Allegation of fly-tipping.

tim123456789

sparky130a wrote: »

Bear in mind matters pertaining to illegal waste transfer are in many cases strict liability.....

but in this case, unless they can prove otherwise, that liability will sit with the name of the person the letters are addressed to.


They can't just blame the person now in residence, on a strict liability basis.


If It were me I would simply reply "this refuse pre-dates my residence at the property, I have no further information to add and will be declining your offer of an interview"


And if, per chance, this is an interview that you can be forced to attend, reply "no comment" to every question.


They are trying to prove that someone else's waste is yours. You cannot say anything to them that will help your case here.


tim

tim123456789

eddddy wrote: »

... in fact, some councils treat putting rubbish out for collection on the wrong day as fly-tipping, or putting excess rubbish next to a full wheelie bin on collection day as fly-tipping.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/22/mothers-270-fly-tipping-fine-putting-rubbish-wrong-day-outside/

but that wasn't for being "disorganised" and putting it out a day early


It was for attempting to pretend it was someone else's waste

sparky130a

tim123456789 wrote: »

but in this case, unless they can prove otherwise, that liability will sit with the name of the person the letters are addressed to.


They can't just blame the person now in residence, on a strict liability basis.


If It were me I would simply reply "this refuse pre-dates my residence at the property, I have no further information to add and will be declining your offer of an interview"


And if, per chance, this is an interview that you can be forced to attend, reply "no comment" to every question.


They are trying to prove that someone else's waste is yours. You cannot say anything to them that will help your case here.


tim

It's not clear from the OP's posts whose letters they were.

I'm simply advising from a professional perspective where we get waste removed from site.

I've no idea how council and residential properties like this case work. Or indeed whether the statute is different.

davidmcn

sparky130a wrote: »

Bear in mind matters pertaining to illegal waste transfer are in many cases strict liability.....

Yes, but the council still needs to prove liability in the first place, it's not up to the OP to prove their innocence.

PasturesNew

This is one of those instances where, in the modern world, you can be fined for stuff you didn't even know you had to know...

It is the householder's responsibility to make sure that anybody getting rid of waste for them holds the correct and necessary Waste License.

This, to me, is a nonsense... how on earth would you know that you needed to know/do this - hiring a builder should make it "his problem" imho.

It's one of the ways in which the modern world is broken.

Councils are not there to assist and to "work for us".... their job is to trick us and trip us up and to make us all suffer.... some lucky jobsworth probably got a promotion for thinking these rules up.

All the best.

greyfox

lythrodondas wrote: »

..... apparently waste had been disposed of illegally - in a different borough - and had included old post to the address.

Do you have a new address for the previous owners? The only thing you know for certain is that the waste included post addressed to them so it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that the council contact them rather than you. Doubly so if their new address is in the same borough as the flytip.

davidmcn

PasturesNew wrote: »

Councils are not there to assist and to "work for us".... their job is to trick us and trip us up and to make us all suffer.... some lucky jobsworth probably got a promotion for thinking these rules up.

What makes you think the council thought up the rules? They're the law, passed by Westminster.

And without rules of this sort, what's to stop anyone claiming "oh, it was probably those blokes in the white van I paid in cash who chucked it over the hedge"?

sparky130a

PasturesNew wrote: »

It is the householder's responsibility to make sure that anybody getting rid of waste for them holds the correct and necessary Waste License.

This, to me, is a nonsense... how on earth would you know that you needed to know/do this - hiring a builder should make it "his problem" imho.

Problem is from what the OP has said they don't have that evidence. Hence my comment about strict liability.

We routinely follow waste carriers after they leave site to make sure the waste is going where the documentation states.

Granted we're a commercial operation so probably far more likely to be prosecuted than a resident but the point stands...

Do i agree with it... Well that's another matter...

stator

Consult a solicitor.
Don't go to this meeting 'under caution' unless you have a solicitor.
I don't know the rules but if you didn't ask to see the builder's waste management licence you could be liable, or the builder could be liable or both of you could be.
The council will know the rules and if you go in for interview they will get you to say something that will incriminate you.
You might think that saying "I didn't know I needed to check this or that" might get them to drop the matter, but admitting anything could be held against you as ignorance is no excude and the council won't care about you.

david1951

lythrodondas wrote: »

we received a letter inviting us to respond to questions under caution as apparently waste had been disposed of illegally

Pretty sure you can only be under police caution if you have admitted guilt. Sounds like you aren't being "cautioned" and this is just language intended to scare you. Bit like parking charges that are actually invoices.

I agree with the above that you need a solicitor present if you are going to be questioned, and remember that you have the right to remain silent in any form of questioning.