Is it an offence (to put rubbish in someone elses bin?)

Nick_C

pimento wrote: »

Bins, eh?

I have a massive garden and a small compostables bin that is emptied every week but we still fill it every week. When the council don't collect (like this week) I end up with more green stuff than will fit in the bin. It would make no difference at all to the bin men or the council if they were to take extra green waste but they won't, so on those occasions, I have to stick my green waste in a black bin bag and it goes into the non-recyling bin.

Where's the logic in that?

Couldn't you compost some of your garden waste? That would be the most environmentally friendly solution!

Tumtitums

My neighbour does this as for some reason they wont request a bin from the council and im about to order a wheelie bin lock. The problem is that our council gets very upset if you put the wrong things in the bin and puts notices threatening a fine or that they wont empty it so im careful to check and package correctly what goes in the bin. I dont want to be fined or have my collections stopped because a neighbour puts the wrong thing in the bin.

EachPenny

Tumtitums wrote: »

My neighbour does this as for some reason they wont request a bin from the council and im about to order a wheelie bin lock. The problem is that our council gets very upset if you put the wrong things in the bin and puts notices threatening a fine or that they wont empty it so im careful to check and package correctly what goes in the bin. I dont want to be fined or have my collections stopped because a neighbour puts the wrong thing in the bin.

I had a similar problem with a neighbour putting stuff in my bin that shouldn't be there, so I simply screwed the lid shut. It took a few seconds to remove the screw and put a bag of rubbish in on bin day and after a couple of months I stopped using the screws. Problem solved.

Less easy if the neighbour puts rubbish in after the bins are placed ready for collection.

Gary_Chapman

I solved this problem, perfectly, and without resorting to locking bins or screwing the lids shut.

Firstly, let me address an inaccuracy in a previous posts. In English law your rubbish is NOT abandoned in law. The law is quite clear that your rubbish does not become public domain until it reaches "a point of aggregation"

This has always been interpreted as it reaching the tip (or, by reasonable extension, a recycling point). The fact that the LA own the receptacle does not change this.

EDIT: User "Nick_C" has refuted this on EPA.Sec.45 grounds, where it appears to state that the Waste Collection Authority take ownership at the point of collection. Whilst this is true, I contend that it is a limited form of ownership - what they can do with it is limited to their statutory duty (EPA Sec.48) and the purpose for which it was provided to them, as per longstanding law regarding private property. A passionate digression into this topic follows - and is rather off-topic, but may be of interest to some. It does not have any bearing on the solution I present ... A fact which Nick, I believe, would likely concede as he too supports the view that private ownership is retained until collection.


I know this first hand as I recently won a battle against a Debt Collector who had taken my rubbish to look for evidence of a previous tenant. It was deemed aggravated trespass and theft. I dropped the matter for a £250 settlement.

So, removing your rubbish is an offence - and you will have better results should you pursue it yourself, and not rely on the council - who frankly have neither the will nor the resources.


Solving the bin-use matter, yourself

I had neighbours pouring unbagged food waste and take-out gravy into my bin, resulting in a stinky mess at the bottom of the bin. I asked them not to, and that was the point their kids decided it would be great fun to mess with me.

The council really didn't care to get involved, despite CCTV evidence. This is fairly typical.


What to do?

Well... I extended a formal written invitation for them to use my bin whenever they wished. Why? Oh, you'll see : )

I gave them formal notice that they were free to use my bin. The fees were £20 per bag or, if not bagged, £5 per individual item. In addition, in any month in which they had made any use of the service ... there would be an additional £250 standing charge for the service including (but not limited to) the cleaning and maintenance of the bin and my labour. I also drew their attention to the manner of payment, and informed them than any account 30 days past due would incur 8% statutory interest and could, if not recovered within 90 days, be referred to a debt collection service - involving additional costs.

I also demanded that if they believed that they had a right to use the bin without charge, they had 28 days to show where, in law, I am obliged to make the service available at my own cost.

Finally (and crucially) I stated that they signal their acceptance of this agreement, and the attached schedule of fees, by simply making any use of the service. As per the Goods and Services act.


Outcomes...

Of course, no response after 28 days, so I issued them with a notice of estoppel (thus limiting their freedom to raise a legal objection, or any claim of right, at some later date) ... and welcomed them to the service.

They thought it was funny, and made it quite plain that I was a 'nutter' ... and of course, their bin harassment increased... became quite bold-faced even. Which is far less upsetting when you've properly negotiated the fees.


And then the trap was sprung...

