From the office of Roland Rocchiccioli

THERE are those seminal moments in life when one is forced to concede defeat and to live with the frustration. After five-years, I am forced to accept the persistent barking of a neighbour’s dog.

Realistically, you can only hit your head against the city hall’s lacking-of-willing — tardiness — for so long. Ultimately, one concludes persistence is an exercise in futility.

I am a dog lover! At one time I kept six. For reasons mysterious, a surly Ballarat City Council animal management officer (ranger) came knocking on my door — checking. It was not a congenial encounter.

Currently, I have two dogs — Ruby and Bailey, and Moggy the cat. The canines came via Ballarat Police.

Acting Superintendent Jason Templar telephoned and said: “We heard you on radio saying you would like an old dog — well, we have two-old-dogs for you.”

I saw their picture and I took both! They are the most beautiful creatures. Ruby is a lap dog who takes her vocation most seriously. Bailey is a golden cocker spaniel — as profoundly deaf as he is absurdly beautiful. Moggy was dumped and moved-in! They create such joy.

For five-years I have been communicating with the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing. They have been most attentive. We have stood together at the bottom of the garden listening to the barking.

Absolutely, they have tried but to no avail. The dog barks all day — every day.

The owner of the neglected, wayward animal is a public housing tenant who simply chooses to ignore — to stonewall.

In this instance — after almost thirty-years of living in the public housing system — the ability to strategically negotiate and manipulate the administration has been perfected.

Such is their legal protection — set against my not unreasonable complaint — it is virtually impossible to impose any effective penalty; to enforce any modification in the outrageous wilfulness.

Initiating authorised action is so formidably convoluted one is forced to capitulate — to run-up the white flag of defeat and endure the nuisance.

Typically, the onus of responsibility for providing information to support the irritation rests solely with the complainant.

It could be argued without contradiction, if this property were a private rental the tenant would have been warned and most likely evicted.

The conduct of this public housing occupant is anti-social; however, and despite my pleas, they are able to blatantly breach my peace and quiet with impunity.

The Ballarat city council’s rangers have proven totally ineffective. They have displayed a decided disinterest and no genuine desire to resolve the issue; instead, they have provided me a list of compulsory information which is so time-demanding it is not a consideration.

Their failure to apply any realistic preventive action is unacceptable. My telephone conversation of frustration was interrupted by a team leader shouting in the background: “ged off the phone, I wanna talk to ya!” Whereupon, the call was ended!

The city of Ballarat website advises: Section 32 of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 asserts a dog or cat to be a nuisance if: “it creates a noise, by barking or otherwise, which persistently occurs, or continues to such a degree or extent that it unreasonably interferes with the peace, comfort or convenience of any person in any other premises.”

Manifestly, the theory and the application do not exist in any paradigm of significant accord.

Roland can be heard with Brett Macdonald radio 3BA Monday 10.40am.