PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Fag out the windo FPN, It looks as if a 5 year old issued it
ineedmoney
post Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 12:02
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 13 Feb 2014
Member No.: 68,736



So heres the latest and freshest from the brent offices, the enviro team of superheroes. Random accusation of fag end out the window, but no photo evidence, or video or specific location. Willesden Lane should do innit, even though its a few miles long, I'd like to know which number, because that'll certainly remind me if I chugged a fag out last Tuesday in the morning or not.
Are they serious with this? I dont remember it to be honest. And what does The Drive of (reg plate) mean?
Someone care to enlighten me before i reply with "Go f yourselves", literally.

This post has been edited by ineedmoney: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 12:05
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 12:02
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
makara
post Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 12:06
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,868
Joined: 11 Jul 2010
Member No.: 38,904



Brent has transmuted into Singapore it seems. How much is the fine? Or not known unless you accept liability?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 12:15
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,033
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Not much you can do with FPNs unless there's a clear mistake, such as you don't smoke.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 12:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Adders1974
post Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 13:02
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 128
Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,524



Don't know if you can change the post title, but why do state fag? Just says smoking related. Might be a lighter, cig packet

How can they issue an FPN that says 'you were witnessed depositing litter' and then address it Dear Sir/Madam? If they cant even identify the sex how do they expect a successful prosecution? And how do your provide proof of identity if wanting to tell them their mistake?

This post has been edited by Adders1974: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 13:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 13:30
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,725
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, rather than abuse them, why not make representations if you think you have a case e.g. you were not there etc. You are entitled to test their evidence if you genuinely believe you are not liable for the penalty.

This doesn't mean that you committed the offence, just that they can hold you liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

And if they have your VRM, then someone observed the events.

Do not even consider going to Magistrates' Court unless you have an argument which amounts to more than you thinking they're s***s and I didn't do it, Your Worship.

Maybe not what you wanted to hear, but the truth can be harsh at times.

Issues with vehicle-related littering:
Deliberate;
No attempt to rectify the situation; (not that this is a defence)
Owner liable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 16:55
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,809
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (ineedmoney @ Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 13:02) *
Someone care to enlighten me before i reply with "Go f yourselves", literally.

That sort of response usually ends in tears.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Korting
post Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 07:59
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,146
Joined: 13 May 2010
Member No.: 37,524



If it is a criminal offence don't they need to know the identity of the perpetrator? The Police cannot prosecute someone for speeding if you don't have the drivers identity so surely the same applies here.

AFAIK CEO's and local authorities do not have the same power to demand the identity of a person as the Police.

I agree with HC, write to Brent and ask for the evidence.

Do you smoke? Do you drive with the windows open?


If the answer to these questions is no, especially the 1st, then I would write a letter stating that they are incorrect, you don't smoke and you don't drive with the window open, so could not have committed the offence.


On a slight variation of this topic, I've heard that a people have challenged by CEO's in Harrow regarding the dropping of litter, with the CEO's demanding that the 'perpetrator' gives them their name and address. Is one under any legal obligation to give those details?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kernow2015
post Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 08:45
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 205
Joined: 9 Mar 2015
Member No.: 76,209



QUOTE (Korting @ Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 08:59) *
If it is a criminal offence don't they need to know the identity of the perpetrator? The Police cannot prosecute someone for speeding if you don't have the drivers identity so surely the same applies here.

AFAIK CEO's and local authorities do not have the same power to demand the identity of a person as the Police.

I agree with HC, write to Brent and ask for the evidence.

Do you smoke? Do you drive with the windows open?


If the answer to these questions is no, especially the 1st, then I would write a letter stating that they are incorrect, you don't smoke and you don't drive with the window open, so could not have committed the offence.


On a slight variation of this topic, I've heard that a people have challenged by CEO's in Harrow regarding the dropping of litter, with the CEO's demanding that the 'perpetrator' gives them their name and address. Is one under any legal obligation to give those details?


Some authorities will not pursue if you deny it was you as they only have a report of the driver of said vehicle rather than a description, but it's a throw of the dice as to whether or not they would back down.

Some CEO's dare authorised under the Clean Neighbourhoods & Environment Act to issue for littering.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 08:54
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,725
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



In London the registered keeper is liable for littering offences involving cars. They do not need to prove the identity of the litterer, for the obvious reason that this would be practically impossible with a moving vehicle.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 09:40
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,138
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



What statute is that under?


--------------------
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
southpaw82
post Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 10:09
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,476
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Outside London it would be the Littering From Vehicles Outside London (Keepers: Civil Penalties) Regulations 2018.

