We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
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 fly tipping. Interview under caution
Options
Comments
-
General_Applause wrote: »But then we giving evidence to the council that they will use against you. Don't forget you would be talking direct to the prosecution and you just don't do that. They will spend as much time as they need to pick holes in your 'explanation'.
If the OP is absolutely certain that the rubbish bags did not contain anything with her name and address on, I would advise her to sit tight, ignore the 'invite' and see what the council do.
If they do prosecute, they will have to supply you with the evidence they have beforehand and you are perfectly entitled to state your case to the court and have the judge decide,which is what they are paid handsomely to do. There can be no adverse inference taken from lack of answers to questions that were never asked.
This would be magistrates court; and likely a lay bench0 -
The OP has moved away from the location where the fly tipping took place. We could probably reasonably presume that having gone to the effort to track her down at her new address they have some form of evidence that makes their wish to speak to her likely to be based on more than an uninformed 'fishing trip'.General_Applause wrote: »But then we giving evidence to the council that they will use against you. Don't forget you would be talking direct to the prosecution and you just don't do that. They will spend as much time as they need to pick holes in your 'explanation'.
What would you do if:-General_Applause wrote: »If the OP is absolutely certain that the rubbish bags did not contain anything with her name and address on, I would advise her to sit tight, ignore the 'invite' and see what the council do.
(A) The OP is unsure if the rubbish contains identifying information (having regard to her having more concerning things to be dealing with at the time)?
(B) The Council's reaction to the lack of contact is to issue a FPN?
Do you not think the OP should get professional advice to try and avoid getting to the point where they have to make an appearance in court?General_Applause wrote: »If they do prosecute, they will have to supply you with the evidence they have beforehand and you are perfectly entitled to state your case to the court and have the judge decide,which is what they are paid handsomely to do. There can be no adverse inference taken from lack of answers to questions that were never asked.
Providing evidence they weren't responsible, or getting the matter dealt with through a (discounted) FPN would almost certainly be better than making an appearance in court."In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
The OP has moved away from the location where the fly tipping took place. We could probably reasonably presume that having gone to the effort to track her down at her new address they have some form of evidence that makes their wish to speak to her likely to be based on more than an uninformed 'fishing trip'.
What would you do if:-
(A) The OP is unsure if the rubbish contains identifying information (having regard to her having more concerning things to be dealing with at the time)?
(B) The Council's reaction to the lack of contact is to issue a FPN?
Do you not think the OP should get professional advice to try and avoid getting to the point where they have to make an appearance in court?
Providing evidence they weren't responsible, or getting the matter dealt with through a (discounted) FPN would almost certainly be better than making an appearance in court.
FPNs are not better than court; just FYI.
They are a travesty of justice0 -
The OP has moved away from the location where the fly tipping took place. We could probably reasonably presume that having gone to the effort to track her down at her new address they have some form of evidence that makes their wish to speak to her likely to be based on more than an uninformed 'fishing trip'.
The OP did state that the council is housing her, albeit in private rented so no great effort required there.What would you do if:-
(A) The OP is unsure if the rubbish contains identifying information (having regard to her having more concerning things to be dealing with at the time)?
(B) The Council's reaction to the lack of contact is to issue a FPN?
As regards A, the obvious defence is that after she moved out, the landlord but not her, would have access to any mail delivered to her old address. If the landlord just dumped it, she would have no control over that.
As for B, councils are notoriously money-grabbing. If they thought they had a case, they would have issued a FPN first.Do you not think the OP should get professional advice to try and avoid getting to the point where they have to make an appearance in court?
Providing evidence they weren't responsible, or getting the matter dealt with through a (discounted) FPN would almost certainly be better than making an appearance in court.
Yes, it would be preferable but she has stated that she is finding it difficult to get that advice.0 -
It depends on the circumstances - a FPN might be cheaper than legal representation in court, a fine, victim surcharge, plus costs.FPNs are not better than court; just FYI.
They are a travesty of justice
I reitterate the point - the OP needs to get legal advice on their situation, rather than having helpful people make suggestions about laying low and hoping it all goes away.
As for the 'travesty of justice', that is the point I'm trying to make to General Applause. Assuming the Council don't have any evidence, or that you will get your day in court, is a potentially dangerous approach to adopt. If the Council go down the FPN route (at little cost to them) then the onus is placed on the recipient to challenge the penalty. If you are innocent it may make little sense to keep quiet and then having to deal with the FPN when it arrives. Hence the recommendation to seek legal advice. (Just FYI, I have been involved in the introduction of FPN enforcement for certain environmental offences)
You are assuming the council department responsible for enforcing fly tipping is legally able to obtain address details of an individual being housed by the council department responsible for housing. (Clue: just because they are both council departments doesn't automatically mean they can hand over people's personal data. Council tenants have rights too.)General_Applause wrote: »The OP did state that the council is housing her, albeit in private rented so no great effort required there.
Obviously, but your advice was to "sit tight, ignore the 'invite' and see what the council do" if "the OP is absolutely certain that the rubbish bags did not contain anything with her name and address on". The question I was asking is how you would adapt that advice if the OP is not sure?General_Applause wrote: »As regards A, the obvious defence is that after she moved out, the landlord but not her, would have access to any mail delivered to her old address. If the landlord just dumped it, she would have no control over that.
