PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Litter Fine
frankspencer
post Mon, 23 Mar 2020 - 22:11
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Member No.: 42,540



Hi,

I was in the town center today and as i stood outside a shop eating my sandwich i noticed a pigeon hobbling past me looking for food so i threw him a piece of bread which he ate.

Within 30 seconds i had an enforcement officer come over and tell me he was issuing me with a £150 for littering. I was absolutely gobsmacked and initially refused to give my details over.

He said that would be an offence which would incur an extra fine plus he would call the police i gave him my name and address.

He then issued me with a fixed penalty notice and i left.

After arriving home i have noticed on the ticket that he has written the time as 01.48. Now he hasn't written AM or PM so im treating the time as a 24 hour clock in which case he is stating the offence was committed in the early hours of the morning which is completely wrong.

Can i challenge this on the grounds that the offence(if you can even call it that) did not occur at the time written.

thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7 Pages V  « < 5 6 7  
Start new topic
Replies (120 - 132)
Advertisement
post Mon, 23 Mar 2020 - 22:11
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 20:26
Post #121


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (frankspencer @ Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 20:59) *
Are they being stupid by quoting me Scottish law or am i missing something?

What Scottish law?

I'm sure I warned previously that engaging non-legally trained people would produce further nonsense responses. I would do nothing. You cannot treat these people as if they have any idea what they're talking about, as they've repeatedly shown they haven't got a clue. It's been nearly 4 months already and the council may well not have capacity to issue proceedings before the limitation period is up, so I'd just wait and see what happens.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 20:26


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
frankspencer
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 20:36
Post #122


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Member No.: 42,540



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 20:26) *
QUOTE (frankspencer @ Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 20:59) *
Are they being stupid by quoting me Scottish law or am i missing something?

What Scottish law?

I'm sure I warned previously that engaging non-legally trained people would produce further nonsense responses. I would do nothing. You cannot treat these people as if they have any idea what they're talking about, as they've repeatedly shown they haven't got a clue. It's been nearly 4 months already and the council may well not have capacity to issue proceedings before the limitation period is up, so I'd just wait and see what happens.


See my post at #120 regarding Scottish law as i probably didnt make myself clear.

I engaged with them to see if i could extract anymore nonsense from them. I was hoping they would say filming the incident was 'voyeurism' as explained to me by the officer who gave me the ticket which as you said is BS. Instead they have gone one better and called it entrapment so now i have 2 incorrect reasons why they didnt film it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 20:50
Post #123


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 21:26) *
QUOTE (frankspencer @ Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 20:59) *
Are they being stupid by quoting me Scottish law or am i missing something?

What Scottish law?

I'm sure I warned previously that engaging non-legally trained people would produce further nonsense responses. I would do nothing. You cannot treat these people as if they have any idea what they're talking about, as they've repeatedly shown they haven't got a clue. It's been nearly 4 months already and the council may well not have capacity to issue proceedings before the limitation period is up, so I'd just wait and see what happens.

The legislative quote in #118 from is Scottish/old version of England an Wales law, it’s not the law as it currently stands.

Personally I’d leave it, because if they turn up in court with that they are going to look really stupid.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 20:54
Post #124


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (frankspencer @ Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 21:36) *
I engaged with them to see if i could extract anymore nonsense from them. I was hoping they would say filming the incident was 'voyeurism' as explained to me by the officer who gave me the ticket which as you said is BS. Instead they have gone one better and called it entrapment so now i have 2 incorrect reasons why they didnt film it.

But the nonsense letters don't help or hinder your case, they make no difference. If the case comes to court, all these letters will be entirely irrelevant as the only evidence will be the statements from the officers who gave you the ticket, and your witness testimony. The fact that you've been sent a load of nonsense letters won't even come up and if you bring it up yourself, the court will likely point out that it's irrelevant to the facts in issue.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
frankspencer
post Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 10:55
Post #125


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Member No.: 42,540



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 20:54) *
QUOTE (frankspencer @ Wed, 15 Jul 2020 - 21:36) *
I engaged with them to see if i could extract anymore nonsense from them. I was hoping they would say filming the incident was 'voyeurism' as explained to me by the officer who gave me the ticket which as you said is BS. Instead they have gone one better and called it entrapment so now i have 2 incorrect reasons why they didnt film it.

But the nonsense letters don't help or hinder your case, they make no difference. If the case comes to court, all these letters will be entirely irrelevant as the only evidence will be the statements from the officers who gave you the ticket, and your witness testimony. The fact that you've been sent a load of nonsense letters won't even come up and if you bring it up yourself, the court will likely point out that it's irrelevant to the facts in issue.


