Wrongly Accused of Fly Tipping - Help!

morpheusfire

molerat, I hope you're joking about Mr Plod!

The box was left at the "old" collection point, however, I have taken photos to prove that the "old" collection point was is still in use and the "new" collection point has been ignored.

If they were to prosecute anyone for leaving rubbish at the "old" collection point, they would have to prosecute every single resident of the block!

The issue of the "old" and "new" collection point is the one which really concerns me. However, the precedent for collection is that the "old" point is the one which is currently in use. Don't know if that would hold up in court if they choose to take this further.

TeamLowe

gazter wrote: »

The use of the questioning 'under caution' is to intimidate you.

The use of questioning 'under caution' is used so that the evidence can be admissable in court.
There's no point them just having a chat with OP, deciding to take him to court, and then wooops judge won't let them submit into evidence the recording as it wasn't done under caution.

OP I used to work in the admin section of the department that deals with flytipping, so I know vaguely how the process works.

You choose to go to the interview, they ask you questions, you answer honestly 'no this is not my stuff, only the cardboard box which i assumed the bin men would take'. they'll go back to their legal team who'll decide whether based on the evidence it is in the public interest to prosecute.

Please note - considering the box you left was not in a bin/designated recepticle for collection, nor at your designated collection point, it could still be considered that you fly tipped the box. however, i seriously doubt that the public interest would be in prosecuting for that.

In my experience, from overhearing the officers chat, there's very few of these cases with enough evidence to go to court and when they do there's very few cases where the judges feel the evidence is enough to find against the defendant.

If you feel worried, please speak to a solicitor about the process/chances of prosecution.

They could just want to speak to you about if you know who the furniture belonged to, doing it under caution again means that your evidence will be admissable in court, making their case stronger.

PS i'm always amazed by people calling the officers 'jobsworths', if they only knew that 100% of their work comes from neighbours complaining repeatedly and demanding action

grifferz

hcb42 wrote: »

if you were guilty there is no way you would have dumped a box with your address on it.....

My neighbours stole an item of my postal mail and then left the packaging, with my address on it, in amongst a pile of their own fly-tipped junk which the council refuse collectors then slapped a "this is fly tipped, remove it now or be prosecuted" notice on.

So while you would logically think that someone wouldn't do this, also don't underestimate the lack of awareness from people who genuinely don't give a toss! I expect councils see examples of completely illogical antisocial behaviour day in day out.

tim123456789

jamie11 wrote: »

I'm genuinely puzzled...........why should it? Does it have to be declared?

it's a conviction, with the same status as any other (conviction)

Yorkie1

tim123456789 wrote: »

it's a conviction, with the same status as any other (conviction)

To be precise, it is NOT a conviction. It is an alternative to a conviction. If you are asked whether you have ever been convicted of something, but the question does not ask about cautions, then you are legally entitled to reply in the negative (assuming no other convictions, of course).

jamie11

Yorkie1 wrote: »

To be precise, it is NOT a conviction. It is an alternative to a conviction. If you are asked whether you have ever been convicted of something, but the question does not ask about cautions, then you are legally entitled to reply in the negative (assuming no other convictions, of course).

That makes more sense. A conviction can only be made by a court IMO not some jumped up jobsworth working for the local council.

spark_deals

Trust me,
Caution is conviction., even more than that.
Conviction becomes spent after time, caution always remain on your record! till you die.
If I knew this earlier, I would have never accepted it. True.
I have been there.
HTH
Spark

katejo

TeamLowe wrote: »

PS i'm always amazed by people calling the officers 'jobsworths', if they only knew that 100% of their work comes from neighbours complaining repeatedly and demanding action

A few years ago I wanted to use the service for removing large unwanted items from the front of my house. I was told to leave the old sofa on my front path but warned that it must not touch the pavement or I would be fined for fly tipping . I explained that the sofa was longer than the front path . I said I would attach a note to say that collection had been arranged . No they said . If the fly tipping check were done before the collection , I would be fined for fly tipping . A classic jobs worth example . In the end I had to pay for the removal .

Yorkie1

spark_deals wrote: »

Trust me,
Caution is conviction., even more than that.
Conviction becomes spent after time, caution always remain on your record! till you die.
If I knew this earlier, I would have never accepted it. True.
I have been there.
HTH
Spark

You are wrong.

Cautions, Warnings and Reprimands - Spent as soon as they are issued
Conditional cautions - Spent as soon as conditions end.

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/privacy/spent-convictions-and-the-rehabilitation-of-offenders/how-a-conviction-becomes-spent.html

Yorkie1

jamie11 wrote: »

That makes more sense. A conviction can only be made by a court IMO not some jumped up jobsworth working for the local council.

I *believe* that cautions can only be administered by the police.