PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Littering/Council/Court Summons etc
DepricatedZero
post Wed, 13 Mar 2019 - 17:06
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 13 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,900



Hello, here on recommendation from the internet in general! I know you guys have had a few of these to deal with, and I did search first but none of them seem to really match mine so I'm starting this thread about it, I hope someone can help a little.

Back in either Oct or Nov 2018 (it was 3 days after this new legislation or whatever it is came into effect) a newly recruited Sherlock Holmes wet himself with excitement when he saw me drop a cigarette butt in Morrisons car park. Usual nonsense ensued, warned me he was recording on his "don't hurt me" bodycam etc. I hadn't even closed the car door at this point. He said demanded ID and said he wasn't going to take any further action so I expected to just get shoved in the system so I could be fined one million pounds if caught doing it again etc, but no, he lied and issued a ticket. I challenged him on this and he just mumbled, there were two other people with me who heard him say he did not intend to take any action, so he lied to get me to admit liability. Anyway, fuming I contacted Morrisons (who didn't seem impressed), the council who told me to contact District Enforcement. So I did. I phoned them demanding the video footage (if it existed) and they told me to email them (weirdly at a council email domain) so I did, I made sure to save a copy of this email. Never heard a whisper.

Here we are 13 March 2019 and I've just discovered (this is my fault) an unopened court summons issued in January and I was due to appear in court on 14/02/2019 about this matter. I'm a bit gutted I missed it because I really wanted to go to court over this. But here we are a month after I was supposed to appear in court and I haven't heard anything regarding it, no post, phone calls, emails, nobody has come to arrest me, nothing. And I've double checked every item of mail from between then and now and there has been nothing.

How long would it typically take to hear something about the missed court date? Should I do anything?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 34)
Advertisement
post Wed, 13 Mar 2019 - 17:06
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
666
post Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 19:45
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,150
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



You’re missing Southpaw’s point. You have committed the offence, and they can prosecute you for it. When the court system becomes involved, the FPN is utterly irrelevant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 19:53
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,380
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (DepricatedZero @ Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 19:08) *
"Before you enter private land to issue FPN's"

The issue here isn't whether they are allowed to enter private land - it's whethere they are allowed to issue FPN's on that land.

Of course they're allowed to be on that land as it's a supermarket car park, the same as you or I are allowed on it, this guidance refers to whether they can issue FPN's on it and it clearly states they need consent to do so. From this, and in reply to your second question, if they had no consent to issue an FPN on that land then the FPN is invalid in that it was issued unlawfully (might be too strong a word but you know what I mean) - therefore the prosecution surely fails as there is no plaintiff. If the land owner themselves wished to prosecute me for this offence I'm sure they could do so but it isn't them taking me on, it's the LA. If the LA can't (properly) issue FPN's there as they don't have consent to do so then there can be no case to answer.

This is the best way I can put it really. If it turns out they DO have consent all this falls apart, but if they don't I'll fight it.

You're not getting it.
They have authority to issue FPNs, full stop.
They have (clearly) implied permission to be on the land, in the same way everyone else does.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DepricatedZero
post Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 20:17
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 13 Mar 2019
Member No.: 102,900



To those who feel I'm missing the point, I can assure you I'm not, I'm crystal clear as to what Southpaw is saying, that doesn't mean I agree with what he's saying.

The first line says this -

"Before you enter private land to issue FPNs, you should consider whether to get consent, because you don’t have statutory powers of entry in this situation."

Southpaw is stating that the consent referred to here is with respect to entering the land in question, and not with respect to the issuing of FPN's on that land. I am arguing that it's the other way round in that the consent referred to is with respect to issuing FPN's on that land and not the accessing of that land. This is because that's what it says, that's how it reads. Why the inclusion of "to issue FPN's" if it's referring only to access?

If I say "Before you go to X place to do Y....." I am clearly not referring to the simple going to X place in and of itself, I am referring to what you intend to do when you get there.

The second line reads -

"This applies to privately owned land which the public can access."

If the public have access to it then what question is there as to whether an enforcement officer has access to it? Why would an enforcement officer require express permission of the land owner for access if the general public do not? It makes no sense to interpret it this as needing permission to access the land as the land already has PUBLIC access, unless you're arguing that the public is allowed to access it but for some unfathomable reason an enforcement officer needs to gain explicit permission?! That's why I maintain the requirement for consent is NOT to access the land but to issue FPN's ON that land.

I'm not trying to get on anybody's nerves and I'm grateful for the replies but I disagree with Southpaws interpretation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 20:28
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,150
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



It doesn’t matter whether the officer has the right to issue a FPN. The case has gone to court, and the FPN is now history.

The officer has witnessed you committing a criminal offence, and can give evidence to that effect to the court.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 20:29
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,356
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Let's say I agree with you and, more importantly, the court agrees with you. Hooray, the FPN was unlawfully issued. Still doesn't prevent your prosecution and conviction though.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 15:34
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,307
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



DepricatedZero a few things you need to be aware of:

1) The advice on https://www.gov.uk is not the law, nothing on that website changes the law and the advice they publish on there is often wrong or incomplete.
2) The only government website you should look at for information as to the law is http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ though even that is far from comprehensive.
3) Whether the FPN was lawfully issued or not is neither here nor there as you have now been taken to court, and anything to do with the FPN is irrelevant.
4) Even if it were correct that an FPN could not be issued in the circumstances, that would simply mean the only course of action left open to the council is to prosecute you in court, which is what is now happening. From memory they dish out a standard fine of £220 + costs and victim surcharge for this sort of case so I'm not sure ignoring it is a good idea. I suspect any bravado about nothing making you pay a penny would disappear when eventually the police turn up with a battering ram and ask you if you'll come and and talk in a civilised manner without the need for them to smash the door in (if you don't, they will smash the door in).

What you need to do now is determine what accusation you are facing. You should therefore write to the prosecutor (almost certainly the council, their contact details will be on the summons) and ask them to disclose the initial details of the prosecution case, as required by Part 8 of the Criminal Procedure Rules. At a minimum, you should get Sherlock Holmes's witness statement and possibly the CCTV evidence.

Do not make a subject access request under the Data Protection Act, that process does not apply in these circumstances.

You should also approach Morrisons and see if they would be willing to provide a witness statement confirming you had their implied consent to drop litter, if Morrisons were to provide this you will have a solid defence to the charge.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 16:48
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,143
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 15:34) *
You should also approach Morrisons and see if they would be willing to provide a witness statement confirming you had their implied consent to drop litter, if Morrisons were to provide this you will have a solid defence to the charge.

See this thread...

If Morrison's are peeved they may well assist...


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 23:38
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,760
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



If it helps the issue we have here more commonly is whether a camera van parked illegally can still record offences.

The answer, even if annoying, is that it still can. The fact the operator is committing a criminal offence doesn't mean they can't witness other criminal offences.

Here, of course, the offence - maybe trespass, depending on the situation about implied consent to enter the land - isn't relevant to the offence you are being summonsed for.

As others have said, unless you can find someone sympathetic at Morrison's to give you permission to litter on their land, IF they own the land (sometimes sites are leased) then the fact it was on private land, or the conduct of the enforcement bod, is largely irrelevant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 23:43
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,356
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 23:38) *
As others have said, unless you can find someone sympathetic at Morrison's to give you permission to litter on their land, IF they own the land (sometimes sites are leased) then the fact it was on private land, or the conduct of the enforcement bod, is largely irrelevant.

They don’t have to own the land, just be “the owner, occupier or other person having control of the place”.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Harnes
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 09:30
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 28 May 2010
From: Sussex
Member No.: 37,839



As it's been stated that as the court is now involved and as such the FPN no longer matters and it's enough for the enforcement officer to give evidence that he witnessed the litter dropping, can DepricatedZero not then say that he then picked up the litter - hence no offence commited !


--------------------
Better to be 20 minutes late in this life than 20 years early into the next one !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 10:25
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,730
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Harnes @ Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 09:30) *
As it's been stated that as the court is now involved and as such the FPN no longer matters and it's enough for the enforcement officer to give evidence that he witnessed the litter dropping, can DepricatedZero not then say that he then picked up the litter - hence no offence commited !

He could lie under oath but that would be stupid.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 12:09
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,307
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Harnes @ Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 09:30) *
As it's been stated that as the court is now involved and as such the FPN no longer matters and it's enough for the enforcement officer to give evidence that he witnessed the litter dropping, can DepricatedZero not then say that he then picked up the litter - hence no offence commited !

If he does, he commits perjury. Regardless of whether he does or doesn't, you might have committed an offence under section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, depending on whether your post above amounts to "encouraging ... the commission of an offence".


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 13:16
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,356
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Harnes @ Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 09:30) *
As it's been stated that as the court is now involved and as such the FPN no longer matters and it's enough for the enforcement officer to give evidence that he witnessed the litter dropping, can DepricatedZero not then say that he then picked up the litter - hence no offence commited !

Are you trying to get banned? Because that’s how you get banned.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Harnes
post Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 09:25
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 28 May 2010
From: Sussex
Member No.: 37,839



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 13:16) *
QUOTE (Harnes @ Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 09:30) *
As it's been stated that as the court is now involved and as such the FPN no longer matters and it's enough for the enforcement officer to give evidence that he witnessed the litter dropping, can DepricatedZero not then say that he then picked up the litter - hence no offence commited !

Are you trying to get banned? Because that’s how you get banned.


The OP I think doesn't state that he did or didn't pick the litter up after being given the ticket, so I was enquiring as to whether if he had picked it up that was a possible defence if it went to court !


--------------------
Better to be 20 minutes late in this life than 20 years early into the next one !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 09:48
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,005
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Harnes @ Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 09:25) *
The OP I think doesn't state that he did or didn't pick the litter up after being given the ticket, so I was enquiring as to whether if he had picked it up that was a possible defence if it went to court !

No it's not, the offence would have been committed once he was 'ticketed', subsequent actions don't change that unless he could convince a court it was always his intent to pick it up (Good luck with that).....


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 23rd March 2019 - 15:52
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.