PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

S17 GLC Act 1972, Letter to inform the council of driver
janerodger
post Fri, 5 Feb 2021 - 16:30
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 5 Feb 2021
Member No.: 111,511



Hi
I have received a letter from Sutton Council and i can't find any help or information on what i need to do.
I am being accused of fly tipping from my vehicle under section 33 of the environmental protection act 1990.

Letter Content
The letter is entitled 'S17 GLC (General powers) Act 1972'
FAILURE TO COMPLY TO THIS LETTER MAY RESULT IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS BEING TAKEN AGAINST YOU.

It then lists the vehicle details, date, time and alleged offence under section 33.

You are now required to inform the council of the name and address of the person in control of the vehicle at the time of the incident.

It gives me 14 days to respond to the address on the letter.

If you fail to provide this information - or you give false information - you will be committing a separate offence and could be fined the maximum of level 3 on the standard scale, currently £1000 on conviction. S17 GLC (General powers) Act 1972 as amended.

The back of the letter gives 3 choices:
A. I was / i was not in control of the vehicle on the occasion referred to on this form.

B. The full name and address of the person in charge of the vehicle.

C. The vehicle has been sold or disposed off to and they ask for name and address.

There is an office use box that says:
Certificate of service M.C. rules 1981. RR 67, 99(6)
I hear by certify that i served the defendant with notice of which is a true copy by sending the said notice by post to the defendant in a pre-paid envelope posted by me at the Gulidhall. Signed........ Dated.......... This has been left blank and not signed or dated, neither did i get a pre-paid envelope.


A week before Christmas i needed some boxes due to a kitchen flood and i had to pack everything up. I went to Sainsburys and found loads of boxes stacked next to the full up recycling bins, i asked a store assistant if it was ok to take them and they said yes.
On Christmas morning i dropped the boxes back and left them where i had taken them from.

Today i received the attached letter accusing me of fly tipping and demanding i name the driver of the vehicle or I will be prosecuted.
Although we both went to drop the cardboard boxes back i cannot honestly remember whether it was me or my husband that drove the vehicle on the day in question so i don't know what to put on the form or whether i should return it at all and what would happen if i didn't.


Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated as i'm finding the threat of large fines and criminal offences a bit frightening at the moment and i don't know how to reply as i really didn't think borrowing boxes from a public recycling facility and then returning them was a criminal offence.

Kind Regards
Jane

This post has been edited by janerodger: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 - 16:32
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 5 Feb 2021 - 16:30
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 5 Feb 2021 - 17:11
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,022
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



EPA holds you, as the owner of the vehicle, responsible, as I read it.

"the person who controls or is in a position to control the use of the vehicle"

Don't know where they are finding a requirement to name a driver.

Can't find the 1972 act?

---
This needs to be in the Flame Pit so I'll ask a moderator to move.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 5 Feb 2021 - 21:27
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,717
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Moved to criminal forum. Can’t find the relevant legislation either.


--------------------
Moderator

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
bill w
post Fri, 5 Feb 2021 - 21:57
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 249
Joined: 8 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,341



On a quick Google search, I came across This Thread on this forum; in turn it refers to other threads.
The law is not my field of expertise, but hope this helps.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 6 Feb 2021 - 06:22
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47,632
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (janerodger @ Fri, 5 Feb 2021 - 16:30) *
I hear by certify that i served the defendant with notice of which is a true copy by sending the said notice by post to the defendant in a pre-paid envelope posted by me at the Gulidhall. Signed........ Dated.......... This has been left blank and not signed or dated,

Well as you have been served the notice and that signature (as it says) is for the copy, then obviously yours won’t be signed and dated. Don’t worry, your not the first to make that mistake.


--------------------
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 Sat, 6 Feb 2021 - 10:33
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,856
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The 1972 Act does exist, see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1972/40

There is a reference to section 17 here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/12.../2/paragraph/14

I'm going to make a FOI request for a copy of the Act, if they're relying on it they must have a copy. However for all practical purposes I think you have to assume it is going to be the same as section 172 of the RTA 1988.

Are these bins on the road, public land, or land owned by Sainsbury's?