(Less obviously, if the items are dated some weeks/months before they moved out then the 'landlord' excuse is less easy to use)
Don't let your prejudice about 'money-grabbing' councils blind you to other possibilities. First and foremost councils want to stop flytipping.General_Applause wrote: »As for B, councils are notoriously money-grabbing. If they thought they had a case, they would have issued a FPN first.
I can see two other possible scenarios:-
1) They are broadly aware of the OP's circumstances and want to gather further information before deciding what to do (including considering the 'public interest' test).
2) They believe the Landlord to be responsible, but need the OP's confirmation of their suspicions before they can act. Bear in mind that (if responsible) the landlord will have flytipped the waste in a business capacity and therefore is of far greater interest to a 'money-grabbing' council.
The difficulty of getting the advice doesn't alter the need for it.General_Applause wrote: »Yes, it would be preferable but she has stated that she is finding it difficult to get that advice."In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
It depends on the circumstances - a FPN might be cheaper than legal representation in court, a fine, victim surcharge, plus costs. - That might be good for a guilty person, but we should not circumvent the legal process to let off criminal; alternatively as you said innocent people may decide that paying the FPN is better than risking a bigger punishment. Neither of these is a desirable outcome.
I reitterate the point - the OP needs to get legal advice on their situation, rather than having helpful people make suggestions about laying low and hoping it all goes away. - I'm not suggesting ignoring the situation.
As for the 'travesty of justice', that is the point I'm trying to make to General Applause. Assuming the Council don't have any evidence, or that you will get your day in court, is a potentially dangerous approach to adopt. - possibly, but the courts require a beyond reasonable doubt approach, the council issuing an FPN do not. If the Council go down the FPN route (at little cost to them) then the onus is placed on the recipient to challenge the penalty. - that is not true, the recipient simply tells the council to prove their case in court. If you are innocent it may make little sense to keep quiet and then having to deal with the FPN when it arrives. - there is much less work dealing with an FPN (approx. 5 mins) than attending at the council Hence the recommendation to seek legal advice. (Just FYI, I have been involved in the introduction of FPN enforcement for certain environmental offences) - so on a personal level do you believe that justice is done and seen to be done - the basis of our justice system - with FPNs?
You are assuming the council department responsible for enforcing fly tipping is legally able to obtain address details of an individual being housed by the council department responsible for housing. - they do, in certain circumstances. As I'm sure you're aware data protection rules explicitly allow data access for the enforcement of the law (Clue: just because they are both council departments doesn't automatically mean they can hand over people's personal data. Council tenants have rights too.)
Obviously, but your advice was to "sit tight, ignore the 'invite' and see what the council do" if "the OP is absolutely certain that the rubbish bags did not contain anything with her name and address on". The question I was asking is how you would adapt that advice if the OP is not sure?
(Less obviously, if the items are dated some weeks/months before they moved out then the 'landlord' excuse is less easy to use)
Don't let your prejudice about 'money-grabbing' councils blind you to other possibilities. First and foremost councils want to stop flytipping. - Without being accused of paranoia; councils claim all sorts of things.
I can see two other possible scenarios:-
1) They are broadly aware of the OP's circumstances and want to gather further information before deciding what to do (including considering the 'public interest' test).
2) They believe the Landlord to be responsible, but need the OP's confirmation of their suspicions before they can act. Bear in mind that (if responsible) the landlord will have flytipped the waste in a business capacity and therefore is of far greater interest to a 'money-grabbing' council.
The difficulty of getting the advice doesn't alter the need for it.
I agree though that legal advice should be sought0 -
As per, "It depends on the circumstances".“ It depends on the circumstances - a FPN might be cheaper than legal representation in court, a fine, victim surcharge, plus costs. - That might be good for a guilty person, but we should not circumvent the legal process to let off criminal; alternatively as you said innocent people may decide that paying the FPN is better than risking a bigger punishment. Neither of these is a desirable outcome.
I'm aware, my comment was directed at those contributing to the thread who were suggesting that approach.I reitterate the point - the OP needs to get legal advice on their situation, rather than having helpful people make suggestions about laying low and hoping it all goes away. - I'm not suggesting ignoring the situation.
Exactly the point. The 'assume they have no evidence and ignore them' approach fails because councils can issue a FPN on the basis of not much more than mere suspicion.As for the 'travesty of justice', that is the point I'm trying to make to General Applause. Assuming the Council don't have any evidence, or that you will get your day in court, is a potentially dangerous approach to adopt. - possibly, but the courts require a beyond reasonable doubt approach, the council issuing an FPN do not.
- at which point the recipient needs to consider obtaining legal representation, taking time off work/arranging childcare for a court appearance and source their own evidence bundle. That is what I mean by the 'onus' being placed on the recipient.If the Council go down the FPN route (at little cost to them) then the onus is placed on the recipient to challenge the penalty. - that is not true, the recipient simply tells the council to prove their case in court.
