Two-month mail ban for street after stray dog bites postman

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Twomo ... 6781974.jp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A STREET has had no post for nearly two months after a stray dog attacked a postman.


Royal Mail bosses have deemed Brock Place in Whins of Milton, Stirling, too dangerous for deliveries after the attack on one of its workers on 16 April.

The postman was treated in hospital, but residents said yesterday that suspending deliveries to the entire street was an over-reaction.

However, there was good news for Brock Place residents last night when Royal Mail promised that deliveries would be resume today.

The mail suspension left about a dozen householders having to walk to their nearest delivery office to collect their post for the past seven weeks.

Resident Carl Purser, 50, said Royal Mail failed to announce they had stopped deliveries.

He said: "I understand that postmen have to be protected - but don't punish everyone else in the street. I've had to get my post every day and it's about a 40-minute walk, or a ten-minute drive.

"Nobody actually told us our post was getting stopped. We just realised after a week or so we weren't getting any. I was worried our post was getting stolen and about ID theft.

"Eventually I called the Royal Mail and they said they wouldn't be coming back because of fears for safety of their postmen. I tried to find out more but they said they couldn't because of the Data Protection Act, which I thought was ridiculous."

A woman who lives in the street and saw the dog attack said: "It was about nine in the morning and I saw a large black lurcher-type dog barking at the man. Seconds later the young postman was lying on the ground. I'll never forget seeing all the post lying on the ground next to him. The postman was terrified. It went twice for his leg. He had to go to the hospital for a jag.

[ianfk]

the press have it wrong again the dog was not a stray but actually lives in brock place
the owner as far as we know will be prosecuted hopefully!
as for the residents they could have had their mail if they wanted by redirecting it to their nearest post office counters which is about 300 yards away

[red1968]

The postman was terrified. It went twice for his leg. He had to go to the hospital for a jag.
And we use fords and bippers at our office

[brothermagrew]

The postman was terrified. It went twice for his leg. He had to go to the hospital for a jag.
And we use fords and bippers at our office

Not very funny if you happen to be on the receiving end of a dog bite though brother, but as you are on the mail processing side of things you probably won't often come across such things. The dog as has been pointed out by ianfk actually lives in Brock Place, but i would think that where the press have used the term stray then it may be as a result of the dog actually straying from it's property outside, and therefore not being kept properly under control by it's owner or the person who was supposed to be in charge of it.

Hopefull the postman concerned duly reported it to his manager under the WRAP process and completed the relevant forms pertaining to the WRAP process. It should also have been logged under the ERICA system. Reported to the Police and County Council Dog Warden. As the attack happened in Scotland the full provisions of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 are applicable.

The residents are perfectly correct in one respect in that they should have been informed by Royal Mail, that there deliveries were being temporarily suspended. At a guess they should have at least received the Dog Hazard Neigbouring Property Letter from Royal Mail or from that particular delivery office's line manager or DOM.

Suffice to say it sounds like someone isn't doing there job properly and I don't mean the postie who was bitten.

54. Dog Hazard Neighbouring Property Letter.pdf

I would also suggest that fellow blue shirts at their next available WTLL Briefing ask their line manager or DOM to show them the health and safety Paul Coleman interview.

There is of course this interview featuring Paul Coleman http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8556987.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but the Royal Mail one shows more graphic detail of the injuries Paul received.


As a reminder and to name but a few:
Paul Coleman was performing his delivery round, delivering the Christmas mail, on Rothay Road, Grimethorpe, Sheffield when the two snarling dogs which had escaped from a garden shed in nearby Birdwell Road, came after him "barking, growling and lunging at him". Paul tried desperately to escape but the dogs grabbed a leg each and pulled him to the ground tearing "lumps of flesh" from his legs as they dragged him from the property he was delivering to and into the road where they continued to subject him to a bloody 15-minute mauling. During the prolonged attack he suffered serious leg, arm and chest injuries. Sheffield Crown Court heard that Richards kept the dogs in an insecure garden shed in the backyard of his small terraced house on Birdwell Road, Grimethorpe which Postman Paul Coleman had to cross. The dogs had escaped before and Richards had already been warned about his dangerous dogs a few weeks previously, but on the day of the attack neither dog was chained up or controlled and they escaped to jointly launch the vicious attack on luckless Paul Coleman. Neighbours and a passing Parcelforce driver stopped and went to Mr Coleman's assistance. The Parcelforce Driver hit the Dogs with a Metal Bar but they continued the attack. Other helpers hit the Dogs with various weapons including garden tools, a rake, a hammer and even boiling porridge was poured on to one of the Dogs but all attempts failed to stop the dogs attack. The dogs finally broke off at the sound of approaching Police sirens. One of the Dogs a Bull Terrier-Bulldog cross was destroyed by armed Police Officers and the other a Staffordshire Bull Terrier-Japanese Tosa cross ran off.

