When did they begin investigating the fault and how long did it take to find a resolution (and what was the resolution)? What did that cost?

The exact date in not able to be confirmed. This issue was promptly identified. Resolution was as mentioned above and there were no cost.

Can the below please be updated:

This project is now completed and there are no further cost to be added on the implementation of One Council.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Media: Radio NZ

Topic: Tarawera wastewater scheme

Enquiry

In regards to the Tarawera Wastewater Reticulation Scheme, is there an updated position from the council today given the protest could be getting in the way of work? Will the council seek an injunction again? Or how can the work be carried out safely with iwi on the work site?

Response

The reporter was told there was nothing new to report and it was business as usual.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Media: One News

Topic: Whakaari ash

Enquiry

I am just touching base to see if someone at the airport/council would be willing to front on camera to talk about how the ash from Whakaari has impacted flights at the airport, what people need to be aware of? And any general advise to members of the public over the coming days?

Response

The reporter was referred to Rotorua Airport for comment. Airport Chief Executive Nicole Brewer provided the following comment:

The airport is open and there is no impact on our operations on the ground. There may have been some impact for some Air New Zealand flights. You would be best to talk to them.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Media: Radio NZ

Topic: Collecting DNA from dogs in the pound

Enquiry

I’m very interested in the possibility of collecting DNA from dogs in the pound – would [named dog attack victim] be available for us to speak to and record her experience and thoughts? I’d also like to talk to [council staff member] Mihikore Owen – both would be prerecords on the phone tomorrow.

Response:

Director of Community Safety and Regulatory Services Mihikore Owen provided the following comments (summarised) to the reporter in the interview

Why is council using DNA?

From her experience in Police she saw an opportunity to use DNA to identify dog/s suspected of being involved in dog attacks on people and other animals.

Do other Councils use it?

She was aware of two other councils (Northland District Council and Tararua District Council) who use DNA. One of those councils do it for the protection of Kiwi.

Asked how they use it?

She didn’t know how they used them just aware that they used them. Also mentioned the organisation at Massey University who we use for DNA testing and that they specialise in DNA testing for other animals including dogs.

Also mentioned a decrease in our district on dog attacks this year as opposed to last year.

Asked about dog attacks in rural areas?

Not many attacks are witnessed but farmers saw the aftermath. DNA is used in these cases as an investigation tool that will hopefully bring about a positive outcome.

Asked how investigation took place without DNA?

The investigation process would be dealing with the victim to get as much detail as possible. Speak with the dog owners to get as much detail as well. Other tools included CCTV where applicable and any eye witnesses to the attack.

Without DNA, doubt becomes a factor and therefore we have to reach a high standard of proof to go to court. A lot of people find it hard to identify attacking dog/s which makes it incredibly hard for Animal Control to prosecute dog owners.

Asked about how submissions are going regarding the new Dog Bylaw regarding dog DNA?

Submissions have only just open and will run for four weeks so couldn’t comment on that process.

Asked about the dogs that attacked Peti Waka?

Praised Ms Waaka’s insightfulness to preserve her clothes and that it was a key to securing a persecution. Then she went through some details of the attack.

Also gave an example of a recent attack on sheep and how DNA also help prove a dog’s innocence.

Any key messages to the public?

All dogs can attack under the right circumstances and that it is imperative that dog owners always have their dogs under control at all times.

It is also important to preserve DNA evidence such as clothes when it comes to dogs attacking people and not burying carcases until after DNA is collected.

Here it is - Rotorua council wants to collect dog DNA to help in prosecutions | RNZ News

Share this

Share this page

Sharing...