Fixed Penalty Notice Littering From Vehicle Cigarette Butt Litter Success Fine Cancelled |
Helping the motorist get justice
Helping the motorist get justice
Fixed Penalty Notice Littering From Vehicle Cigarette Butt Litter Success Fine Cancelled |
 Sat, 17 May 2008 - 13:33
Post
#1
|
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 17 May 2008 Member No.: 19,623  |
Without Prejudice
I am providing information of my case to help anyone else in a similar situation: A Borough Council who shall remain anonymous issued a £75.00 Fixed Penalty Notice to myself as the registered keeper of a vehicle whereby the driver was seen by a Council Litter Warden to have allegedly disposed of litter from the vehicle (namely a cigarette butt). This was an abuse of procedure as Defra Guidelines state that a Council must correctly identify an alleged offender and not presume that a registered keeper of a vehicle is also the alleged offender. They are supposed to either visit the address of the registered keeper to obtain positive identification or failing that to send out a letter under caution to the registered keeper to request the alleged offenders details. In this instance the guidelines were not followed and the Council Litter Warden opted to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice to the registered keeper of a vehicle without attempting to correctly identify the alleged offender. I appealed the FPN which resulted in the fine being cancelled by the Council. This is my appeal letter: WITHOUT PREJUDICE **th May 2008 Dear Mr ******* I am writing to you concerning Fixed Penalty Notice Serial No. **** I have sought Legal advice and have been informed that the issue of this Fixed Penalty Notice has contravened DEFRA guidelines. Under current DEFRA guidance, councils are advised not to issue fixed penalties for littering from vehicles unless the offender can be positively identified (in accordance with Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) as prosecution is likely to fail. I refer you to the current DEFRA Fixed Penalty Notice Guide PB11577i: Building a case against litter from a vehicle Scenario one – an enforcement officer clearly sees a person throw a crisp packet from a car window In this scenario, the enforcement officer has been able to get a good ‘look’ at the person that has thrown the crisp packet. This means that they are able to record a good description of the appearance of the alleged offender, in their notebook, along with a description of the car (make, model and colour), its registration number, the time and location of the alleged offence (the road name and number, e.g. the B253), a description of what was alleged to have been thrown from the vehicle (in this case a crisp packet) and any other relevant detail. Having returned to the office, through an approved officer, the WEES can be checked and the registered keeper’s details can then be obtained. Assuming that the vehicle’s details match with those that were recorded at the time, the enforcement officer can then set about confirming the identity of the alleged offender. There are three pragmatic routes that can be taken to confirm the identity of an alleged offender. These are given below: for the enforcement officer, who originally witnessed the alleged offence, to visit the address of the registered keeper to see if they are the person they witnessed, or if they might be able to provide information as to who might have been driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence; for the enforcement officer to write to the registered keeper to invite them in for an interview; for the enforcement officer to write to the registered keeper ‘under caution’ (see earlier explanation under ‘Correspondence under caution’) to gain further details in relation to the offence. Of these approaches, the first, to visit the address of a registered keeper is always considered to be the best practice; in that the registered keeper may be present at the address and a visual identity will be able to be made there and then. This can then be followed with a caution and other supporting evidence gathered to address the ‘points to prove’. Further, if they do not match the description of the alleged offender they might be able to provide details as to who might have been driving the car or a passenger that might have thrown the crisp packet out of the window – who can then be identified and interviewed. The second option, to write to the keeper and invite them in for an interview, may also prove fruitful, however, they may decline the invitation or, having attended, they may not match the description of the person witnessed committing the alleged offence. In the latter case, the enforcement action is back to square one and should they not be able to provide details of who might have committed the offence then the case is effectively closed. The third option, to write to the registered keeper under caution, is the least favoured option; however it might be considered appropriate if the registered keeper