We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

FPN for littering in the local area, 2 streets away

124

Comments

  • Nearlyold said:
    Brie said:
    Someone could have stolen your garbage hoping to find bank statements or whatever might be useful for committing fraud and ended up dumping the bag somewhere.  

    Bin collectors might have emptied your bin but then managed to drop a bag a couple of blocks over.

    Personally I'd like to see this go to court as I doubt anyone would take the council seriously if they pushed things that far.

    And given that they've changed what they say they have as evidence that doesn't help their case too much.  It'd be great if there was photos from the body cam of an official which shows some suspicious looking individual dropping the bag somewhere that could be compared to the OP who might be 30 years older and look admirably respectable.
    There is no body cam footage, talk of body cams was introduced by the OP in his second letter to the  council. The council then sent a standard reply to the OP's request to see the body cam footage without checking whether it was relevant.
    I think the standard of communication from Ealing is appalling and does nothing to help anybody issued with a FPN decide whether to pay it or fight it.

    1.  The letter* accompanying the FPN clearly states that the OP was "witnessed" committing an offence of littering and the FPN itself clearly refers to s87 of the EPA.

    2.  I think most people reading that letter would interpret the word "witnessed" as meaning that the OP had actually been seen physically "depositing" litter in person by a council EO.

    3.  The OP knows it was impossible for them to have been seen depositing the litter at the alleged time and place as they know they weren't there - and apparently thinks they can prove it.

    4.  Knowing that council EOs wear bodycams and assuming that the alleged offence must therefore have been witnessed on bodycam, the OP has (not unreasonably in my view) challeneged the council as to what evidence they have of the OP physically committing an offence.

    5.  The council makes a wholly misleading and wrong reply falsely implying that there was some sort of confrontation or interaction between their EO and the OP:  "The Body Worn Camera footage recorded is that of the interaction between yourself and the officer,and not of the offence occurring."

    6.  The council admits that their statement referred to in 5. above was made in error, but also for some bizarre reason starts talking about fly tipping under s33 of the EPA, and not littering under s87 which is what the FPN was issued for.

    I'm aware that councils are in the habit of sending out misleading and inaccurate demands for money when dealing with decriminalised parking infringements, but the OP here is being accused of committing a criminal offence which - according to the council letter accompanying the FPN - could result in the OP getting a criminal record.

    I think it's unacceptable when dealing with allegations of criminal offences that councils should send out inaccurate, confusing and misleading letters apparently written by half-wits.  

    Anybody accused of committing a criminal offence deserves to receive a proper explanation of the offence commited, and if the council invite represenatations from the alleged offender then they deserve to have them properly considered and not answered by an irrelevant standard letter.

    If this case ends up in court the OP should draw the court's attention to the misleading and confusing content of the council's replies to them.


    *What I don't understand is that the FPN itself merely says "I have reason to believe that on... you committed etc etc... " which seems to me to be an accurate statement.  Why the council should then over-extend itself in the accompanying letter (which I presume they were not required to send) by falsely stating to the OP that they had been "witnessed" committing the offence is a mystery.  They could just have said "We have found evidence leading us to believe... "
  • Good spot
    I did wonder why I linked to the incorrect section, when rechecked I just looked at the FPN.

    So to try and get OP to pay FPN  they have lied about being witnessed and quoting S87 that has a a much higher sentence limit.
    I don't think it's necessarily deliberate - it's probably incompetence.

    Many councils (particularly in London) have become accustomed to dealing lazily with parking enforcement.  They know that most people issued with a PCN will pay up, and even most of those who make representations will pay up rather than take it to a tribunal after the council wrongly reject their representations.

    It's not acceptable with parking infringements and doubly not acceptable with criminal allegations.
  • born_again
    born_again Posts: 18,324 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Fifth Anniversary Name Dropper
    OP said had CCTV, but has never answered the question if this is internal or external & showing someone taking rubbish out.
    Life in the slow lane
  • Manxman_in_exile
    Manxman_in_exile Posts: 8,380 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 20 January 2023 at 3:44PM
    OP said had CCTV, but has never answered the question if this is internal or external & showing someone taking rubbish out.
    It's true that we don't know what home CCTV evidence the OP has that they think establishes that they didn't commit this offence.  It may amount to proof that they didn't commit the offence, or it may not.  Only a court could say.