In London it is s 24 of the London Local Authorities Act 2007.


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


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
NewJudge
post Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 10:35
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,809
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 10:40) *
What statute is that under?

I imagine this is what is being referred to:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2007/2/section/24/enacted

However, glancing through that quickly I can see no reference to the “Registered Keeper” being responsible. It makes reference to the “owner”. I don't know whether this presents problems where the two are not one and the same.

Outside London the more recent legislation clearly applies to the Registered Keeper:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2018/9...163818/contents

Strangely (again, as far as I can see from a quick glance) the London legislation provides an exception for car hire companies but the outside London legislation does not. I wonder how Messrs Hertz and Avis get on with this.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Irksome
post Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 10:40
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 322
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
From: sw11
Member No.: 38,303



QUOTE
In determining, for the purposes of this section, who was the owner of a motor vehicle at any time, it shall be presumed that the owner was the person in whose name the vehicle was at that time registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 11:04
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,809
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (Irksome @ Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 11:40) *
QUOTE
In determining, for the purposes of this section, who was the owner of a motor vehicle at any time, it shall be presumed that the owner was the person in whose name the vehicle was at that time registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22).


Ah, thanks. I said it was only a quick glance! biggrin.gif

I wonder why they didn't simply use the term "Registered Keeper" instead of "owner".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 11:06
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,476
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 12:04) *
QUOTE (Irksome @ Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 11:40) *
QUOTE
In determining, for the purposes of this section, who was the owner of a motor vehicle at any time, it shall be presumed that the owner was the person in whose name the vehicle was at that time registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22).


Ah, thanks. I said it was only a quick glance! biggrin.gif

I wonder why they didn't simply use the term "Registered Keeper" instead of "owner".

Presumably it’s a rebuttable presumption, though not very well phrased.


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


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
Charlie1010
post Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 13:32
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 8 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,324



I'd like to know which number, because that'll certainly remind me if I chugged a fag out last Tuesday in the morning or not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 15:40
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,945
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 11:35) *
.........Strangely (again, as far as I can see from a quick glance) the London legislation provides an exception for car hire companies but the outside London legislation does not. I wonder how Messrs Hertz and Avis get on with this.

S5 includes the grounds for appeal and the hiring ground.


However, this is within London and an FPN under S87 of the 1990 Enviromental Protection Act.
As far as I can see, keeper liability under LLAA 2007 only exists for a PCN served under that act.
And S87 of the 1990 act specifically excludes prosecution if a PCN has been served.


So does keeper liability still exist under the 1990 Act if the council choose to ignore the civil penalties option?
And can they ignore the civil penalties option ?

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 15:54
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 22:20
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,806
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



As I understand it there's no such thing as keeper liability for offences under the criminal law, apart from offences related to the actual keeping of a vehicle (no tax, no insurance etc...).

If they have no idea who was driving, who are they going to prosecute? Unless the council officer personally knows the OP, identifying the driver is going to be a real problem for them.


--------------------
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
notmeatloaf
post Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 22:57
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,874
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



It's bizarre to have a "PP" signature for an authorising officer. I'm not sure it invalidates it beyond it's current "sixth formers playing Enviro-Crime fighters" state. But surely if you are an authorising officer you need to personally authorise it?

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 22:57
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ineedmoney
post Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 08:09
Post #20


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 13 Feb 2014
Member No.: 68,736



Is this really such a grey area? I thought you guys would be like, wham bam do this say that problem solved.
But I knew its fishy a.f. since doesnt state if I was moving, sitting at a traffic light or just parked, and was not given the opportunity to pick that stuff up. I do drive with the windows open and sometimes I smoke but mostly vape. When I vape its usually clouds pouring out the window and easily noticeable even if youre not looking. I doubt someone would notice a cig or smoke from a cig which is almost nonexistent, and I dont hang my hand with the cig in it out the window either. Its unlikely she saw me smoking, unless aiming the camera recording from a coffee shop and later slow timelapsing through the recording.
It looks like we have snipers now.
Why didnt she come to me and ask me to pick it up? I would have. And I thought its a requierement before issuing a fpn. I know its impossible with a moving car, but if I was on the road at 8 24 it means it was traffic since my work starts at 8. So I probably wasnt moving. I doubt the enviro police can do tracking of a moving object in a smooth way that doesnt blur everything due to jerky camera movement. So a 100% i was still or inching forward at best.
This should be illegal. Why cctv cameras, road filters, speed cameras must be preceeded by signage, but this dckheads can issue you tickets from the window of their flat? Fkin money making sham.
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: Tuesday, 23rd April 2019 - 12:57
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.