trafford council littering

HO87

taffy056 wrote: »

But doesn't that mean the release of information in relation to court cases that could be pending ?

Yes, and as the section says:

(a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or
(b) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, or
is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights

its pretty open ended, unfortunately and don't forget that Reg. 27 doesn't limit LA access to just motoring/parking. The wording is actually - "for any purpose connected with the investigation of an offence...."

I think that sums it up.

vax2002

Nothing in any of the legislation removes your right to silence.
If you reply, you will create joinder and they may issue a summons.
My advice ignore, if they have evidence they will need to bring it before a magistrate and have a warrant issued, you have more chance of finding a set of gold chickens teeth.

Sirdan

"its pretty open ended, unfortunately and don't forget that Reg. 27 doesn't limit LA access to just motoring/parking. The wording is actually - "for any purpose connected with the investigation of an offence...."

Quite so, there is little doubt that the accquistion of the keeper details is for a purpose connected with the investigation of an offence.
The said purpose being to request from the keeper the details of the passenger as the keeper is on balance the most likely person to know ..unless of course they were not the driver !

On the face of it this is perfectly reasonable.

However it ceases to be reasonable when the Council write to the keeper in a manner which implies that the keeper is obliged to disclose the information rather than a polite request to do so.

Whatever next one wonders..logically Councils will be seeking Norwich Pharmacal Orders against keepers to force disclosure of their alleged littering passengers details ..!!!!! :mad:

taffy056

Sirdan wrote: »

Whatever next one wonders..logically Councils will be seeking Norwich Pharmacal Orders against keepers to force disclosure of their alleged littering passengers details ..!!!!! :mad:

But what happens if for example a hackney carriage taxi driver picks up a passenger in a city centre rank, then drops them off in some random street somewhere, they drop litter out of the car and walk away , then this kind of letter comes through?

Basically this council is taking a punt that costs them the price of a stamp and possibly get £60 or whatever the fine is in return, all because they use pseudo legal junk like the PPCs do!

Sirdan

taffy056 wrote: »

But what happens if for example a hackney carriage taxi driver picks up a passenger in a city centre rank, then drops them off in some random street somewhere, they drop litter out of the car and walk away , then this kind of letter comes through?

Basically this council is taking a punt that costs them the price of a stamp and possibly get £60 or whatever the fine is in return, all because they use pseudo legal junk like the PPCs do!

Correct their methodology is very PPC !

Lets hope they continue with their lies and harassment and then the local press will love printing the story when the OP takes the Council to court !!! (I can dream can't I ? )

Sirdan

Nothing in any of the legislation removes your right to silence.

Well yes and no ...there are several pieces of legislation which require persons to answer questions and to not answer or give information is an offence, the ones that spring to mind are the Terrorism Act,The Customs and Excise Management Act and The Immigration Act...there are probably others as well.

Stigy

HO87 wrote: »

Aside from all of that I'm seriously unconvinced that there is any power to issue fixed penalty notices retrospectively for litter under this Act in any event. The relevant section (s.88(1) Environmental Protection Act 1990) says:



That permits the issue of a FPN at the time of the offence and only at the time - not some unspecified time later. The power to require a name and address conferred in the same section extends only to the person issuing the ticket and can only be made of the person to whom he intends to issue the ticket to. The subsection (s.88(8A) is very explicit:

If the legislation for issuing an FPN is the same as that for issuing a PND, then the official doesn't have to witness the offence themselves, and can issue the notice at a date later than when the alleged offence took place. The way in which that legislation is worded sounds as though they're saying that as long as you can reasonable prove that the offence took place on any given day, it doesn't matter when the notice is issued.

Sirdan

Stigy wrote: »

If the legislation for issuing an FPN is the same as that for issuing a PND, then the official doesn't have to witness the offence themselves, and can issue the notice at a date later than when the alleged offence took place. The way in which that legislation is worded sounds as though they're saying that as long as you can reasonable prove that the offence took place on any given day, it doesn't matter when the notice is issued.

That may be so, but how do you issue a notice by post to the alleged offender demanding the name and address of the alleged offender ...if you don't have the details you can't issue and if you do have them already why demand them in the notice ?

Makes no sense at all, HO87 is right, the intention of the legislation is that the person issuing a FPN can at the time of the offence demand from the alleged offender their name and address.

(As an aside what they can't do is make you prove it as carrying ID is not compulsory in the UK , so they either believe you or they don't ...I wonder if a person who willfully drops litter would be prone to inventing a name and address .hmm..just a thought.)

What is also clear is that the legislation places no requirement on any third party witness to the alleged offence to supply the name and adddress of the alleged offender.

Stigy

Sirdan wrote: »

That may be so, but how do you issue a notice by post to the alleged offender demanding the name and address of the alleged offender ...if you don't have the details you can't issue and if you do have them already why demand them in the notice ?

Makes no sense at all, HO87 is right, the intention of the legislation is that the person issuing a FPN can at the time of the offence demand from the alleged offender their name and address.

(As an aside what they can't do is make you prove it as carrying ID is not compulsory in the UK , so they either believe you or they don't ...I wonder if a person who willfully drops litter would be prone to inventing a name and address .hmm..just a thought.)

What is also clear is that the legislation places no requirement on any third party witness to the alleged offence to supply the name and adddress of the alleged offender.

I'm not disputing that.

However, an official can request the name and address of an alleged offender after the incident if they are identified to him or if he recognises them etc. I agree that they'd have no legal right to demand another person gives the alleged offender's details, as in this case.

Sirdan

However, an official can request the name and address of an alleged offender after the incident

Of course and the alleged offender can tell them to .er.."go away" and walk off.
Totally unworkable legislation..quite hard to summons someone for the offence of not giving their name and address ...to whom do you send the summons and at what address ?

The legislation makes it clear that this is a summary offence (the not giving an accurate name and address or a total refusal) and as such only a constable could effect an arrest ...I think they may have better things to do don't you ?