Neighbours repeatedly complained about two houses linked to an unlicensed dog keeper more than a year before authorities conducted raids and found dozens of neglected and starved animals.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
And they've warned that, despite the serious allegations of animal cruelty against the owner, dogs are still being kept at both Canberra homes.
Government inspectors found 27 dogs in extremely poor health and shocking conditions at the homes in Macquarie and Ainslie in late 2013.
Dogs were allegedly chained up in junk-riddled backyards, some without water and shelter. Inspectors found animals with bleeding wounds left untreated, hookworm infestations, and infections. Some were starving, one so badly that his bones were prominent and visible through his skin.
None of the dogs at either yard were desexed and some were pregnant.
The owner, Bitola Marmalado, charged as Stefan Trpcevski, 34, is currently facing 118 charges, and his mother Lidija Ski and brother Aleksander Trpcevski are also before the ACT Magistrates Court.
But neighbours at both properties say they had been making animal nuisance, animal welfare, noise, and other complaints about the properties for more than a year before the raids uncovered the alleged animal neglect.
Domestic Animal Services appear to have known about potential problems at the Macquarie property since at least January 2010, when they visited the home to warn of the need to desex dogs and for responsible dog ownership.
Neighbours were complaining about dog noise and welfare concerns at least as early as February 2012.
But animal nuisance orders, which impose conditions on the owner, were not placed on the two properties until November 2013.
The raids that uncovered the full extent of the alleged mistreatment of the dogs occurred the next month, on December 10.
One neighbour, who has not been named to protect her identity, said the authorities appeared powerless to do anything substantial about repeated complaints.
She said neighbours had filled out numerous forms, completed the required 14-day barking diaries, and taken photos.
Complaints had been sent to ACT Health, the RSPCA, Domestic Animal Services, the ACT Environment and Planning Directorate, Territory and Municipal Services, former chief minister Katy Gallagher, Territory and Municipal Services Minister Shane Rattenbury, and Labor Member for Ginninderra Mary Porter.
She said dogs had been removed from the Macquarie property on two occasions before the December 2013 raids, but the problems had continued.
"The reason this case has finally got to court is because of the sheer determination of neighbours who, so fed up with the noise and concerned for the welfare of the animals, continued to work with professional and caring people within the government agencies who were sympathetic to our plight," she said.
"It is very frustrating for all concerned that firstly, several departments need to get involved for an issue such as this and that these same departments are individually hamstrung by the confines within their own charter."
"A fast, co-ordinated response to issues such as these must be a priority for the ACT government."
She said last week that dogs were still at the property, despite the allegations the owner was currently facing.
A second resident, who lived near the Ainslie property, said she had first complained about the situation as far back as February 2012.
She sent in two diaries documenting excessive barking coming from the properties, something Domestic Animal Services encourage.
Upon receiving noise complaints, the agency is generally required to gather its own evidence and send rangers out to make independent observations, unless the situation is resolved or they consider the complaint to be vexatious.
A Territory and Municipal Services spokesman could not comment on the individual circumstances of the case, because it is currently before the courts.
But he said generally sufficient and reliable evidence was needed before a property could be raided, unless the owner gave consent.
"The burden of proof for an inspector to enter premises, except with the consent of the owner, is to reasonably believe that the available evidence supports the allegation," the spokesman said.
However, he said inspectors can enter the property without a warrant if "serious and urgent circumstances require them to do so".
"The severity of the cruelty and the intent of the offender will be considered when determining the action to be taken. Available options are education, caution, direction notice, infringement notice or summons to attend court," the spokesman said.
Animal cruelty cases can also be difficult for the government because witnesses are often unwilling to testify and there are welfare concerns for dogs, who have to be kept in a shelter while court proceedings drag on.
