PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

DVLA sayas 'No!', Odd!
whjohnson
post Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 15:57
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 379
Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,738



I reported a vehicle to my LA a month or so ago for littering.
Basically, I was following the vehicle and witnessed one of it's occupants discard a plastic bottle out of the rear window.
I noted the time, date, make of car & location. I even retrieved the bottle for use as possible evidence. The act of littering carries a £100 fine around here.

I heard nothing until today, when I received an email form my LA parks, & litter person, who stated that the DVLA would not release the keeper's contact details to the Council - Reason not given, but the Council are resubmitting the info I provided to see if the DVLA will play ball.

Odd isn't it, that the DVLA can't wait to chuck keeper's details to PPCs for fictional 'infringements', yet when a LA has a legitimate reason, they won#t play ball.

This post has been edited by whjohnson: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 15:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 33)
Advertisement
post Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 15:57
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 14:13
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,617
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Indeed, and that section wouldn't apply to the litter mentioned. The council may threaten it (nothing more) or may even try it on at court (who knows).


--------------------
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
Umtwebby
post Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 16:02
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 417
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,283



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 14:03) *
QUOTE (Umtwebby @ Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 13:56) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 20 Sep 2017 - 18:21) *
Of course it does, they need to know the litterers details to take action, and the registered keeper doesn't have to name the driver nor does the driver have to name the passenger, so unless they cooperate to shop their passenger, no action possible.


And yet here we all are on a website where regular posts inform the registered keeper not to name the driver because that is exactly what a lot of people do.

Any other crimes that people should not be bothered about because it might be a little bit difficult?

How do you propose that the council prove the offender's identity to beyond a reasonable doubt?


By asking the question and seeing what the response is. I see regular reports in newspapers of people being convicted. Clearly it is not impossible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 20:05
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,900
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 15:13) *
Indeed, and that section wouldn't apply to the litter mentioned. The council may threaten it (nothing more) or may even try it on at court (who knows).

I don't know if it would apply; I haven't looked at how 'pollution' is defined. I agree it doesn't sound right.

They seemed confident enough when stating this as their current practice, to a Gov't committee.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 20:42
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,617
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I'm sure they did, but the old DEFRA guidelines disagreed.


--------------------
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
whjohnson
post Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 12:13
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 379
Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,738



[q]How do you propose that the council prove the offender's identity to beyond a reasonable doubt?[/q]

Well, I am a leading witness, who saw the passenger in question who threw the bottle. I can ID them.
I also have the bottle they threw - complete no doubt, with their DNA on it.

This post has been edited by whjohnson: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 12:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fedup2
post Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 14:03
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,343
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Member No.: 10,873



QUOTE (whjohnson @ Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 13:13) *
[q]How do you propose that the council prove the offender's identity to beyond a reasonable doubt?[/q]

Well, I am a leading witness, who saw the passenger in question who threw the bottle. I can ID them.
I also have the bottle they threw - complete no doubt, with their DNA on it.


I think someone watches too much drama TV.The idea of ticketing for dropped litter is about a quick buck.Are you going to pay for the DNA to be got from the bottle and then obtain permission to match it to the accused? Are you also going to attend court for a full day?

Dont you think courts have better uses?

You really must have too much time on your hands.

This post has been edited by fedup2: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 14:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 15:11
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,154
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (whjohnson @ Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 13:13) *
[q]How do you propose that the council prove the offender's identity to beyond a reasonable doubt?[/q]

Well, I am a leading witness, who saw the passenger in question who threw the bottle. I can ID them.
I also have the bottle they threw - complete no doubt, with their DNA on it.

The council has no powers to compel a suspect to attend an ID parade and a dock ID is completely impractical. Similarly, the council has no powers to obtain DNA comparison samples nor, IIRC, access to the existing DNA database. As fedup says, you've been watching too much tv.


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


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
samthecat
post Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 15:53
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 21 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,881



QUOTE (whjohnson @ Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 13:13) *
[q]How do you propose that the council prove the offender's identity to beyond a reasonable doubt?[/q]

Well, I am a leading witness, who saw the passenger in question who threw the bottle. I can ID them.
I also have the bottle they threw - complete no doubt, with their DNA on it.


If you can ID the offender have you given the Council their name and address?

Or do you mean you think you might recognise them if you somehow saw them again at some point?

Or do you mean something else that may have gone over my head?

As for DNA have you handled and kept the bottle forensically and how would it be proven that this moveable object was only handled by the person throwing it away? (In addition to the already stated issues with the Council having no way to get a match from a forensic submission they can't process)


--------------------
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 17:21
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,617
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Did the offence occurs outside the station two stops down from Upton Park by any chance?


--------------------
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
Neil B
post Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 18:20
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,900
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 18:21) *
Did the offence occurs outside the station two stops down from Upton Park by any chance?

No, go on, I'll bite --

gi's a clue.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
whjohnson
post Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 23:00
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 379
Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,738



QUOTE
The idea of ticketing for dropped litter is about a quick buck.Are you going to pay for the DNA to be got from the bottle and then obtain permission to match it to the accused? Are you also going to attend court for a full day?


Well, councils now pay for dogshit dna tests to prosecute errant owners, so why not? Hell, they even go after the wrong type of recycle refuse left out in the wrong bins on the wrong day of the week, so why not? It's a mad world out there.
So tell me, if your immediate relative was murdered, would you campaign against the prosecution of the perpetrator?

By all means, carry on diluting the effects of justice until they become meaningless - that is of course, until you yourself become a victim.


And anyhow, how is the PPC business model not about a quick buck? I suppose you defend that too?

Just where do you believe the line should be drawn here? Have you lobbied your MP to get the law you don't agree with changed? (I have-to no avail)

A law which cannot be implemented is bad law, and I will acknowledge that under Tony Bliar, we had a lot of that. It only served to bring the law into disrepute, and much of this nonsense is still on the statute book.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fedup2
post Sat, 23 Sep 2017 - 09:42
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,343
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Member No.: 10,873



Like we said you need to cut down on the TV especially the BBc.

How many cases do you know of first hand of dog poo being checked for dna? What are they going to check it against?

As for bin men,they are a law for themselves.The councils only want 'rubbish' they can sell and dont really want anything else.My thoughts on that is if they want to good stuff,let them sort it themselfs.most goes in the normal bin and ive never had problems.

Of course parking is a cash cow,both PPC and councils.

Not sure what murder has to do with a bit of dropped litter,but in many cases murder isnt murder,its manslaughter.I would judge the events on their own merits,if it was an accident then i would see no need to rip another family apart for pointless revenge which wouldnt bring back my family member.



Chuck it in the bin and move on..............





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
d123
post Sat, 23 Sep 2017 - 09:52
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 23 Oct 2010
From: Earth
Member No.: 41,505



QUOTE (whjohnson @ Sat, 23 Sep 2017 - 00:00) *
Well, councils now pay for dogshit dna tests to prosecute errant owners, so why not? Hell, they even go after the wrong type of recycle refuse left out in the wrong bins on the wrong day of the week, so why not? It's a mad world out there.
So tell me, if your immediate relative was murdered, would you campaign against the prosecution of the perpetrator?


Are you seriously comparing your dropped plastic bottle to murder?

biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by d123: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 - 09:52
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 23 Sep 2017 - 18:47
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,617
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 19:20) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 18:21) *
Did the offence occurs outside the station two stops down from Upton Park by any chance?

No, go on, I'll bite --

gi's a clue.

Barking station......


--------------------
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
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: Thursday, 21st June 2018 - 19:29
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.