Accused of Flytipping - Advice Needed

Lord_Baltimore

Guest101 wrote: »

This is a trained person seeking to catch you out.

With respect, do you really think that? Isn't it just a person collecting information to do part of the job you pay them for?

katejo

A few years ago I wanted to use the council service to remove old furniture from my address. I was told that I must leave the sofa on my front path at a particular time(not before) and that it must not touch the pavement or I could be prosecuted for flytipping if the relevant inspector arrived before the collection. I pointed out that the sofa was longer than my tiny front path and so this would be impossible. I offered to label it to say that collection had been arranged. They refused to accept this and said that I had to comply. I gave up and paid the furniture deliverer to remove the old sofa. It shows just how difficult and unrealistic a council can be. No wonder that so many people do fly tip!
In your position I would definitely get legal advice, perhaps through my insurer as I have paid for the additional cover or through Which Magazine as I have a subscription.

princeofpounds

Because I don't take the view that the Council is some kind of evil behemoth intent on nailing me for something I didn't do.

That's not really how it works. They don't do it because they are evil, there are a number of factors that come into play.

- Their bosses sit on their heads to get results. If they can fluster someone into accepting a fixed penalty, that's a tick in the box.
- Sometimes individuals enjoy playing detective.
- They often honestly believe they DO have the right person even if you deny everything, just because your situation makes it look like you were a likely candidate. Sometimes this leap is made from incorrect or tenuous evidence.

I think if you had cast-iron evidence that you did not commit a crime (like travel documents showing you were away for the three months preceding) then I wouldn't be cautious. But trying to prove a negative is exceptionally hard, and it's quite likely they will continue to suspect you even if you plausibly deny it at all points. After all, all criminals lie right?!

Guest101

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

With respect, do you really think that? Isn't it just a person collecting information to do part of the job you pay them for?

Things to note:
1: they may well legitimately think they have the right person.
2: his job is to catch people out. People lie. He therefore must always have that in the back of his mind.
3: you're right, he is collecting information. But the information he is looking for is the one that gives him a result.
4: his job is to prosecute people. He hasn't picked a name out of a hat.
5: power corrupts.

mjoneseyjones

Guest101 wrote: »

Things to note:
1: they may well legitimately think they have the right person.
2: his job is to catch people out. People lie. He therefore must always have that in the back of his mind.
3: you're right, he is collecting information. But the information he is looking for is the one that gives him a result.
4: his job is to prosecute people. He hasn't picked a name out of a hat.
5: power corrupts.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

He's a council investigator. His job is to catch guilty people out. He isn't getting dodgy, backhanded bonuses for fraudulently punishing the innocent.

I_have_spoken

Council jobsworths get off on a power-trip. Most of them have silly moustaches...and that's just the wimmins!

topdaddy_2

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

With respect, do you really think that? Isn't it just a person collecting information to do part of the job you pay them for?

It'll be an EHO or equivilent, not a "interogator", no one will get water boarded.

MysteryMe

I'd encourage both your sister and father to seek legal advice either directly with a solicitor or the CAB. Get impartial and informed advice not random posts on internet forums.

Lord_Baltimore

princeofpounds wrote: »

That's not really how it works.

It seems I am naive to believe in complete innocence as the best defence .

Guest101 wrote: »

Things to note:
1: they may well legitimately think they have the right person.
2: his job is to catch people out. People lie. He therefore must always have that in the back of his mind.
3: you're right, he is collecting information. But the information he is looking for is the one that gives him a result.
4: his job is to prosecute people. He hasn't picked a name out of a hat.
5: power corrupts.

Conversely:
1: but they would be wrong.
2: his job is to get to the truth, not entrapment. The truth in this case is that there is no guilt.
3: the information he is looking for is the one that gives him the proper result. In this case, he would be barking up the wrong tree.
4: his job is to prosecute guilty people.
5:

topdaddy wrote: »

It'll be an EHO or equivilent, not a "interogator", no one will get water boarded.

This seems a flippant remark? Responding in kind: hopefully the EHO will be literate .

[Deleted User]

Back on page 2, I said there were a lot of bad tempered posts in this thread.
Several pages on, the original poster should now be ignoring everyone who has posted, as the thread has degenerated into an argument which no one will win.

I'm frankly amazed this thread is so long.