Offence of Littering - Opportunity to pay fixed fine. Local Council

MCT56

You have no case to answer - it wasn’t you. Just write back to the Council and tell them that you know nothing about it. They have to prove you were the person responsible. You weren’t there. They can’t assume you were that person just because you have a car registered in your name. It’s nonsense and they should know it. 

MattMattMattUK

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Littering makes the world we all live in a worse place, why is everyone trying to give the litterer a way out?

OP wasn't the litterer, wasn't even present when the offence occurred so the only comment he could make about the identity of the offender would be hearsay 

I am aware the OP was not the litterer, however as the culprit and his wife both confirmed the aunt was at fault.

Aylesbury_Duck

MCT56 said:

You have no case to answer - it wasn’t you. Just write back to the Council and tell them that you know nothing about it. They have to prove you were the person responsible. You weren’t there. They can’t assume you were that person just because you have a car registered in your name. It’s nonsense and they should know it. 

Only that isn't true, is it.  

lincroft1710

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Littering makes the world we all live in a worse place, why is everyone trying to give the litterer a way out?

OP wasn't the litterer, wasn't even present when the offence occurred so the only comment he could make about the identity of the offender would be hearsay 

I am aware the OP was not the litterer, however as the culprit and his wife both confirmed the aunt was at fault.

As the OP wasn't the litterer he cannot be the culprit


I do not condone littering, but I also do not agree with a council serving a penalty notice for littering on an innocent person who happened to be the registered keeper of the vehicle in which the offender was a passenger and the RK was not actually present

charlie71

Thanks all for your comments/thoughts. Appreciate the time you took to respond.

I have decided to do what @TELLIT01 suggested and write back advising I was not in the area and asking them to provide evidence, which of course they cannot do.

PS @Aylesbury_Duck - This doesn't prevent me from being a decent citizen.

C.

Aylesbury_Duck

charlie71 said:

Thanks all for your comments/thoughts. Appreciate the time you took to respond.

I have decided to do what @TELLIT01 suggested and write back advising I was not in the area and asking them to provide evidence, which of course they cannot do.

PS @Aylesbury_Duck - This doesn't prevent me from being a decent citizen.

C.

In your opinion.  Mine differs.  But then I wouldn't drive a car that's failed its MOT with a dangerous brake fault, either.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6473057/failed-mot-dangerous-fault-now-fixed-old-mot-still-in-date#latest

We evidently have different standards of citizenship.

MattMattMattUK

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Littering makes the world we all live in a worse place, why is everyone trying to give the litterer a way out?

OP wasn't the litterer, wasn't even present when the offence occurred so the only comment he could make about the identity of the offender would be hearsay 

I am aware the OP was not the litterer, however as the culprit and his wife both confirmed the aunt was at fault.

As the OP wasn't the litterer he cannot be the culprit


I do not condone littering, but I also do not agree with a council serving a penalty notice for littering on an innocent person who happened to be the registered keeper of the vehicle in which the offender was a passenger and the RK was not actually present

Typo in my reply, I meant to say "as the culprit has been identified and his with both confirmed that the aunt was at fault", the culprit themselves, as well as a direct witness (the OP's wife) have confirmed that the aunt is the guilty party it is no longer "hearsay". After she did not initially do the decent thing by littering, she should now do the decent think and pay the fine. 

In other countries the OP's Aunt's refusal to give her details would actually upgrade this to a crime rather than a civil penalty and could result in arrest, in the UK people get off lightly with littering. 

user1977

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Littering makes the world we all live in a worse place, why is everyone trying to give the litterer a way out?

OP wasn't the litterer, wasn't even present when the offence occurred so the only comment he could make about the identity of the offender would be hearsay 

I am aware the OP was not the litterer, however as the culprit and his wife both confirmed the aunt was at fault.

As the OP wasn't the litterer he cannot be the culprit


I do not condone littering, but I also do not agree with a council serving a penalty notice for littering on an innocent person who happened to be the registered keeper of the vehicle in which the offender was a passenger and the RK was not actually present

In other countries the OP's Aunt's refusal to give her details would actually upgrade this to a crime rather than a civil penalty and could result in arrest, in the UK people get off lightly with littering. 

Not a crime to refuse to talk to a civilian enforcement officer (and in any event, a somewhat chicken-and-egg problem with enforcing any such obligation if the officer also doesn't have the power to detain you!), though things change if they can find a cop to help out with the questioning...

lincroft1710

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Littering makes the world we all live in a worse place, why is everyone trying to give the litterer a way out?

OP wasn't the litterer, wasn't even present when the offence occurred so the only comment he could make about the identity of the offender would be hearsay 

I am aware the OP was not the litterer, however as the culprit and his wife both confirmed the aunt was at fault.

As the OP wasn't the litterer he cannot be the culprit


I do not condone littering, but I also do not agree with a council serving a penalty notice for littering on an innocent person who happened to be the registered keeper of the vehicle in which the offender was a passenger and the RK was not actually present

Typo in my reply, I meant to say "as the culprit has been identified and his with both confirmed that the aunt was at fault", the culprit themselves, as well as a direct witness (the OP's wife) have confirmed that the aunt is the guilty party it is no longer "hearsay". After she did not initially do the decent thing by littering, she should now do the decent think and pay the fine. 

In other countries the OP's Aunt's refusal to give her details would actually upgrade this to a crime rather than a civil penalty and could result in arrest, in the UK people get off lightly with littering. 

It is hearsay if the OP says the aunt was the guilty party, it is not hearsay if the wife says the aunt was the guilty party as the wife witnessed the offence being committed. 

MattMattMattUK

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Littering makes the world we all live in a worse place, why is everyone trying to give the litterer a way out?

OP wasn't the litterer, wasn't even present when the offence occurred so the only comment he could make about the identity of the offender would be hearsay 

I am aware the OP was not the litterer, however as the culprit and his wife both confirmed the aunt was at fault.

As the OP wasn't the litterer he cannot be the culprit


I do not condone littering, but I also do not agree with a council serving a penalty notice for littering on an innocent person who happened to be the registered keeper of the vehicle in which the offender was a passenger and the RK was not actually present

Typo in my reply, I meant to say "as the culprit has been identified and his with both confirmed that the aunt was at fault", the culprit themselves, as well as a direct witness (the OP's wife) have confirmed that the aunt is the guilty party it is no longer "hearsay". After she did not initially do the decent thing by littering, she should now do the decent think and pay the fine. 

In other countries the OP's Aunt's refusal to give her details would actually upgrade this to a crime rather than a civil penalty and could result in arrest, in the UK people get off lightly with littering. 

It is hearsay if the OP says the aunt was the guilty party, it is not hearsay if the wife says the aunt was the guilty party as the wife witnessed the offence being committed. 

The aunt has confirmed to the OP that she committed the offence, therefore it is not heresy, the wife was a witness.