I started issuing invoices. Of course... this upset them and they refused. Further invoices, final invoices and then statutory demands ensued. The monthly charges mounted up ... the per-item charges mounted up... the interest mounted up... the CCTV evidence mounted up.

Then I applied for the liability order (and, as per our existing agreement, added the cost of application to their account)

Eventually they stopped using my bin, but by then they were in the hole to the tune of more than £1600. When the liability order was applied for it was dealt with 'on the paperwork alone' - and at this point I could have easily sold the matter off to a debt collector on the strength of the Liability Order itself.


Olive branches

Instead, I made them an offer. They signed a document admitting to their use of the service, and declaring that they would never set foot on my property again, nor to abandon their rubbish in any bin in the street other than their own - in return, I agreed to stay collection of the debt for six years, after which time it would cease to be enforceable.

Things were fine for a few months... but since they'd avoided getting their fingers burned, the lesson hadn't quite been learned. They returned to their old natures.

They started leaving rubbish in another neighbours garden. I sent them a notice on behalf of the other neighbour and they sent their kids round to apologise and collect the rubbish. I raised the matter of the outstanding debt which had now became due - and passed it on to a national debt collection firm for a measly 30p on the pound - just to offload it.

They moved shortly afterwards!

This technique works for all manner of petty annoyances, from visits from the TV Licensing Authority and even junk mail (which, although lucrative, will certainly keep you busy)


If you find yourself in a situation, whether with neighbours or commercial players - just remember, you are NOT helpless, you simply need to assert your rights and properly engage them in commerce. It matters not one jot what their 'policies' or 'procedures' might say, nor whether the council or police value your claim or see it as frivolous...

... all that matters, is if they can show within the 28 days of the notice, where the law requires you to entertain them at your own expense. If not, you remove any implied right of access, send them an estoppel notice and start enforcing your fees.

You don't even have to collect those fees. You can waive them in return for an apology ... you can get an LO and take a private lien against their goods ... you can sell the liability to a professional collector... so many options.

The point is : Follow Civil Procedure, place them upon notice, set fees and formally commercialise the matter...

... then be happy to entertain their impositions - once it is abundantly clear who's paying for dinner. Nothing makes you smile on seeing an idiot throw their rubbish in your bin, than knowing you just made £20, with another £250 at the months end.

Works every time, and keeps you in good spirits about the whole thing.


If you're not prepared to engage people politely and commercially, and instead choose to suffer their undue impositions upon your time, labour and resources - then you've effectively given up on your rights.

:beer:

Nick_C

Gary_Chapman wrote: »

Firstly, let me address an inaccuracy in a previous posts. In English law your rubbish is NOT abandoned in law. The law is quite clear that your rubbish does not become public domain until it is aggregated. This has always been interpreted as it reaching the tip (or, by reasonable extension, a recycling point). The fact that the LA own the receptacle does not change this.

Always happy to be proved wrong, but I disagree.

Waste becomes the property of the Waste Collection Authority from the moment it is collected.

Section 45(9) of the EPA.

Where are you getting your impression from?

I worked in the waste industry for 10 years, and I have never before heard the idea that the waste does not become the property of the collection authority until it is aggregated.

dunroving

Gary_Chapman wrote: »

I solved this problem, perfectly, and without resorting to locking bins or screwing the lids shut.

Firstly, let me address an inaccuracy in a previous posts. In English law your rubbish is NOT abandoned in law. The law is quite clear that your rubbish does not become public domain until it is aggregated. This has always been interpreted as it reaching the tip (or, by reasonable extension, a recycling point). The fact that the LA own the receptacle does not change this.

I know this first hand as I recently won a battle against a Debt Collector who had taken my rubbish to look for evidence of a previous tenant. It was deemed aggravated trespass and theft. I dropped the matter for a £250 settlement.

So, removing your rubbish is an offence - and you will have better results should you pursue it yourself, and not rely on the council - who frankly have neither the will nor the resources.

*Solving the bin-use matter, yourself*

I had neighbours pouring unbagged food waste and take-out gravy into my bin, resulting in a stinky mess at the bottom of the bin. I asked them not to, and that was the point their kids decided it would be great fun to mess with me.

The council really didn't care to get involved, despite CCTV evidence.

So... I extended a formal written invitation for them to use my bin whenever they wished. Why? Oh, you'll see : )

I gave them formal notice that they were free to use my bin. The fees were £20 per bag or, if not bagged, £5 per individual item. In addition, in any month in which they made any use of the service ... there would be a £250 standing charge for the service including (but not limited to) the cleaning and maintenance of the bin and my labour. I also drew their attention to the manner of payment, and informed them than any account 30 days past due would incur 8% statutory interest and could, if not recovered within 90 days, be referred to a debt collection service - involving additional costs.