40 year old Paul who had suffered considerable blood loss and sustained serious injuries to both legs, the right arm and his torso was rushed to hospital where he spent a week undergoing emergency surgery, followed by a series of operations, skin grafts and plastic surgery to repair his serious injuries. The court heard he still suffers psychological problems after the incident and has reduced mobility and permanent scarring. Further surgery may well be required in the future. At one stage it was thought that he may have lost his right arm in which serious nerve and muscle damage occurred but surgeons managed to save it. Bites on his left leg went down to the bone and skin grafts were needed to the front and back of both legs. Paul has indicated that he is finding it difficult to come to terms with the attack and frequently suffers nightmares.

Sentencing Richards, Judge Alan Goldsack told him: "The photos show dreadful injuries. Lumps of flesh were literally torn from the victims body and he was in a state of trauma - as, no doubt, were the witnesses and his wife and children." He added: "Anyone knows these kinds of dogs can cause very serious injuries if they are not properly controlled."

Postman Terry Johnson suffered 41 bite wounds, some down to the bone after he was set upon by a ferocious Alsatian in Rotherham and Barnsley postman Noel Harrison needed 56 stitches in his face after being savaged by a Bull Mastiff.

Alan Smith Brinklow DO was attacked by an Alsatian in Milton Keynes receiving severe facial and neck injuries requiring 100 stitches. Bedfordshire Police charged the owners under the DDA.

Wayne Collard Bridgewater DO was attacked by a Bull Mastiff receiving serious injuries to his genitals requiring 70 stitches.

Elaine White Wakefield DO had a finger completely bitten off. Elaine's finger was bitten off by a dog as she pushed her fingers through the letterbox. The householders had one dog which Elaine knew about and saw sitting in the window however, the owners had just obtained a new second dog which attacked Elaine. The police visited the owners and retrieved part of Elaine's finger but surgeons were unable to reconnect it.


It has to be said there is nothing funny about being on the receiving end of a bad dog attack. Many a delivery postie can testify to that one.

[brothermagrew]

As intimated from above as the attack took place in Scotland the following should also be bourne in mind with regards to Scotland.

Links with other legislation
When undertaking their duties under the Act - Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, local authorities and authorised officers should be mindful of other legislation that covers dogs and their owners.

Dogs Act 1906/Environmental Protection Act 1990 – Stray Dogs
The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 does not alter the present legislative position with regard to stray or abandoned dogs. Where a dog is unaccompanied in a public place the dog would continue to be treated as a stray under section 3 of the Dogs Act 1906 or sections 149 or 150 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982
Section 49(1) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 makes it an offence for any person to allow any creature, including a dog, to cause injury or danger to any other person who is in a public place or to give that person reasonable cause for alarm or annoyance. Any person convicted for such an offence is liable to a fine not exceeding £500. Section 49(2) of the 1982 Act permits any person to apply for a court order in relation to annoyance caused by an animal kept in the vicinity of where the person resides.

If the court grants the order, such steps as deemed necessary by the court that the person keeping the animal should take to bring the annoyance to an end will be included in the order. This provision is used on occasion in cases where a dog barks excessively to the annoyance of neighbours. Breach of such an order by the person in charge of the animal is a criminal offence and the person can be fined up to £1000.