Really? If you can send someone incorrect information wether intentionally or unintentionally in order to try and 'pressure' them into paying up before it goes to court and you cant bring it up in court then somethings wrong. There are quite a few things that they have sent me which is incorrect but this one in particular was important for the reason i will come to later.

When the offence under s 87(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 states:-

'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.'


You can then make an argument as to what constitutes litter. However when they send you is this instead:-

'The legislation relating to a littering offence states that a person is guilty of an offence if that person throws down, drops or otherwise deposits in and leaves anything whatsoever in such circumstances as to cause, or contribute to, or tend to lead to, the defacement by litter of any place to which this section applies.'

The words 'anything whatsoever' gives this a slightly different meaning. To me this means 'anything at all' rather than mentioning just litter and came close to making me pay the fine.

Finally if what you say is correct its going to be the officers version of events, which i am not confident is going to be the truth, Vs my version of events. How is the Magistrate going to determine who is telling the truth.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 11:12
Post #126


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



The magistrates will listen to you both and decide if they can be sure the offence was committed beyond reasonable doubt.

They will consider that the council employee (agent) should have nothing to gain by telling an untruth (but you will, but also if you can convince the court the employee was using the wrong standard and didn’t know the law that while he may consider the offence committed that none was.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 11:27
Post #127


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (frankspencer @ Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 11:55) *
Really? If you can send someone incorrect information wether intentionally or unintentionally in order to try and 'pressure' them into paying up before it goes to court and you cant bring it up in court then somethings wrong. There are quite a few things that they have sent me which is incorrect but this one in particular was important for the reason i will come to later.

The question before the court is whether you are guilty of the alleged offence or not. Whether the council has sent you wrong information (which it has) is by the by, at best, after you win at trial, you could make a complaint to the council under the council's formal complaints procedure.

QUOTE (frankspencer @ Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 11:55) *
Finally if what you say is correct its going to be the officers version of events, which i am not confident is going to be the truth, Vs my version of events. How is the Magistrate going to determine who is telling the truth.

That is where the exchanges of correspondence wil help. Your version of events has consistently been that the amount of food was minimal and was such that it cannot be said that you "left" if there. The council's case so far had been that depositing anything, no matter how small in amount and irrespective of the fact that it was eaten by a bird while you were still there amounts, in law, to littering.

So, the officers can come to court and confirm your version of events and say "ah-ha, that is littering" so that you can then make a submission of no case to answer, and the council officers will find out that their understanding of the law is wrong.

Or they can perjure themselves and say that there was a lot more food and you walked away leaving it on the ground, but then you get to cross examine them and ask why it is that this isn't mentioned in their contemporaneous notes (it won't be as it didn't happen) and why it is that the council's story has changed so dramatically now that it's got to court. You then invite the court to infer that their evidence is unreliable because this version of events has not been the basis of the council's case at any stage.

It seems likely that the council officers are genuinely ignorant as to what the law means, and they honestly believe that what you did is legally classed as littering, so there is no real reason for them to lie. If you google "civil litigation brief findings of fact" you'll find dozens of posts of how judges make findings of facts and the process followed by the magistrates will be very similar, but in a nutshell untruths are detected because someone who's being economical with the truth is more likely to tell a story that is internally inconsistent (i.e. contradictory) and doesn't match contemporaneous records (i.e. the notes the officers made at the time).

Don't forget that you'll get to see the prosecution witness statements before you have to enter a plea or outline the basis of your defence. If the written witness statements support your version of events, I wouldn't object to them being relied upon and then they don't even get a chance to change their story at trial as they won't be there (and conversely if they do come to trial, you can cross them on any inconsistencies between their statements and their oral testimony on the day).

For all of the above reasons, I would recommend you:

A) Stop communicating with the council and stop indicating to the council what your defence will be
B) As soon as you get any court paperwork, write to the prosecution and request the initial details of the prosecution case under Part 8 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, so we can see the witness statements and advise on next steps.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
frankspencer
post Thu, 16 Jul 2020 - 11:39
Post #128


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Member No.: 42,540



O.k thank you very much.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
frankspencer
post Mon, 27 Jul 2020 - 18:50
Post #129


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Member No.: 42,540



O.k i received this in the post today:-


FINAL REMINDER

Dear Sir,

Fixed Penalty Notice:xxxxxxxx Environmental Protection Act 1990,
depositing litter namely a Litter - Dep Food


We wrote to you recently giving you an opportunity to avoid prosecution in the Magistrates Court for this offence by

Payment to the Council of £150

You have failed to respond to our letter and as a consequence we are in the process of preparing instructions to our solicitors to institute prosecution proceedings against you for this offence.

This is your final opportunity to avoid prosecution for this offence, with the risk of a fine of up to a maximum of £2500 plus costs. The Council will agree to accept in the sum of £150 provided it is paid no later than 31-07-2020.

Does this mean the Council are really going to go through with this or is it a last ditch attempt to scare me in to paying?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 27 Jul 2020 - 19:02
Post #130


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Well this smacks of desperation to me. With the police if you refuse an offer of a fixed penalty, the file just gets sent for prosecution, no begging letters asking you to settle up. Personally I would ignore it. If a charity looking for a donation were to write to you this often after you'd told them you're not going to pay them anything, you'd be able to report them to the regulator; sadly that does not apply here.

However if they send you *another* letter seeking payment after you ignore this one, I think you'd be entitled to demand, under data protection, that they stop sending you letters seeking payment. Failure to comply might then entitle you to sue the council for unlawfully processing your personal data.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 - 19:07


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Thu, 6 Aug 2020 - 08:17
Post #131


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



Viewers may be interested in this article:

https://metro.co.uk/2020/08/03/furious-woma...-roll-13079206/

Seems very similar to the OP's predicament - i.e. food given to birds and immediately eaten by them. It's unfortunate that the "accused" has paid up in this instance so we cannotsee how it might pan out. However, the remarks by Executive Member for Neighbourhoods, Councillor Rabnawaz Akbar, are interesting. He called feeding the pigeons ‘littering, plain and simple’. He went on: ‘Clear signs are in place in Piccadilly Gardens to advertise this fact. While we take no pleasure in handing out Fixed Penalty Notices to offenders, it’s extremely important that people understand that they should not be feeding the birds in this way. ‘Illegally dropping food for the pigeons is bad for the local environment and can also be harmful to the birds, as many items intended for human consumption are not suitable for them to eat.’

Cllr Akbar also seems to have the opinion that the Environmental Protection Act is designed to ensure birds have a healthy diet. I wonder id he's read this thread?

This post has been edited by NewJudge: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 - 08:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
baroudeur
post Thu, 6 Aug 2020 - 11:09
Post #132


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 938
Joined: 24 Sep 2014
Member No.: 73,212



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Thu, 6 Aug 2020 - 08:17) *
Viewers may be interested in this article:

https://metro.co.uk/2020/08/03/furious-woma...-roll-13079206/

Seems very similar to the OP's predicament - i.e. food given to birds and immediately eaten by them. It's unfortunate that the "accused" has paid up in this instance so we cannotsee how it might pan out. However, the remarks by Executive Member for Neighbourhoods, Councillor Rabnawaz Akbar, are interesting. He called feeding the pigeons ‘littering, plain and simple’. He went on: ‘Clear signs are in place in Piccadilly Gardens to advertise this fact. While we take no pleasure in handing out Fixed Penalty Notices to offenders, it’s extremely important that people understand that they should not be feeding the birds in this way. ‘Illegally dropping food for the pigeons is bad for the local environment and can also be harmful to the birds, as many items intended for human consumption are not suitable for them to eat.’

Cllr Akbar also seems to have the opinion that the Environmental Protection Act is designed to ensure birds have a healthy diet. I wonder id he's read this thread?



Pigeons are 'flying rats' i.e. vermin. Their dropping cause a lot of damage to buildings and infrastructure and many local authorities spend money trying to eradicate them from town centres by undercover culling or netting off roosting places. Anti litter regulations are just another tool they can use. These penalties are probably more prevalent than many may think.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Thu, 6 Aug 2020 - 11:26
Post #133


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (baroudeur @ Thu, 6 Aug 2020 - 12:09) *
Pigeons are 'flying rats' i.e. vermin. Their dropping cause a lot of damage to buildings and infrastructure and many local authorities spend money trying to eradicate them from town centres by undercover culling or netting off roosting places. Anti litter regulations are just another tool they can use. These penalties are probably more prevalent than many may think.

As I understand it, the Act under which the OP has been issued a Fixed Penalty does not mention the control of pests and vermin or specifically preclude the feeding of wild birds. The OP's argument has been well debated here and I am interested in the final outcome. The article I cited today is remarkably similar and I just thought the Councillor's remarks were of interest, especially bearing in mind the correspondence that has been exchanged between this OP and the LA.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 5 6 7
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:30
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here