Environmental Protection Act

Pnx

I have received a letter from my local authority, stating while my vehicle was parked in a council car park, that a litter/waste related incident was witnessed ( a cigarette was dropped out of the window).

They have obtained my details from DVLA to send this notice to me, the information they request is I was the vehicle owner on the date of the incident, that I still own the vehicle and who was driving the vehicle at the time, all this in order to send out a £75 fixed penalty.

The vehicle was parked in a council run car park, no parking offences were committed but they still contacted DVLA for details. I contacted DVLA asking for information of the request for my details but DVLA inform me that the council have access to their online information facilities so cannot help with any enquirees.

Am I under any obligation to confirm to the local authority that I still am and always have been the owner, and do I have to disclose who was driving the vehicle.

I have been waiting for 10 days for DVLA information so the 14 days deadline to respond is almost upon me.

thanks in advance

jweb2k

I've no specific advice other than to wonder if it's the same as Private Parking Tickets:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-parking-tickets#fight

If you own the car but WEREN’T driving
If an invoice lands on your doormat, this may be the first you know of a parking ticket as the driver mightn’t have informed you, but it’s no reason to feel alarmed. The most important thing to understand is...
The driver is liable and you're not obliged to disclose who was driving.
However if you were driving don’t be tempted to lie. That could land you in serious trouble in the unlikely event the case ever went to court and witness statements or CCTV proved the opposite.
If you weren’t the driver simply state that, as the owner, you're not liable for any costs, nor prepared to state who was driving and are under no obligation to do so. Hopefully, that'll get the message through and they won’t contact you again. It’s best to do this in writing so you have a record of what was said.
If they contact you again, write back politely asking them not to harass you, stating you’ve made it clear the ticket is nothing to do with you and they should back off. If they continue to hound you resend the same letter but use stronger language and threaten that you will report the matter to the relevant authorities if they don’t stop. Keep doing this until they do.

I do know council-given tickets should be handled different to private ones though, so hopefully someone can clarify for you.

sarahg1969

You have no duty to speak to them at all as far as I know, and you certainly have no duty to advise them who the driver or culprit was.

And they cannot pursue you as RK.

Worth checking on www.pepipoo.com to be sure, though.

Coblcris

Councils are abusing this act. What Section of the Act did they quote ?
They normally try to use the section on 'controlled waste' rather than litter.
They are on a losing wicket if so. I refer you to the Act itself which you can find on the statutelaw website.

Controlled Waste is very different issue to Litter.

Please keep us updated as councils have been known to use some very underhand and misleading tactics when trying to prise open this door to a room full of money.

DaveF327

It is an offence to fail to identify the driver of a vehicle where:-
a) the request is made by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
b) the offence was against any enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads. [Road Traffic Act 1988, s.172]

As the request was made by a council for an offence on an off road car park, you can sleep easy. If you don't reply, they can't make any assumptions or do anything further than keep asking you. If you do reply and say you can't remember who was driving at the time, then again they can't do anything.

jweb2k

DaveF327 wrote: »

It is an offence to fail to identify the driver of a vehicle where:-
a) the request is made by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
b) the offence was against any enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads. [Road Traffic Act 1988, s.172]

As the request was made by a council for an offence on an off road car park, you can sleep easy. If you don't reply, they can't make any assumptions or do anything further than keep asking you. If you do reply and say you can't remember who was driving at the time, then again they can't do anything.

Although do check the area for CCTV in case you're caught on that...

Pnx

Coblcris wrote: »

Councils are abusing this act. What Section of the Act did they quote ?
They normally try to use the section on 'controlled waste' rather than litter.
They are on a losing wicket if so. I refer you to the Act itself which you can find on the statutelaw website.

Controlled Waste is very different issue to Litter.

Please keep us updated as councils have been known to use some very underhand and misleading tactics when trying to prise open this door to a room full of money.

The actual letter says

"Environmental Protection Act 1990 section 71(2)

This is a formal notice issued, pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, section 71(2) requiring you, as a person having information required by the council to carry out its functions under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act (1990), to furnish details of the driver of a vehicle registration mark xxxx driving this vehicle, <date and time of offence here>. A litter/waste related incident had been witnessed in relation to this enquiry.

This information must be probided in writing to the council within 14 days of receipt of this notice.

Should you fail without reasonable excuse, to comply with this notice, or you furnish any information which you know to be false or misleading in a material particular, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, section 71(3) you shall be liable to prosecution by the council and if found guilty could be liable to a fine not exceeding £5000, a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or to both."


There was a CCTV camera in the area, but CCTV cameras are throughout the whole of the town. I do not know if it was CCTV or a parking attendant, local authority worker or a member of the public that has reported the offence

Coblcris

Thank you., That is Part Two.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=environmental+protection+act&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&TYPE=QS&NavFrom=0&activeTextDocId=2247480&PageNumber=1&SortAlpha=0

Which is about Controlled Waste not about cigarette ends or pieces of litter.

(3) “Pollution of the environment” means pollution of the environment due to the release or escape (into any environmental medium) from—
(a)
the land on which controlled waste is treated,
(b)
the land on which controlled waste is kept,
(c)
the land in or on which controlled waste is deposited,
(d)
fixed plant by means of which controlled waste is treated, kept or disposed of,
of substances or articles constituting or resulting from the waste and capable (by reason of the quantity or concentrations involved) of causing harm to man or any other living organisms supported by the environment.

Pursuing real Controlled Waste violations is important but a brief examination of the legal sanctions, a fine of up to 40,000 pounds with the option of imprisonment for up to two years, makes it rather clear to anyone who reads the Act that Part Two is about a very different subject than Litter.

To my mind this council, and any others who try this, are willfully abusing the law and should be prosecuted.

I would give the council very short shrift indeed.

They may invite you in for an interview under caution.
If they do then just refuse their generous invitation.

sarahg1969

Coblcris wrote: »

We need to know which Section of the EPA The council are using on their paperwork

Litter comes under Part Four.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=environmental+protection+act&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&TYPE=QS&NavFrom=0&activeTextDocId=2247480&PageNumber=1&SortAlpha=0.

Of course, they don't go for litter any more. They go for controlled waste, so they can do the RK of the vehicle, alleging that they allowed the disposal of controlled waste. A complete abuse.

Coblcris

I agree. I changed my post after seeing post number seven which arrived at the same time as mine.Your quote now looks out of place as it were, however it is not out of place at all.

peter_the_piper

I think, according to his note above, they are trying on section 71(2)

posted too late.