Dog registration costs start at $121.28 for urban dogs and $87.10 for rural dogs, with penalties up to about $60 for late payment. This paid for up to 95% of animal control services, with the rest coming from general rates.
There were also penalties for failing to microchip pet dogs.
Jared Adams received an apology from the council in July after fighting to get his dog off the list of un-microchipped dogs.
The apology blamed the error on a “data anomaly” and left Adams questioning the council’s canine recordkeeping, including how many dogs were actually unregistered.
Adams’ $300 infringement notice was issued on June 4. He said he tried “every possible avenue” to prove his dog was chipped and have the fine dropped, including calls, emails, visits, Facebook messages, and contacting chief executive Andrew Moraes and Mayor Tania Tapsell.
He eventually “gave up” but when he arrived at the Rotorua District Court on July 19 to pay the fine, he learned it was wiped.
He said an email from the council later informed him the infringement was issued in error due to a “data anomaly” and had been reversed.
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.
Community and district development group manager Jean-Paul Gaston said in a June meeting the council paid a $30 filing fee for each of the 1019 registrations it was chasing through the courts, totalling more than $30,000.
It followed six months of reminder letters, extensions, and more reminder letters, he said.
“It’s cost us a substantial amount of money but it’s important we ensure this is carried right through to the courts.”
Rotorua Lakes Council community and district development group manager Jean-Paul Gaston. Photo / Laura Smith
The figure was based on dogs flagged as unregistered in the council’s database before invoices were generated ahead of annual registrations due on June 30.
Gaston said the council appreciated Adams’ experience was “frustrating”. He said it was down to human error as the system was not able to generate duplicate customer or animal profiles on its own. The issue was corrected, he said.
Eleven infringements have been reversed due to duplicate records. Historically, duplicate records also sometimes occurred but were quickly fixed when identified.
“While [the] 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”.
He said training was ongoing and the council continued “to do all we reasonably can to identify issues and resolve” any issues that arose.
He said anyone suspecting an infringement was incorrect should follow the process listed on the reverse of the letter.
Those “known to be affected” by the microchipping database issue had been contacted and told to ignore duplicate infringements.
He could not provide an exact date the council began investigating the fault. He said it was promptly identified.
He could not confirm how many infringement recipients believed theirs to be incorrect as the court was still dealing with them.
“[The] 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 [the] council. We are unable to supply numbers at this point.”
Fifty of the 272 microchipping infringements were sent to court for non-payment.
Laura Smith is a Local Democracy Reporting journalist based at the Rotorua Daily Post. She previously reported general news for the Otago Daily Times and Southland Express, and has been a journalist for four years.
