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

Okell

charlie71 said:

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

Not that it makes much difference I guess, but she didn't confirm it to me (as I have not seen or spoken to her) - and my wife did not see the incident take place either. 

C.

So how did she tell you this:  "I could give them details of the aunt, who has already said she will pay the fine,..."?

LightFlare

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

user1977 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

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...

It is actually an offence with a fine of up to £1000 to refuse details to these people. 

In the OP’s case I can’t see they have to do anything, the enforcement officer will likely have body cam footage (which is likely how the reg was recorded) and if OP is a man and his aunt is a woman odds are it’s pretty clear the OP wasn’t the one dropping the butt. 

In terms of morals, in an ideal world there would be zero fines as zero people would litter, the opposite happens because fines brings in revenue begging the question of whether they really want to stop littering or really want to keep generating revenue from it happening… 

Isn’t an Aunt always a woman ? Or can a male/man now also identify as an Aunt ?

MobileSaver

Okell said:

charlie71 said:

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

Not that it makes much difference I guess, but she didn't confirm it to me (as I have not seen or spoken to her) - and my wife did not see the incident take place either.

So how did she tell you this:  "I could give them details of the aunt, who has already said she will pay the fine,..."?

I'm guessing that the aunt told the OP's wife (who then told the OP) that she would pay the fine rather than the aunt telling the OP directly...

charlie71

Okell said:

charlie71 said:

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

Not that it makes much difference I guess, but she didn't confirm it to me (as I have not seen or spoken to her) - and my wife did not see the incident take place either. 

C.

So how did she tell you this:  "I could give them details of the aunt, who has already said she will pay the fine,..."?

The aunt (a woman!) told my wife (also a woman) on the day that she will pay the fine if one was issued. 

I'll write back to the council telling them I wasn't there. 

Thanks all for the comments   - and happy new year.

C. (a man)

Okell

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

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. 

That is hearsay, being told something about an event where you were not present

It is hearsay, but aren't admissions and confessions a specific exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible?

(Now irrelevant here as the OP has since clarified that the aunt has not told him anything)

lincroft1710

Okell said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

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. 

That is hearsay, being told something about an event where you were not present

It is hearsay, but aren't admissions and confessions a specific exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible?

(Now irrelevant here as the OP has since clarified that the aunt has not told him anything)

My point was only that it was hearsay, I make no comment about hearsay evidence being admissible or otherwise. But in the past in tribunals I have asked that hearsay evidence presented by the other side be disregarded.

RefluentBeans

lincroft1710 said:

Okell said:

lincroft1710 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

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. 

That is hearsay, being told something about an event where you were not present

It is hearsay, but aren't admissions and confessions a specific exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible?

(Now irrelevant here as the OP has since clarified that the aunt has not told him anything)

My point was only that it was hearsay, I make no comment about hearsay evidence being admissible or otherwise. But in the past in tribunals I have asked that hearsay evidence presented by the other side be disregarded.

A large amount of evidence is ‘hearsay’, a lot of it is allowed. The common ‘hearsay rules’ basically stop Chinese whispers being treated as gospel, but in certain cases can still be used (if witnesses are unavailable etc).