A WALK in the park proved costly for a dog owner who was left with a bill for more than £300 when one of his pets fouled the area.

A passing council warden saw one of Dennis Patton’s dogs defecating in North Lodge Park, Darlington, on July 3, last year.

Durham Crown Court was told the park was a designated no-fouling area.

The Darlington Borough Council warden brought the fact to the attention of Patton, who said he was unaware of the dog fouling, before he returned to pick up the dirt with some shrubbery.

But he was issued with a fixed penalty notice and, after the £50 charge was unpaid, he was called to appear at South Durham Magistrates’ Court, where he was convicted in his absence for allowing the dog to foul on designated land.

He was fined £175 and ordered to pay £150 costs.

Appealing against the sentence at the crown court, yesterday, Patton told magistrates that he was taking his Alsatian and Leonberger dogs for their daily walk through the park.

He said he usually took a bag to remove their dirt, but had forgotten that day and was unaware one of them had fouled.

Patton, 41, of Railway Court, Darlington, said he was, “momentarily distracted”

looking at work to convert a nightclub into a Chinese restaurant in nearby Gladstone Street.

He said that on being informed by the warden, he immediately picked up the dirt using leaves.

Patton said the park’s “dog walking community” usually informed each other if one of their pets had fouled without their knowledge.

Dismissing his appeal, Judge Richard Lowden, sitting with two magistrates, said: “Usually, on his own evidence, he was equipped with bags for the all-but-inevitable event of a dog fouling in these circumstances, but not this time.

“Not to be equipped with the necessary bags increases his responsibility to be aware.

“He was not aware, and should have been. We take the view he should have seen it.

“Not to notice, in these circumstances is, in our view, permitting the act to happen.

“We are not prepared to accept there was any realistic belief anyone else would pick it up, or would have, but for the warden’s intervention.”

The judge and magistrates agreed to reduce the initial fine by £100, but added a further £100 to cover the appeal hearing costs, leaving Patton with the original magistrates’ court bill of £325.