There are other ways of dealing with the issue - such as seeking legal advice and sending in a written statement setting out the facts as they see them. The 5 mins estimate for dealing with a FPN would be on the basis of returning it with a 'see you in court' which may be the start of a much more time consuming process.If you are innocent it may make little sense to keep quiet and then having to deal with the FPN when it arrives. - there is much less work dealing with an FPN (approx. 5 mins) than attending at the council
Mixed views. Should councils have a method of penalising people for throwing cigarette butts and other litter on the street? -Yes. Should people be dragged through the courts for throwing a cigarette butt on the street? - No. It would be disproportional, and so expensive that it would only be used in very rare cases. That raises the potential that the majority of offenders escape with no punishment, whereas an unlucky few get treated quite harshly.(Just FYI, I have been involved in the introduction of FPN enforcement for certain environmental offences) - so on a personal level do you believe that justice is done and seen to be done - the basis of our justice system - with FPNs?
The FPN system gives a middle ground of issuing a low-cost/low-impact penalty (with deterrent effect) with income raised by the system directly funding enforcement and clearing up the consequence of that kind of offence.
For me the more important question is why the costs of conventional justice (via the courts) has been allowed to become so inflated that it is usually only considered in the very most serious of circumstances.
Flytipping costs councils a ridiculous amount of money to clear. Given the proportion of offences which are successfully penalised, and the (net) revenue generated by the enforcement process, every council I have worked with would simply want flytipping stopped for financial reasons, let alone the environmental and social impacts it has.Don't let your prejudice about 'money-grabbing' councils blind you to other possibilities. First and foremost councils want to stop flytipping. - Without being accused of paranoia; councils claim all sorts of things.
There is no shortage of other offences the 'money-grabbing' councils could divert their enforcement activities to if flytipping stopped."In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
Exactly the point. The 'assume they have no evidence and ignore them' approach fails because councils can issue a FPN on the basis of not much more than mere suspicion. - exactly, and yet the accused would be forced to either pay up or as you put it later book childcare, time off work, get legal advice etc. FPNs are genuinely terrible.
- at which point the recipient needs to consider obtaining legal representation, taking time off work/arranging childcare for a court appearance and source their own evidence bundle. That is what I mean by the 'onus' being placed on the recipient.
There are other ways of dealing with the issue - such as seeking legal advice and sending in a written statement setting out the facts as they see them. - i suggested this as an option. The 5 mins estimate for dealing with a FPN would be on the basis of returning it with a 'see you in court' which may be the start of a much more time consuming process. - indeed, one which the council may choose not to pursue, because as you rightly point out the cost is prohibitive.
Mixed views. Should councils have a method of penalising people for throwing cigarette butts and other litter on the street? -Yes. - No, the council should not have ANY punitive powers. That is why we have courts. Should people be dragged through the courts for throwing a cigarette butt on the street? - No. - yes, they should. Justice seen to be done is the deterrent. It would be disproportional, and so expensive that it would only be used in very rare cases. - where are the actual costs. The court sits regardless, the council enforcement team are paid regardless. Of course they are in court, rather than doing other work, but that is the price of a justice system. At the end of the day the system already pits the resources of the state against a single person, how much much further do you want to 'rig' the match That raises the potential that the majority of offenders escape with no punishment, whereas an unlucky few get treated quite harshly. - much like any other offence.
The FPN system gives a middle ground of issuing a low-cost/low-impact penalty (with deterrent effect) - £50 is a lot of money to some people. with income raised by the system directly funding enforcement - indeed, in most cases to private firms... and clearing up the consequence of that kind of offence.
For me the more important question is why the costs of conventional justice (via the courts) has been allowed to become so inflated - it's not inflated though. What is it you believe the costs is? that it is usually only considered in the very most serious of circumstances. - magistrates courts deal with 95% of cases and these range from littering to quite nasty assaults.
Flytipping costs councils a ridiculous amount of money to clear. Given the proportion of offences which are successfully penalised, and the (net) revenue generated by the enforcement process, every council I have worked with would simply want flytipping stopped for financial reasons, let alone the environmental and social impacts it has. - That I can believe, but I don't believe the strategy is to tackle fly tipping, but to target john smith.
There is no shortage of other offences the [/COLOR][/COLOR]'money-grabbing' councils could divert their enforcement activities to if flytipping stopped.
Indeed, but much like the police the role seems to be evolving from investigative to punitive. A very dangerous shift.0 -
The FPN will probably be cheaper than the 'professional advice'.0
-
Good afternoon,
Similar situation to the post. My brother who lives in the same road as me was contacted and told he had disposed of a bag of household goods behind a block of flats where *I* live. We do not share the same forename but do surname.
The picture of the offending waste had a letter addressed to my late father in it, We have been sorting probate for his estate. My brother has said it can't have been him as he has never dumped a bag there, So he gave my details. I have contacted them and they have sent me three pictures with names and addresses of letters in the bag, one of my fathers and two of persons I've never heard of.
I've asked them for proof or evidence that there is anything with my name on it, they have negated to answer but said I must go in for an interview. Surely I cannot be liable for something not in my name, with no other evidence but seemingly only linked because my brother said I lived there?
Thank you in advance.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards