THE legal status of a controversial order banning dogs from the playing fields and pitches in Watchet's Memorial Ground was called into question this week following a failed attempt to prosecute a local resident accused of flouting it.

Watchet Town Council, which brought in the dog exclusion order on January 1 following a year of consultation and negotiations with dog owners and sports organisations, decided to take Hester Groves to court after she refused to pay a fixed penalty fine.

The £75 fine was handed out by town warden Richard McGinty on February 28.

Mrs Groves pleaded not guilty to the alleged offence when the case first went before Taunton and West Somerset magistrates in May.

The trial was due to take place on Monday but the council's solicitor offered no evidence and the case was dismissed after it emerged that the wording of the original order was incorrect.

Mrs Groves told the Free Press that she had been informed by her solicitor that Mr McGinty had not been authorised to impose the fine.

She said she believed it was because he had not completed the relevant training at the time and that the council had "backdated" his authorisation - claims that the council vehemently denies.

But the authority has admitted "a minor technical irregularity" with the wording of the order, which raises concerns over its enforceability from the start.

When Mr McGinty attempted to give Mrs Groves the fixed penalty fine, she was with her Jack Russell cross terrier Tess on the Doniford Road side of the Memorial Ground.

Initially, dog walkers had been told that three sides of the perimeter of the ground would be available to them but this proved impossible and, controversially, when the order was drawn up, just two sides were excluded from the dog ban area.

Confusion over the amount of land finally made available to dog walkers sparked further controversy and even resulted in the resignation of one councillor.

"I was standing behind the benches when the warden came across to me and there was nothing to indicate that I shouldn't be there," said Mrs Groves.

"The signs the council had put up simply said the playing field and pitches were out of bounds to dogs."

Mrs Groves refused to accept the ticket when Mr McGinty attempted to give it to her but it was later pushed through her letterbox.

"He didn't identify himself and I was literally shaking after the incident - I was so upset.

"I refused to plead guilty because I knew I hadn't done anything wrong.

"I am not an irresponsible dog owner and I always pick up after my dog.

"The last eight months have been an absolute nightmare and the stress this has caused has been unbelievable.

"I feel I have been bullied - it's been absolute hell."

Mrs Groves, who cares for her 18-year-old daughter who has ME, added:

"I would have liked to have had my day in court so people could know what happened but at the same time the prospect of the hearing was terrifying me.

"They thought I would back down but the fact is the council - and I don't include the new councillors who joined in May - has made mistakes by not doing its job properly and the warden was not authorised to give me that fine."

She said she wanted to thank the many people in the town who had supported her over the past eight months and revealed she would not be seeking compensation over the collapsed prosecution.

"The council has wasted enough money on this already.

"If I sought compensation, I would just be taking more money off the people of Watchet, myself included.

"But I would like a formal apology."

In a statement, the council said it categorically refuted the statements made to the Free Press by Mrs Groves as "totally incorrect".

It said the warden was the authorised officer at the time of the incident and had the power to issue fixed penalty notices after attending a training course on January 18.

"He was given authorisation by the council on February 9 in the form of a letter that he carries on his person at all times, giving him delegated powers to undertake enforcement work on behalf of the council," said the statement.

The council said Mrs Groves was also incorrect in stating that the authority had tried to backdate the authorisation and may have been confused over additional powers that were given to the warden on March 8 allowing him to issue fixed penalty notices for litter offences.

At the same meeting, the council also approved a fixed penalty enforcement dog exclusion order policy document.

It said this was purely for guidance and the warden's powers were not in any way reliant on its implementation.

The council also said Mrs Groves' statements about the signage were incorrect.

"The council made every effort to inform the public of the new regulation. However, the public abused our efforts by vandalising the signage we had erected at every opportunity."

The authority said temporary signs put up in December were ripped down, permanent signs put up in January also ripped down, display poles torn from the ground before the cement was even dry and one pole even thrown over the railway embankment.

Eventually, in May the council said it put up maps to highlight the designated walking areas.

"With regard to the court case, and following legal advice, the council did not offer any evidence in its defence due to a minor technical irregularity with the wording of the order and not for the reasons Mrs Groves states."

The authority said it had been advised this was easily rectified through Schedule 6 of the Dog Control Orders Regulations 2006 and this would be addressed as a matter of urgency.

In a separate statement, clerk Sarah Reed said the institution of the order was the result of extensive consultation with the Memorial Ground management committee, which administers the land, who were concerned about dog fouling on the playing pitches and practice areas, and dog owners who wished to responsibly exercise their dogs.

"The implementation of the order is continuously monitored and an improvement in the situation is noticeable," said Mrs Reed.

"Despite having to overcome many difficulties such as verbal abuse and accusations of improper procedure, the council has been open and transparent in its entire decision-making throughout this process.

"Our legal advisors have commended us on our meticulous attention to procedure throughout this matter.

"The council are very disappointed and frustrated with the outcome of the case but once matters have been rectified will continue to enforce the dog exclusion order."

The collapse of the prosecution was greeted with delight by local dog walkers, many of whom have joined the newly formed Watchet Dog Owners Forum.

Spokesman Sara Summers said that the court action had shown the order had "no legal legs to stand on".

"We do not need to say we told you so but there are so many faults and contentious issues regarding the implementation of this dog control order that any action was doomed to fail," she said.

"The hard line approach that the council and the Memorial Ground committee have handed out has only made the matter worse and antagonised many normally placid people."

Ms Summers said the conveyance for the Memorial Ground described the area as a sports and recreation ground.

"Our recreation is to walk dogs, as have many other generations of Watchet's residents."

The forum is now calling for a review of the area available to dog walkers in the hope of increasing it and plans to lobby the council to change the original order.