I also demanded that if they believed that they had a right to use the bin without charge, they had 28 days to show where, in law, I am obliged to make the service available at my own cost.

Finally I stated that they signal their acceptance of this agreement, and the attached schedule of fees, by simply making any use of the service. As per the Goods and Services act.


Of course, no response after 28 days, so I issued them with a notice of estoppel (limiting their freedom to raise a legal objection, or any claim of right, at some later date) ... and welcomed them to the service.

They thought it was funny, and made it quite plain that I was a 'nutter' ... and of course, their harassment increased... became quite bold-faced even.


And then the trap was sprung...

I started issuing invoices. Of course... this upset them and they refused. Further invoices, final invoices and then statutory demands ensued. The monthly charges mounted up ... the per-item charges mounted up... the interest mounted up... the CCTV evidence mounted up.

Eventually they stopped using my bin, but by then they were in the hole to the tune of more than £1500. A liability order was applied for, which was dealt with 'on the papers' - and at this point I could have easily sold the matter off to a debt collector on the strength of the paperwork and the Liability Order.

But instead, I made them an offer. They signed a document admitting to their use of the service, and declaring that they would never set foot on my property again, nor to abandon their rubbish in any bin in the street other than their own - in return, I agreed to stay collection of the debt for six years, after which time it would cease to be enforceable.

Things were fine for a few months... but since they'd avoided getting their fingers burned, the lesson hadn't quite been learned. They returned to their old natures.

They started leaving rubbish in another neighbours garden. I sent them a notice on behalf of the other neighbour and they sent their kids round to apologise and collect the rubbish. I raised the matter of the outstanding debt which had now became due - and passed it on to a national debt collection firm for 30p on the pound - just to offload it.

They moved shortly afterwards.

This technique works for all manner of petty annoyances, from visits from the TV Licensing Authority and even junk mail (which, although lucrative, will certainly keep you busy)


If you find yourself in a situation, whether with neighbours or commercial players - just remember, you are NOT helpless, you simply need to assert your rights and engage them in commerce. It doesn't matter one jot what their 'policy' might say, or whether the council or police value your claim ...

... all that matters, is if they can show within 28 days of the notice, where the law requires you to entertain them at your own expense. If not, remove their implied right of access, send them an estoppel notice and start enforcing your fees.

You don't even have to collect those fees. You can waive them in return for an apology ... you can get an LO and take a private lien against their goods ... you can sell the liability to a professional collector... so many options.

The point is : Follow Civil Procedure, place them upon notice, set fees and formally commercialise the matter...

... then be happy to entertain their impositions - once it is abundantly clear who's paying for dinner.

Works every time.

If you're not prepared to engage people politely and commercially, and instead choose to suffer their undue impositions upon your time, labour and resources - then you've effectively given up on your rights.

:beer:

Wow, I bet you're fun at parties.

Gary_Chapman

Nick_C wrote: »

Always happy to be proved wrong, but I disagree.
Waste becomes the property of the Waste Collection Authority from the moment it is collected.

Section 45(9) of the EPA.

Where are you getting your impression from?

That was precisely the view of my Local Authority too. turns out they were, in fact, wrong. Fortunately, I had access to Lexis/Nexis and there has been a surprising amount of judicial clarification on the matter... it's quite enlightening.

The first matter is regards the natures of both 'abandonment' and 'abandonment to another'

The very earliest reference (an 1877 case involving buried pig carcass) is also the most entertaining... so entertaining that it made it's way into Archibolds "Pleading, Evidence and Practice"

"The carcass of a diseased pig, which had been killed and buried by the owner and of which he intended to make no further use was still held to remain his property, so as to support an indictment for larceny against a person who afterwards disinterred and sold the carcass,"

Since then there have been many high court judicial clarifications of the law in regard to disposed items. Where the items are disposed, ownership may be retained. The fact that your bin is identified as belonging to your property, is evidence enough.

So, it IS possible to steal from a bin... and in law you're absolutely stealing from the owner, as ownership would not have been transferred, in any case, until intended collection.


This "abandonment to another" can be clarified further...

A bulk of rulings show that where the rubbish is left to the collection of another (many cases here involve theft of items left outside of charity shops) ... but left on doorsteps, and rubbish in bins have also been discussed. Then the ownership is retained until the intended recipient takes ownership...

Under the first matter of law, ownership is clear due to the nature of the bin and it's placement. Under the second, ownership is retained by virtue of it's intended recipient - and remains until that recipient assumes ownership.


