Village Directors Sonia Williams and Paul Stuart say the ten-year-old silky terrier is a danger to other tenants and their pets and must leave the retirement facility immediately.

Advertise with News of The Area today.
It’s worth it for your business.
Message us.
Phone us – (02) 4981 8882.
Email us – media@newsofthearea.com.au

According to Ms Gronholm, Sally poses no threat to people or other dogs and actually enjoys the company of both species on her regular outings to the local dog park in Nambucca Heads.

Furthermore, she believes that the tiny watchdog is exactly what Faringdon Village needs to ward off the constant threat of crime in the area.

To test claims of Sally’s aggression, NOTA brought Lady, a fourteen-kilogram farm dog, to meet Sally.

At first Sally was very aggressive but, confined within her yard, posed no danger to the much larger Lady.

However, Lady was not foolish enough to put her nose through the five centimetre gap between the pickets of Sally’s fence.

Upon opening the front gate, Sally did not rush out at Lady and after five minutes, appeared to tolerate the presence of the stranger.

Ms Williams, who manages the retirement village, said Ms Gronholm has “repeatedly shown that Sally cannot be controlled”.

“We have received frequent complaints that Sally is off-leash and not within her fence,” she said.

“When Sally frightens and or menaces another dog, instead of apologising, Ms Gronholm abuses the victim, prompting another complaint to management,” she said.

As a result, in November 2022, Ms Gronholm’s permission to have a pet dog at her Faringdon Village residence was withdrawn.

Ms Williams and Mr Stuart showed NOTA several witness statements to support their position; three or four complaining that the dog was out and off leash along with one personal and unsigned account of a 2018 incident when Sally allegedly bit a woman.

There was also a photograph of a small red mark on someone’s leg, apparently sustained during this encounter.

Ms Gronholm admitted that this biting incident did occur.

“Yes, some years ago, Sally did bite a woman on the calf,” Ms Gronholm admitted.

“But there was no damage.

“I was rung by management at the time and I offered to pay for new pants or whatever was required and I never heard another thing about it,” she said.

Ms Gronholm also claimed that the woman who was bitten had previously antagonised the dog through the fence of Sally’s enclosure.

Ms Williams further claimed to NOTA that a resident’s dog had been bitten on the lip by Sally several years ago and showed a letter to this effect.

NOTA spoke to Christine, the writer of this letter, who explained that this letter had been about another dog and not Sally.

“Sally didn’t bite Reggie’s lip, although Sally did rush out at me and surprise me one time when Maria was putting Sally in the car and she was not on leash,” Christine, a fellow resident of Faringdon Village told NOTA.

Three of the personal letters of complaint seen by NOTA made mention of the abusive response the writers had received from Ms Gronholm when the subject of Sally’s behaviour was raised.

“I have no wish to pursue this matter further as I have no wish to have further relations with the owner of this dog, who was terribly abusive,” said one of the letter writers.

Ms Gronholm said she could not recall the incident.

In the case of another one of the letter writers, after her dog rushed towards his dog in 2022, Ms Gronholm admits to yelling at the man and said she refused to apologise.

“He deserved it because he swore and yelled at me at the time,” she told NOTA.

“He hasn’t apologised either,” she said.

Ms Williams and Mr Stuart readily admitted that within the closed social network of Faringdon Village, gossip and personal conflicts between residents are a constant problem.

In 2023, Maria and Sally’s case was brought to the attention of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT).

Ms Gronholm made an application to the tribunal claiming her permission to have a dog had been withdrawn unfairly and that continued requests to remove the dog constituted harassment.

On the day of the hearing in May of last year, she withdrew her case due to poor health.

Ms Williams and Mr Stuart gave assurances not to pursue the matter for one month.

Soon after, to avoid further trouble and to renew her health, Ms Gronholm moved out of the Village and rented out her house.

In May of this year, she and Sally returned to live in the Village.

Ms Gronholm claimed the dog was an ‘assistance dog’ and provided a psychological report to show her deep reliance on the animal.

Ms Williams countered that Sally had not undertaken training to become an ‘assistance dog’ and Sally’s registration was changed to ‘companion dog’, meaning she was still subject to management’s previous ruling.

Since then, Ms Williams admitted that no complaints have been received in regards to Sally.

However, in the interests of the safety of all other residents, management say the dog must be removed as Ms Gronholm has no permission to keep Sally at the premises and cannot be trusted to keep the dog within its enclosure.

A spokesperson for Nambucca Valley Council said to declare a dog dangerous or menacing was a process usually involving statutory declarations, witness details, photographs, doctor or veterinarian statements and whatever other evidence could be provided.

“There are essentially two categories, ‘dangerous’ and ‘menacing’.

“‘Menacing’ could be a dog that rushes out and threatens, perhaps circles, shows unreasonable aggression, whereas ‘dangerous’ is usually for a dog that has attacked or killed without provocation,” Council’s Manager of Development and Environment, Daniel Walsh explained to NOTA.

When a dog is declared dangerous or menacing, the owner is notified and has seven days to object.

After this the dog’s enclosure will need to meet more stringent requirements and for a dangerous dog, they might need to always be on a muzzle or leash when in public.

Mr Walsh said it would be possible for Council to issue a “dangerous dog” notice within the Village, however Sally has not been declared either ‘dangerous’ or ‘menacing’.

Ms Gronholm is determined to fight to keep Sally.

“This dog is my life,” Ms Gronholm told NOTA.

“Since my husband passed away eight years ago, and my children live too far away, she is all I have.

“I couldn’t live without her,” she tearfully told NOTA.

“Sally and I just want to live here peacefully,” she said.

“For the past two years, I have not had a complaint about Sally being out.

“I take her to the dog park every morning at 8am and I haven’t walked her in the village in many years.

“She is no danger to other residents and she even barked in the night when a neighbour’s house was being broken into recently.”

By Ned COWIE