Couple dispute claim that their two-toothed dog attacked a child

A couple from Wist Albury in New South Wales, Australia, claim their two-toothed dog Grumpy has been unfairly blamed for an attack on a child. Steve Moskovic said he had arrived home from walking the family grey Maltese cross to receive a $550 penalty notice from an Albury compliance officer. The notice alleged the pet had attacked someone at 3pm on September 5. Owner Nevenka Moskovic said the dog was at home in his bed at the time of the incident and despite his name, had a good nature.



“Grumpy is a beautiful dog,” she said. “He only has two teeth and is 18 years old with arthritis; he couldn’t have chased or bitten anyone. I have to stand up for my dog because he can’t stand up for himself.” The Moskovics have lived in Albury for the past 14 years and said they had never had an incident when walking their dog. A $165 penalty notice was issued because Grumpy was not micro-chipped and unregistered. Mrs Moskovic said she admitted they were guilty of not having Grumpy microchipped or registered, but was adamant the dog never attacked anyone.

She is disputing the $550 fine on that charge. Mr Moskovic said the ordeal had caused a lot of stress. “It’s not the money that upsets me, it’s the dishonesty,” he said. “I came here to retire and now I want to move again. I can’t sleep because of the stress it has caused - it’s unfair.” The dog has since been microchipped and registered, however the couple said they can’t afford to take the matter to court. They have written to the council and the state debt recovery office requesting leniency but were unsuccessful.



Despite the couple’s claim, Albury Council’s team leader of compliance John Mulvey said an investigation had concluded it was Grumpy that had attacked the child. “Compliance officers received a complaint in early September about an aggressive animal which was involved in an incident where a child was injured,” Mr Mulvey said. “The investigation identified the animal involved. Further investigations revealed the animal was not micro-chipped or registered with council, as required under NSW legislation. As a result of the investigation, penalty infringement notices were issued.”