So, the final question regards the nature of the WMA

It has been conclusively proven that the LA must respect ownership right up to the point of aggregation, as part of a public sector duty. The argument against the LA's rights to claim ownership is quite detailed... however, it has been upheld, repeatedly.

The key aspect is in the nature of the implied agreement between the service user and the WMA ... and, crucially, the explicit Sec.48 wording that "it shall be the duty of each waste collection authority to deliver for disposal"

So, if the LA/WMA were to seek to exercise any ownership rights in relation to any items handed over for disposal, they would cease to have legitimate claim and would not properly hold the items in due course of the scheduled activity.

Anything else would be a misappropriation, and thus no 'actual' ownership rights exist for garbage in transit to aggregation - and the EPA law was thus made compatible with two hundred years of private property law.


At this point there is no good reason for any Local Authority to claim that when garbage passes into their possession they may assume proper ownership in due course - it simply is not the case, nor has it ever been. There is a clear difference between the Public Sector Duty to dispose - and the act of taking explicit ownership.

I hope that clarifies, if not perhaps you'd like to continue the discussion elsewhere, as I doubt this is the appropriate forum for pages of citations. Do you have Lexis access? I can send you all the bookmarked caselaw summaries and opinions.

It's actually an interesting topic, prior to 1800 it wasn't at all clear what constituted abandonment at all. It makes interesting reading and serves to show just how law is really made in this country... Acts are just the start of a whole process : )

Gary_Chapman

dunroving wrote: »

Wow, I bet you're fun at parties.

I'm Autistic ... I tend not to go to other peoples parties, because interacting is difficult.

Don't feel sorry for me though. I own two yachts, one of which I currently live on, and I am pretty much a year-round cruiser. I have three independent nationalities and a wicked sense of humour. I have a lovely wife, two great kids and we own a second home in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria ... I've been a club DJ and have held a residency (Mostly UK style technotrance) ... and I spent my youth hacking, phreaking, carding and narrowly avoiding consequences.

Quality of life isn't universally measured by how many parties you go to. But I'm glad you're having a great time : )

:beer:

Nick_C

While waste is on your property awaiting collection, it is your waste. It is not abandoned. You are free to do with it what you will until the collection authority take it from you. From that moment, the waste belongs to the collection authority.

"anything collected under arrangements made by a waste collection authority under this section shall belong to the authority and may be dealt with accordingly." - That is not an opinion, it is a direct quote from the EPA.

S48(1) merely requires WCAs to deliver waste to WDAs, unless they are going to recycle the waste themselves.

What do you mean by WMA? Ten years in the industry, and it's not a term I have come across. Waste Management Authority? No such thing in English law. We have WCAs (collection) and WDAs (disposal). Some authorities are "unitary" in terms of waste and are both the WCA and WDA. I suggest you don't understand waste legislation as well as you think you do.

Gary_Chapman

I wrote a wonderful reply, but my login timed out and I lost it. I simply don't have the heart to go through it again.


Okay... minor point, but when you say "While waste is on your property awaiting collection..." this is not quite accurate. Bins and Items placed at the curb (clearly with the intention of collection) retain ownership too. It does not have to be on your property at all... nor is it a requirement, in law, that it has been placed out for collection by another. It may simply be placed out.

Similarly, and illustratively, any item found in the street must be considered to have an owner. Generally, one is not free, in law, to make the assumption that an item, found in the public, is not owned... regardless of it's perceived value (or lack thereof)

Obviously, a court would permit many reasonable defences to a charge of theft in such circumstances... but would nevertheless strongly uphold the concept of continuous ownership, where claimed. Only where not claimed, or where such claim is unreasonable on the face of it, is a court is free to consider such an item as legally abandoned.


(Also, I have edited and annotated post #65 to identify and clarify the contention - out of respect. Changes in red)


I admitted that when I typed WMA - I meant WCA. I do not work in the industry, these battles were years ago, and I am working from memory. It should be sufficient that you understood my meaning. I also clarified that the purpose for which the waste is handed over is important, as is the Sec.48 stated purpose for the grant of that statutory authority.

Your mistake, it seems, is in thinking that the wording of the Act is law. As I said at the end of the last post - the Act is merely the start of a process, the law is built on judicial decisions (precedents) which are binding on lower courts and which constrain and clarify the Acts.

It is an all too common mistake to quote the precise wording of an Act, and consider your point proven in law. You also fail to understand that the section you quote is subject to Sec.48 which specifies the statutory purpose ... and that anything surrendered up for a given purpose, may be misappropriated - and even criminally so.

It is this wider point which you have so far failed to appreciate.