    And whether any CCTV the OP has shows them putting out rubbish is irrelevant.  What the OP thinks is important is whether their CCTV does or does not tend to show that they were in their house at 8:37am.  

    Why does the OP think that that is what is important?    [Edit:  because the OP thinks the council letter is specifically accusing them of having been seen committing the offence at exactly 8:37 am - the time on the FPN - but the OP knows they were at home at that specific time and thinks their CCTV shows this]

    What I understand to have happened here is that the OP has received a FPN saying "I have reason to believe that you committed an offence of littering blah blah blah... ".  The FPN doesn't say so but the "reason" is that rubbish has been found in their neghbourhood and something in that rubbish shows some connection to the OP.   [Edit: nowhere does the FPN state that the OP was "witnessed" committing the offence]

    The purpose of the FPN is to give the OP an opportunity, if they committed the offence, to make it go away by paying a fixed penalty.  If the OP thinks they are innocent of the offence or they simply choose not to pay the fixed penalty, they can let the council take it to court and risk a criminal conviction (and a criminal record according to the council's letter)

    That's all fair enough and the OP can make a decision based on what they know and what the FPN tells them.

    But what I think has happened here is that the council has muddied the water unnecessarily and has prejudiced the OP's decision by telling the OP that they were "witnessed" committing the offence.  In doing so they have gone beyond saying "we have reason to believe etc..." and are saying that they have actually seen the OP in person committing the offence.    [Edit:  I suspect the "witnessed" bit is part of a standard form template, but if the OP was never "witnessed" committing the offence it should have been deleted as it is misleading and potentially prejudicial to the OP's decision whether or not to pay the FPN]

    Reading between the lines of the OP's first post, I think this unsupported claim by the council that the OP has been "witnessed" committing the offence (which the OP assures us cannot be true) has caused the OP to challenge the council as to what evidence they have (bodycam or whatever) of the OP physically committing the offence.  The OP has then received a second false and misleading letter from the coucil which seems to imply that there is video of some kind of interaction or confrontation between the OP and an Enforcement Officer, but no video of the actual littering offence.

    I think all this poor communication from the council has encouraged a growing sense of unfairness and indignation in the OP such that they have decided (correctly or not) that there is no way that they are paying the FPN, and that they will face the council in the magistrates court, no matter what the cost.

    My concern is that by making at least a couple of statements* that the OP considers blatantly untrue** and which have greatly annoyed the OP - because they know those statements are untrue - the council has misled the OP into deciding not to pay the FPN when perhaps it might have been in their better interests to do so.

    If this ever gets to trial and the OP ends up losing (and I'm not convinced they would lose, but they might) I would be making sure that the court knew that my decision not to pay the FPN was partly based on the false statements from the council that (1) I'd been witnessed committing the offence in person and (2) that there'd been an "interaction" beween the OP and an EO, both of which the OP knew to be false


    *  Plus the council muddied the waters further by referring in one of their emails to fly-tipping and offences under s33 EPA whereas the FPN actually seems to refer only to an offence under s87

    **  I am assuming that the OP denies that they could ever have been witnessed committing the offence (because they never committed it and were at home at the time anyway) and also denies any interaction with an EO (because that never happened either).


  • @ifti -  if I understand correctly the deadline for payment of the FPN expired last Friday - yes?

    I'm not a lawyer and I'm not giving you legal advice.  What I say below is just my opinion.  How you handle this is up to you, but you might want to check out what I say with Citizens's Advice.  (Or with your local law centre if you have one, or a local university law dept if they have a free legal clinic)


    If the council do decide to prosecute you with a littering offence under s87 EPA, I tend to think that @HillStreetBlues is correct and that just finding litter bearing your address (or whatever the connection to you is) would not be sufficient to convict you under s87 without other evidence of you actually committing the offence in person.

    Basically the offence is here Environmental Protection Act 1990 (legislation.gov.uk) and says:


    "s87 Offence of leaving litter...

    (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he throws down, drops or otherwise deposits any litter in any place to which this section applies and leaves it."


    I would argue that "Evidence... found within a black sack which linked the waste to you at your address" is purely circumstantial and is not necessarily sufficient to prove that YOU threw down, dropped or otherwise deposited it and left it.  If it gets to court remember to point out to the magistrates that there might be other explanations for the litter being found as it was rather than that you were responsible for dropping it and leaving it.  