--------------------
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.
Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament.
No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TryOut
post Sat, 6 Feb 2021 - 10:55
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 379
Joined: 7 May 2019
Member No.: 103,734



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 6 Feb 2021 - 10:33) *
The 1972 Act does exist, see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1972/40

There is a reference to section 17 here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/12.../2/paragraph/14

I'm going to make a FOI request for a copy of the Act, if they're relying on it they must have a copy. However for all practical purposes I think you have to assume it is going to be the same as section 172 of the RTA 1988.

Are these bins on the road, public land, or land owned by Sainsbury's?

I used to love FoI requests like yours. Section 21 FoI Act 2000 applies when requesters believe the act makes the public office their own library.
It’s available to you here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/21

You have already linked to what you have requested.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
janerodger
post Mon, 8 Feb 2021 - 12:39
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 5 Feb 2021
Member No.: 111,511



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 6 Feb 2021 - 10:33) *
The 1972 Act does exist, see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1972/40

There is a reference to section 17 here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/12.../2/paragraph/14

I'm going to make a FOI request for a copy of the Act, if they're relying on it they must have a copy. However for all practical purposes I think you have to assume it is going to be the same as section 172 of the RTA 1988.

Are these bins on the road, public land, or land owned by Sainsbury's?


Hi
The bins are large recycling ones inside the Sainsbury's car park.
Thanks
Jane
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
essexdriver
post Tue, 9 Feb 2021 - 10:34
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 143
Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Member No.: 55,565



Owned by Sainsbury's for their own commercial use or for public use but on their car park?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 9 Feb 2021 - 11:29
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47,632
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (TryOut @ Sat, 6 Feb 2021 - 10:55) *
You have already linked to what you have requested.

No he hasn't.....
As it says on the link
QUOTE
This item of legislation isn’t available on this site

Also the title on that page is "UK Local Act 1972" and the list contains an act of the same name but 1974
This is the same named 1974 act
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1974/24/contents
But S17 says nothing about identifying anyone, and in this FOI the council itself conflates the two.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/grea...eral_p?unfold=1

It is mentioned in Hansard though, but that seems the only direct reference to the 1972 act that I can find from parloiamentary sources.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/...powers-act-1972
Available from Waterstones
https://www.waterstones.com/book/greater-lo...//9780105140726

Mentioned in here under RIPA
https://democracy.merton.gov.uk/documents/s...ober%202015.pdf
This news article
https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/news/drop-litter-in...m-expect-a-fine

Pepipoo thread with some comments about it being 'hard to find'.
http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/...php/t32822.html

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 - 11:58


--------------------
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 Tue, 9 Feb 2021 - 20:35
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,856
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (TryOut @ Sat, 6 Feb 2021 - 10:55) *
I used to love FoI requests like yours. Section 21 FoI Act 2000 applies when requesters believe the act makes the public office their own library.
It’s available to you here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/21

I've taken the ICO to the First Tier Tribunal and won more than once, and I've long lost count of the number of DNs I've got against local authorities, so I think I know a thing or two. Section 21 isn't applicable if the information isn't reasonably practicable for me to access (libraries are closed but even if they were open, a library 100+ miles away is not reasonably practicable for me to access), and the link you've provided is to an amendment, rather than the information I'm actually asking for.


--------------------
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.
Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament.
No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
janerodger
post Thu, 11 Feb 2021 - 10:24
Post #12


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 5 Feb 2021
Member No.: 111,511



QUOTE (essexdriver @ Tue, 9 Feb 2021 - 10:34) *
Owned by Sainsbury's for their own commercial use or for public use but on their car park?

Hi
It is a public recycling centre contained within the North Cheam Sainsbury's car park.
It is always overflowing with boxes so i didn't think anything off it when i borrowed a few cardboard boxes and returned them a week later.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
janerodger
post Thu, 11 Feb 2021 - 12:24
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 5 Feb 2021
Member No.: 111,511



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 9 Feb 2021 - 11:29) *
QUOTE (TryOut @ Sat, 6 Feb 2021 - 10:55) *
You have already linked to what you have requested.