In my last post I explained quite clearly, why your rubbish is considered as in continuous ownership (as opposed to abandoned to the public) - and why neighbours cannot take from it. That is established. Your argument as to what the rights the WCA may exercise over it is an entirely different matter - and, in law, they may only use it for the purpose in which it is given - which is settled in Sec.48 - as anything else is a misappropriation...

... a matter that was upheld by Queens Bench Division, twice - once in my case against Preston Council, and once against Newcastle County Council. These specifically related to whether the LA could enjoy the rights of ownership, or whether they were restricted to the elements of their statutory duty! It turns out, their rights are limited to the statutory duty until the point where rubbish become aggregated - at which point it falls into the public, and any secondary claims are lost.

The summary is this: I have won many cases against both Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Preston councils. I have copies of all the correspondence too...

- The Queens Bench applications where it got that far
- Queens Bench applications for relief from the costs of filing
- The various council position statements (they only twice actually represented in person)
- The Judgements handed down, with the judicial summaries
- Legal notices served upon the council for each matter
- Legal notice served upon staff/councilors, determining them vicariously liable for a harm.
- Letters from the councils legal department clarifying their claim and insisting compliance
- The subsequent letters of apology/statements from each council, finally admitting the matter.

I have these for all kinds of matters ...
- Getting new recycle bins on demand at no cost (despite their claims)
- Getting a full refund for (and exemption from) CT, without any class of exemption (despite their claim)
- Getting exemption and full refund for water rates, for the time I lived in the property (despite their claim)
- Refutation of the councils claim that they can examine my trash (following a notice of their intent)
- Win against a Debt Collection firm, whereby they finally settled OOC, following them taking my rubbish for probate.
- and much much more

Then, when I moved aboard my yacht ...
- Getting full continuous HB for a 4-bed property I intend to reside in for 4 days in any year
- Getting full continuous HB despite being out of the country for 360 days per year.

In fact, due to the endless holes they keep finding themselves in when dealing with me... I now have the direct line for a senior manageress, who is now my primary point of contact for any council issue - and any claim I make, however strange, is now taken very seriously and resolved quickly and without them making any forceful statements. such is our longstanding history of them parroting a line - and me finally giving them a bloody nose.


I am aware that this may make you think of me poorly. And I am aware that I am giving you every excuse to disregard me on ad-hominem grounds and issue a typical 'daily mail' response - but, since that would be intellectually dishonest, I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you can retain an academic focus ... after all, I may be the devil himself, but my paperwork is sound - and my claimed victories can be clearly established if you're interested in why my process (whether you agree with it or not) has been so spectacularly successful.


So, in my final response I'll freely admit we've never locked horns - and so it may be that you would have done a better job in defending against my claims than the two LA's have done... I admit that we cannot know. Similarly, it may be that I would have still won each case despite your best efforts... again, we cannot know. I do know that their defence was EPA Sec.45 too ... and that it did not, ultimately, hold up in either instance (Preston and Newcastle LA's independently)

Why start waving our penises around in a public forum? That gets us nowhere.

My offer is that I will happily discuss this with you privately and demonstrate, to your satisfaction, my claims out of a purely academic interest. Not to prove a point - but to, at the very least, let you see how other LAs have spectacularly failed to support their strongly held positions - and perhaps that I see how you might have tackled the matter differently.

Perhaps this would result in a different perspective for both of us.

But the greatest mistake you could possibly make is to simply dismiss my claims, based on some superficial idea of who I am or whether it 'sounds right' to you. That would be truly dumb.


At the end of the day - you have your view. I have mine ... and the only way to understand why there is such a discrepancy is to take a proper look at the legal correspondence, applications, position statements and outcomes - which I think would probably interest you a great deal. As far as I am concerned you're just one more bureaucrat claiming authority inviolate ... and, I'm sure, as far as you're concerned I'm just one more barrack-room-lawyer that's all talk and has no teeth.

So, given that likely won't change without seeing my documentation... we should disengage here.

Anything else just risks this descending into an ad-hominem. As such, I will not pointlessly drag out the matter further in someone elses thread. We disagree, that's fine.

Just know that, despite our differences of opinion - I'd still buy you a beer.


Back on topic...

The thread exists to answer the question of rubbish dumping, and I have offered one solution ... I note that you have offered no opinion on that (the topic)

The LA are spectacularly ineffective at addressing this, and the police have no interest either (quite rightly, IMO) ... so the solution I offer, for those who are truly at their wits end, is to comercialise the matter, apply the Civil Procedure and engage your neighbours in contract.

Done as described, this is not only effective - it is downright liberating.

Anything else is off-topic and can be dealt with privately.