We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Accused of Flytipping - Advice Needed

1246712

Comments

  • Guest101 wrote: »
    Clearly their not under arrest and are free to leave. I think that's obvious by the fact it is the council, not the police, who are investigating.



    Its obviously not always clear hence why its deemed to be necessary as part of the caution.


    It might not always be clear to someone who has no idea how this works, is flustered and worried about being called into an interview, and has been read a caution that to the uneducated ear or flustered customer sounds like what the police might say.


    I'll also add that the police aren't the only authority who can detain people, which is another reason that passage exists.


    Perhaps read up on the subject a bit more?
  • penguingirl
    penguingirl Posts: 1,397 Forumite
    Does she have legal cover as part of her house insurance? Maybe it would be helpful to call them for some advice?

    I have no knowledge of the law, but my instinct would be for her to attend, with someone she trusts (maybe you or a friend who is used to professional conversations?), and take along a written statement as someone stated above. The statement will help prompt her and boost her confidence that she will keep saying she doesn't know anything about it. Personally I think being cooperative would be helpful, as she doesn't want to worry about the thought of the police turning up if it can be resolved before that stage.

    Have no other neighbours received anything? I'm just wondering whether they've contacted everyone on the street, not just your sister
  • Needless cost at this stage. Only engage legal representation if it ends up in court.

    That's a bit of a gamble, with very high stakes, given that jail time and 6 figure fines can be given for fly-tipping.

    A key purpose of an interview under caution is to try to trip up the suspect and get them to incriminate themselves, and this is why extreme caution is required during the interview. Myself, I would never attend an interview under caution without my solicitor present.

    I would think going to a criminal solicitor in advance, giving them a thorough briefing, and then bringing them to the interview as your representative, is a very sensible idea.

    It's important to go at your (and your solicitor's) convenience. The risk if you don't go, is that it goes straight to court, or worse, that you get arrested and interviewed at an inconvenient time with an unprepared solicitor.
  • jamesd
    jamesd Posts: 26,103 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 4 December 2014 at 8:20PM
    Do not attend an interview under caution without seeking legal advice first. You do not know what mistaken evidence they may have from claimed witnesses who happen to have described someone who may look like her in the darkness. If she then says she wasn't there, whether at the time of the offence being investigated or some other time, it will appear that she is lying even if she is not.

    A person who is potentially flustered should not rely on walking out. Instead that reason should be given for declining the request at least until they have exhausted all other avenues of investigation, lest her nervousness about the situation cause them to wrongly believe it's her. She could also usefully note that she only moved in a week before.

    You, she and her dad should watch and pay very careful attention to the former defence lawyer and former police officer in Don't talk to Police. While it's based on US law and the UK caution attempts to trick you into responding, the advice in the video is good and should be followed at an absolute minimum until personal legal advice has been obtained. Then your solicitor can tell you the same.

    I do have sufficient experience of being wrongly believed to have committed a crime and detained to give some guidance on this subject. Anyone who believes that mistakes aren't made by witnesses or others that lead to wrong convictions may find learning about the Innocence Project useful.
  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    Its obviously not always clear hence why its deemed to be necessary as part of the caution.


    It might not always be clear to someone who has no idea how this works, is flustered and worried about being called into an interview, and has been read a caution that to the uneducated ear or flustered customer sounds like what the police might say.


    I'll also add that the police aren't the only authority who can detain people, which is another reason that passage exists.


    Perhaps read up on the subject a bit more?

    First of all, I'm glad we are able to enter a healthy debate.

    No, other agencies - the border agency, reformed now under the home office is another example where detention may be experienced - likely to be the 2 that experience the highest case load- also have powers of detention. Often they turn to the police to assist.

    Yes it is included, and must be so when questioned under caution under PACE. TV licensing for example will include it. Though often the questioning is done in the persons home, so more likely to ask them to leave ( once the search warrant has been executed ).

    I completely agree that persons not educated or aware may be flustered, which is why I recommend a written statement which can be formulated in advance is sent instead.

    The wording alone ' I must caution you under the Police and Criminal Ecidence Act' may cause this.

    Worth noting not all police interviews are conducted whilst under arrest. And I feel you should agree the premise of these interviews is to extract and obtain evidence which leads to prosecution.
  • UK0106
    UK0106 Posts: 94 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10 Posts Combo Breaker
    Thanks to everybody who has taken the time to respond and provide advice.

    I think the letter said she could take somebody along to the interview. She was going to take my dad (also her landlord) but they have said she can't because they've decided they want to interview him too.

    She was going to get some advice from CAB so hopefully she'll have an idea about whattowatch expect. I'll definitely tell her to prepare a written statement and see if I can go along with her.
  • UK0106 wrote: »
    Hi

    I wasn't sure where to put this thread as it doesn't seem to fit anywhere in particular. Please feel free to let me know if it should be posted elsewhere.

    Long story short, my sister moved into a house about 6 weeks ago and there was some rubbish dumped on a patch of grass across the road at the time. It's my dad's house which he moved out of the previous week. Fast forward a week and she received a letter from the council asking her to attend a recorded interview in relation to flytipping.

    She called the number on the letter the same week (start of November) as did my dad and nobody got back to them until today. The council have asked both my sister and dad to attend separate recorded interviews to talk about the dumped rubbish and have told my sister that they have evidence to show it was her who did it.

    The rubbish was definitely there before she moved in (it's actually a common place for people to dump rubbish as it's a cul-de-sac with the patch of grass). She had a lot of rubbish herself that she had to keep in her garden for weeks and put a bit at a time into the black bin for collection.

    Her and my dad are planning to attend these interviews but I'm not sure it' a good idea for them to go alone (if at all). Can somebody tell me what would happen if they declined the "invitation" to attend the recorded interview?

    Thanks


    This is my sincere opinion which is based on the experience of one of my friends:
    1) do not let your sister or father attend the recorded interview. Make sure that your sister is innocent because she could have been pictured or videoed doing that.


    2) The Council and the Tax authority (hm whatever) are working closely together. They have got unproportional power somehow.


    3) get a lawyer (expert in that issue) to do it on your behalf.
    The lawyer in my friend's case, put the council in corner straightaway with one phone call to the council officer.
  • Guest101
    Guest101 Posts: 15,764 Forumite
    UK0106 wrote: »
    Thanks to everybody who has taken the time to respond and provide advice.

    I think the letter said she could take somebody along to the interview. She was going to take my dad (also her landlord) but they have said she can't because they've decided they want to interview him too.

    She was going to get some advice from CAB so hopefully she'll have an idea about whattowatch expect. I'll definitely tell her to prepare a written statement and see if I can go along with her.

    If you do be prepared to say 'no comment at this stage'. And be prepared to walk out, despite threats if court.

    Most of the time the council want someone to say 'yes it was me' and pay the fixed penalty notice.
  • Jat1
    Jat1 Posts: 7 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    1)ask them that you are willing to cooperate however, can they send a "letter under caution" as an alternative to an interview recorded under PACE. this form of interview is Inferior for the local authority but would benefit you. Make up excuses solicitor not available, you are out the country etc therefore do not wish to prolong the investigation.

    2) if you do attend ask for disclosure beforehand. What evidence do they have? Photographic evidence? Is the evidence hearsay etc?

    3) do not go on your own- take a solicitor with you who will be there to give you clearly legal advice.

    If you don't genuinely having anything to hide then you should be fine.

    Good luck.

    If
  • Reply "No comment" to every question
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.