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Act was passed in response to a number of horrific attacks by specific types of dogs on members of the public and introduced strict controls on types of dogs which were specifically bred for fighting (the Pit Bull Terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Braziliero). Following the commencement of the 1991 Act on 12 August 1991, there was a period of time until 30 November 1991 where owners of these types of dogs could apply for their dog to be registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs (“the Index”). If successfully placed on the Index, a dog required to be kept in compliance with the strict requirements of the Act meaning the owner had:
• To obtain a certificate to enable them to retain such a dog;
• To have the dog neutered or spayed;
• To ensure the dog is permanently identified with a tattoo and microchip(electronic transponder);
• To maintain insurance against their dog injuring third parties;
• To keep the dog muzzled, on a lead in public places; and
• To ensure the dog is not left in charge of a person under the age of 16.

From 1 December 1991 onwards, any person owning such a dog which was not recorded on the Index was committing a criminal offence and liable for prosecution. Until 1997, it had been the case that if one of the specific types of dog was kept without having been placed on the Index, then the person in charge of the dog would be prosecuted and if found guilty, the court would be required to order the destruction of the dog.

This changed following the passing of the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 so that the court had discretion in sentencing and was not always required to order that the dog be destroyed where an owner was found to have kept a dog in breach of the legislation (though this did remain as an option for the court).

In addition to introducing strict controls on dogs which are specifically bred for fighting, the 1991 Act also made it an offence for anyone in charge of any type of dog to allow it to be dangerously out of control in a public place, or in a private place where it has no right to be. A person found guilty of an offence may face imprisonment of up to 2 years and/or an unlimited fine. The courts may also disqualify the offender from having custody of a dog for any period as it thinks fit.

Section 10 of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 amends the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 by extending the offence contained in section 3 of the 1991 Act so that it becomes a criminal offence to allow any dog to be dangerously out of control in any place. However, with the exception of this amendment police and local authority powers and responsibilities conferred under the terms of the 1991 Act remain the same.

The Control of Dogs Order 1992/901
The Control of Dogs Order 1992 states that the owner of a dog or the person in charge of a dog that is not wearing a collar which provides the details of the owner in a public place shall be guilty of an offence.

Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004
The Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 contains provisions relating to noise nuisance which can be relied upon in cases of excessive noise created by dogs and makes provision for a fixed penalty notice to be issued.

Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006
Section 34 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 allows a court to make a “Disposal Order” in relation to animals seized under section 32 (Taking possession of animals to protect then from suffering). A Disposal Order can be for the sale of the animal and the money raised can be used to offset any expenses incurred in connection with the Order or in taking possession of the animal.

Local Authority bye-laws
Local authorities can consider bye-law making powers to address a specific problem. For example, if there is an area where dogs are often a nuisance, the matter can be raised for consideration by the council who have powers to make appropriate bye-laws (i.e. to keep dogs on leads in particular areas or to ban dogs from such places such as children’s playgrounds).

[red1968]

Not very funny if you happen to be on the receiving end of a dog bite though brother, but as you are on the mail processing side of things you probably won't often come across such things.

AS it happens brotherI have been bit by a dog ,as I delivered packets.

[brothermagrew]

Fair do's then brother and as you yourself can testify or at least appreciate, it ain't nice when you happen to be the one that the dog is inflicting the pain and suffering on.

[ElvisGaddafi]

The dog lives in the street and regularly jumps the gate. The owners don't seem to care. Most of the residents affected (8 houses I believe) did not kick up a fuss as they appreciated that you can't expect the postman to go into an area where he may be attacked. Unfortunately the dog owner isn't the type that they would want to argue with and I don't blame them. Almost all (with one notable exception) of the residents were very appreciative of the postie's efforts to ensure they received their mail by bagging each individual house's mail and delivering it into the post office which is just round the corner.

[steven100]

Getting bitten by a dog isn;t funny, but just imagine (try) delivering mail in Kenya outback. Dogs would hardly be a problem. Just imagine face to face delivering a mailsort letter with a leopard "nice kitty". I'm sure throwing your pda at the leopard would be enough .
Or in the Aussie outback = Sign beware our crocodiles. RM policy to deliver all mail with adequate equipment.

[red1968]

Fair do's then brother and as you yourself can testify or at least appreciate, it ain't nice when you happen to be the one that the dog is inflicting the pain and suffering on.

Lucky for me it was winter time and had my thick coat on ,but the dog still broke the skin.
Now I rattle the gates extra hard, lesson learnt...

And I was'nt making light of a postie being bit but the fact they misspelled the word Jab...