Fly-Tipping Accusation

lisyloo

On the assumption that the OP suggests that the letters may be addressed to the OP (albeit not in his name)

This is absolutely an assumption of yours not mine.
So I’m sure why you think it’s safe to speculate on the basis of what you freely admit is an assumption.
Oh and it’s a single letter not letters (pertinent I think).


A full bag of post to one address is very different to a mixed bag with a single letter.
I think a full bag to the same address would be much more compelling to investigate further than one stray letter for which there are many explanations (I get other people’s post all the time in fact I’ve complained to Royal Mail about it).



A full bag is compelling evidence.
One stray letter is not compelling evidence as our postal service is a bit rubbish.

Exodi

Comms69 wrote: »

I agree with you; but FPNs are terrible - it's unjust to both suspect and society.


I doubt a court would convict on the basis of a single letter. It must be, quite rightly, beyond reasonable doubt

lisyloo wrote: »

This is absolutely an assumption of yours not mine.
So I’m sure why you think it’s safe to speculate on the basis of what you freely admit is an assumption.
Oh and it’s a single letter not letters (pertinent I think).

A full bag of post to one address is very different to a mixed bag with a single letter.
I think a full bag to the same address would be much more compelling to investigate further than one stray letter for which there are many explanations (I get other people’s post all the time in fact I’ve complained to Royal Mail about it).

A full bag is compelling evidence.
One stray letter is not compelling evidence as our postal service is a bit rubbish.

Upon re-reading the OP it would seem it is just one letter (apologies I had originally incorrectly read this) so I'll stop letting my scepticism & speculation run away with me and agree with you both.

If it was the one letter, as said, I'd probably also skip the interview and challenge the FPN if/when it arrives.

[Deleted User]

For what it's worth, this was the experience of an acquaintance of mine last year:

Having moved into his girlfriend's flat, he rented out his own flat for the first time in London. He'd redirected his post and told his tenants this, but a few pieces of unsolicited/junk mail addressed to him got through. His tenants put the junk mail in a bin bag with their own rubbish and put it out on the pavement on collection day, thinking this is what they were supposed to do (they'd not done the right thing with their rubbish, but I can't remember the details as to why). Like you, my acquaintance received an invitation to interview under caution from the local authority (Lambeth Council). He phoned them and explained what had happened - and his tenants confirmed this (effectively admitting the "fly-tipping" albeit unintentionally) - but Lambeth Council pursued him so he attended the interview and they explained to him that it was his responsibility to instruct his tenants on how to correctly dispose of their waste. He ended up paying £400 to make it go away, rather than risk any enforcement and a much higher bill.

martindow

There is another thread


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5950452#topofpage


where interview under caution is discussed. There is general agreement is these are fishing expeditions where there are no upsides for the person being interviewed and that you should not attend.

Exodi

martindow wrote: »

There is another thread


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5950452#topofpage


where interview under caution is discussed. There is general agreement is these are fishing expeditions where there are no upsides for the person being interviewed and that you should not attend.

I wouldn't say it's that cut and dry or that there is a general agreement? In fact there seems to be an ongoing debate about whether it's preferential to mitigate an FPN and/or court.

I'd encourage anyone to read the thread themselves.

[Deleted User]

OP, the letter that was addressed to your late father - did it show yours or your brother's address?

dodds23

Thank you for your replies.

Maybe I was too vague. Apologies.

My father owns half the property I live at, (Address A) and would still sometimes receive some post there, VERY irregularly though. When he passed away we went to his other property to recover post etc (Address . My brother lives in a house a few doors down the road & he received a letter to that address that was to the 'personal representative and or beneficiary of the late(my father)'. My brother believes they checked records and saw his name and sent correspondence to his address via council tax records.

My brother received the letter and queried it, he says he has never dumped anything up there so he doesn't know how it got there. In doing so he gave my address and name and said he felt it must have come from our rubbish. I emailed them as they said to my brother they would contact me and had no further use for him at this time. I have not received a letter as yet, but they did email yesterday to say they had sent a letter out - likely in todays post.

In the email they sent me yesterday it said "The letter contained a photo of the waste and I have attached additional photos of the correspondence found within the waste." In these photos it shows a letter with my fathers address (Address and also another to (Address but in a name I do not know. There is seemingly nothing with my address or name on it, I have asked twice and it has not been provided.

Now, I was asked if I did dump the rubbish, I don't believe I did, no. Our bins are stored, along with everyone elses in the block, in the area the offending bag was found. Our bins are locked with a skeleton key and have been for about 3 months - the council changed these over from one big grundon bin at that time because we had complained so much about the fly tipping that went on. Thing is I cannot 100% say that it didn't come from our house, But we certainly didn't put it there, especially as we have been the ones moaning about it! I haven't seen either of the offending addressed letters before so I don't believe it was ours.

I don't have free legal advice with house insurance regrettably and I don't want to be paying for a solicitor to come with me when I don't believe this is accusation is just. Thank you.

lisyloo

So they have nothing from your address - address A?

The only thing they have is your brother saying it must have come from you?

Personally I would not be attending but I’d certainly be having words with my brother.

dodds23

So they have nothing from your address - address A?

- No, nothing from my address.

The only thing they have is your brother saying it must have come from you?

- Seemingly, yes. I have asked for any evidence of proof from my address (which I assume they must give) and they can't provide any.

Yes, I have spoken with him, He is certain it is not him.

01afraser4

dodds23 wrote: »

Thank you for your replies.

Maybe I was too vague. Apologies.

My father owns half the property I live at, (Address A) and would still sometimes receive some post there, VERY irregularly though. When he passed away we went to his other property to recover post etc (Address . My brother lives in a house a few doors down the road & he received a letter to that address that was to the 'personal representative and or beneficiary of the late(my father)'. My brother believes they checked records and saw his name and sent correspondence to his address via council tax records.

My brother received the letter and queried it, he says he has never dumped anything up there so he doesn't know how it got there. In doing so he gave my address and name and said he felt it must have come from our rubbish. I emailed them as they said to my brother they would contact me and had no further use for him at this time. I have not received a letter as yet, but they did email yesterday to say they had sent a letter out - likely in todays post.

In the email they sent me yesterday it said "The letter contained a photo of the waste and I have attached additional photos of the correspondence found within the waste." In these photos it shows a letter with my fathers address (Address and also another to (Address but in a name I do not know. There is seemingly nothing with my address or name on it, I have asked twice and it has not been provided.

Now, I was asked if I did dump the rubbish, I don't believe I did, no. Our bins are stored, along with everyone elses in the block, in the area the offending bag was found. Our bins are locked with a skeleton key and have been for about 3 months - the council changed these over from one big grundon bin at that time because we had complained so much about the fly tipping that went on. Thing is I cannot 100% say that it didn't come from our house, But we certainly didn't put it there, especially as we have been the ones moaning about it! I haven't seen either of the offending addressed letters before so I don't believe it was ours.

I don't have free legal advice with house insurance regrettably and I don't want to be paying for a solicitor to come with me when I don't believe this is accusation is just. Thank you.

Okay, so to clarify a couple of things then.

You mentioned that when your father passed away you and your brother went to recover post and other items from the address (address . Am I right in assuming you would have then disposed of this in your own addresses waste (Address A)?

If so, then the council seem to be working on the assumption that you've collected the waste from address B and it's then been dumped at Address A. So if it hasn't been done by yourself and the bins are stored and locked then the only reasonable assumption would be that a neighbour with access to the bins has removed the bag and dumped it. I'm not sure how easy or difficult that would be to prove though.