No he hasn't.....
As it says on the link
QUOTE
This item of legislation isn’t available on this site

Also the title on that page is "UK Local Act 1972" and the list contains an act of the same name but 1974
This is the same named 1974 act
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1974/24/contents
But S17 says nothing about identifying anyone, and in this FOI the council itself conflates the two.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/grea...eral_p?unfold=1

It is mentioned in Hansard though, but that seems the only direct reference to the 1972 act that I can find from parloiamentary sources.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/...powers-act-1972
Available from Waterstones
https://www.waterstones.com/book/greater-lo...//9780105140726

Mentioned in here under RIPA
https://democracy.merton.gov.uk/documents/s...ober%202015.pdf
This news article
https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/news/drop-litter-in...m-expect-a-fine

Pepipoo thread with some comments about it being 'hard to find'.
http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/...php/t32822.html


I cannot seem to find anything that refers to S17 of the general powers act other than a section on street trading.
My 14 days is running out and i still don't know whether i should ignore the letter of send it back with a covering note stating that i cannot remember who was driving.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 11 Feb 2021 - 13:09
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 47,632
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



That’s Section 17 of the 1974 act, the 1972 act isn’t online anywhere as far as I can find out.


--------------------
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
NewJudge
post Thu, 11 Feb 2021 - 13:53
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,085
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



Without sight of the Act under which you are charged it is difficult to see what the penalty would be if you maintained that stance. If it was under S172 of the Road Traffic Act (used when a vehicle is detected, say, speeding) the recipient would face a charge which carries a hefty fine and six penalty points. But within that act there is the provision of a Statutory Defence which says you should not be found guilty if you did not know who was driving and could not find out having exercised "reasonable diligence". In that case it would not be a good idea to reply simply saying you do not remember who was driving because (1) you clearly do in this instance and (2) you would almost certainly be found guilty. I'm not so sure that a Council Bylaw would make a provision for a driving licence endorsement when the offence charged is not connected with driving a vehicle (other than to get to the venue of the alleged offence).

Have you asked the Council to provide you with a copy of the 1972 Act? It would seem a reasonable request as it appears not to be readily available via the usual channels and you ought to know what it says regarding your obligations before making a response.

This post has been edited by NewJudge: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 - 13:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 7 Apr 2021 - 09:32
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,856
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Just had this from the council in response to my FOI request:
Bound copies may be purchased from The Stationary Office at tsoshop.co.uk.

I would also advise that the Council does not hold a copy of this legislation and we are therefore unable to comply with your request.
Without a copy of the Act they might struggle to prosecute. On the other hand a copy from TSO only costs £6 + P&P.


--------------------
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.
Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament.
No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roythebus
post Wed, 7 Apr 2021 - 09:43
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,704
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



Personally I would not assume this has the same implications as s172 request to name the driver. the Law is the Law and unless it's stated in that then s172 can't be used.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 7 Apr 2021 - 09:46
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,856
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (roythebus @ Wed, 7 Apr 2021 - 10:43) *
Personally I would not assume this has the same implications as s172 request to name the driver. the Law is the Law and unless it's stated in that then s172 can't be used.

If it were me I'd pay the £6 to get a printed copy of the Act, but for what it's worth I've asked the national archives if they can put it online. I'm not sure if janerodger is still with us though.


--------------------
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.
Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament.
No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 8 Apr 2021 - 13:40
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,856
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Success!

The national archives confirmed they will be adding this to the site within the next six months, but in the meantime they were kind enough to email me a PDF: https://bit.ly/2RmzW6N

janerodger, are you still with us?


--------------------
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.
Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament.
No, I am not a lawyer. I do not charge any fees, please stop asking me what my fees are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Thu, 8 Apr 2021 - 14:47
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,085
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



A good read, cp (well, as far as I've read it, which is only S17).

There's a couple of things which spring to mind:

1. The GLC no longer exists. I don't know if this voids the entire thing but probably not. S17 in particular gives powers to a "local authority" which I should think extends to London Boroughs.

2. The letter the OP received threatens a fine of "Level 3 on the standard scale (£1,000). But the Act you have obtained only provides for a fine of £50. As well as that, and unlike S172, it makes no provision for a timescale for reply, although I imagine a court would take its own view on that if the defence was "I intend to respond but I haven't got round to it yet".
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, 13th April 2021 - 06:35
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.