    Also remember that as this is a criminal offence, the council need to prove that you did it beyond reasonable doubt.  Personally I don't think that finding a bin bag of litter containing evidence linking to someone's address is evidence beyond reasonable doubt that they left it.  But who knows what magistrates might decide?

    If the council do decide to prosecute you, you'll probably receive a SJPN charging you with an offence under s87 EPA and asking you to plead Guilty or Not Guilty.  At that point I'd suggest you check with Citizens' Advice or a local law centre or law clinic as suggested above and seek their views.  Certainly come back here.

    Don't just rely on what I've outlined above.  I may be completely wrong!


    (As I understand it there are other offences under the EPA to do with fly-tipping and waste dumping where a person can be convicted of an offence where a third party has illegally disposed of waste belonging to them.  This is usually where the person has engaged a "waste disposal contractor" without checking whether that contractor has a "waste carrier number" - which can be found on the Environment Agency's Public Register.  In those cases they use evidence from the dumped waste to trace back who the waste belonged to by looking at addresses etc.  But as I understand it those are offences where the person is charged with permitting or allowing the dumping of waste by a third party.  I don't think that is what is happening to you.  You are being accused of dropping the litter yourself.)
  • NBLondon
    NBLondon Posts: 5,650 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Random thought...

    If I have put something in my bin with my address on it (which I don't actually do) and I am later issued an FPN by the council allegedly having fly-tipped or littered - do I have a defence that I paid a responsible organisation to remove my refuse and hence that organisation should be a co-defendant in court?   Especially since I m paying Council Tax for the same council to do exactly that?
    I need to think of something new here...
  • born_again
    born_again Posts: 18,324 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Fifth Anniversary Name Dropper
    OP said had CCTV, but has never answered the question if this is internal or external & showing someone taking rubbish out.
    It's true that we don't know what home CCTV evidence the OP has that they think establishes that they didn't commit this offence.  It may amount to proof that they didn't commit the offence, or it may not.  Only a court could say.

    And whether any CCTV the OP has shows them putting out rubbish is irrelevant.  What the OP thinks is important is whether their CCTV does or does not tend to show that they were in their house at 8:37am.  

    The thought is if the OP has CCTV showing a 3rd party taking a black bag out of the bin, it gives some kind of defence. 

    But Op really does need to stop putting letters with address in the bin without destroying the address. 
    Life in the slow lane
  • Alderbank
    Alderbank Posts: 3,594 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    OP said had CCTV, but has never answered the question if this is internal or external & showing someone taking rubbish out.
    It's true that we don't know what home CCTV evidence the OP has that they think establishes that they didn't commit this offence.  It may amount to proof that they didn't commit the offence, or it may not.  Only a court could say.

    And whether any CCTV the OP has shows them putting out rubbish is irrelevant.  What the OP thinks is important is whether their CCTV does or does not tend to show that they were in their house at 8:37am.  

    The thought is if the OP has CCTV showing a 3rd party taking a black bag out of the bin, it gives some kind of defence. 

    But Op really does need to stop putting letters with address in the bin without destroying the address. 
    To be fair, in the opening post the OP said, 'I fail to understand how one of our black bags ended up 2 streets away from our home, plus with our name and address on it, i have always crossed it off and put in recycling never in a black bin bag...'
  • NBLondon said:
    Random thought...

    If I have put something in my bin with my address on it (which I don't actually do) and I am later issued an FPN by the council allegedly having fly-tipped or littered - do I have a defence that I paid a responsible organisation to remove my refuse and hence that organisation should be a co-defendant in court?   Especially since I m paying Council Tax for the same council to do exactly that?
    As long as they have a waste licence, in my area at least.

  • ifti
    ifti Posts: 349 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    Hi, everyone, thank you to all for the awesome replies, we have external CCTV and i cant see anyone taking any of our black bags out, even then i always cross out the name and address and put in recycling and not black bin.
    Our waste is picked up on Mondays and black bin is every fornightly.
    Lets see what happens in the next few weeks.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 348.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 452.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 240.8K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 617K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 175.6K Life & Family
  • 254K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.