is not from the immediate area. This is to say, they respond to a letter admitting their guilt then a fixed penalty notice can be issued. In this instance DEFRA guidelines have clearly not been followed and there has been an abuse of procedure. Further, as the Registered Keeper of a vehicle I have not been positively identified as the alleged offender nor do you have sufficient evidence for prosecution as to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that I have committed the alleged offence. I am prepared to defend this position in court. I therefore wish to appeal this Fixed Penalty Notice and request that it is cancelled. Yours sincerely ******** ********* This is the reply I received: Dear ******* ********* I have read your appeal and agree in this instance we have not followed the guidelines set out by Defra. You will understand that guidelines are exactly that, and are not statute or Law and therefore whilst your comments are informative you can not rely on the fact, that not following guidance has made the fine void. We do normally send out a driver details form with the fine to allow the registered keeper to state that they were the driver or to give the name of the driver, and in this instance my warden failed to send out the form. We remain committed to reduce littering on our streets. I know that the law is about to be reviewed with the intention, that we will be given the power to fine the registered keeper in the same way as parking fines. I believe you did throw litter and I am disappointed that you are trying to get out of the fine by providing a technicality which as I have stated above does not negate the fine in any way. We do follow the guidelines as they do make sense and they reduce the possibility of the wrong person being given a fine. The guidelines are not there to allow the guilty to escape from paying, they are aimed to prevent an injustice or undue stress. Having said the above I have cancelled the fine without prejudice and the warden has been informed not to forget to send out the drivers details form in any other case. My reasons are, my warden did not follow our procedures which are very professional and are in line with the Defra guidelines and not because the guidelines in themselves have any legal standing which your legal advice must have already explained. Yours truly Enforcement Manager This post has been edited by fightthepower: Sat, 17 May 2008 - 13:51 |
 |
 
|
 |
| Advertisement |
Sat, 17 May 2008 - 13:33
Post
#
|
 Advertise here! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat, 17 May 2008 - 14:01
Post
#2
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 2,950 Joined: 24 Aug 2007 From: Away with the fairies Member No.: 13,324 |
QUOTE I believe you did throw litter Does he think he is omniscient. No wonder they have a God complex. -------------------- QUOTE The Railway Act 1962, Section 67 enables byelaws regulating the use of the railways to be issued. The current railway byelaws are enforced by Section 219* of the Transport Act 2000 and confirmed under Schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Secretary of State for Transport on 22 June 2005 for regulating the use and working of, and travel on or by means of, railway assets, the maintenance of order on railway assets and the conduct of all persons while on railway assets (the “Byelaws”). *s219 has been repealed but such byelaws continue to have effect by virtue of section 46(4) Railways Act 2005. ** See also Crown Prosecution Service v Inegbu [2008] EWHC 3242 (Admin) (26 November 2008) |
|
|
|
|
Tue, 20 May 2008 - 09:58
Post
#3
|
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 19 May 2008 Member No.: 19,673 |
QUOTE (fightthepower @ Sat, 17 May 2008 - 14:33)  I believe you did throw litter and I am disappointed Where do they get this people from? |
|
|
|
|
Tue, 20 May 2008 - 11:41
Post
#4
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 21,039 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Job centre, no one else will employ them....
We have not followed the guidelines.....we do follow the guidelines......what a burke' (for those who know their rhyming slang!) I wonder what form they thing they are empowered to require you to complete the procedures said they should send! Simon This post has been edited by The Rookie: Tue, 20 May 2008 - 11:45 -------------------- 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 PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick More PCN's needed! |
|
|
|
|
Fri, 1 Aug 2008 - 23:24
Post
#5
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 599 Joined: 24 May 2005 From: Somewhere in the "S" postal area Member No.: 3,017 |
Yes, Simon! I can hear the hunt's bugler now
 
-------------------- If it's brown, got feathers, webbed feet, wings, a beak, waddles and goes quack-quack and looks like a duck:
It's probably a duck... If it seems like an extortion racket, is operated like an extrortion racket, is run by an organised gang just like an extortion racket (the police are the biggest 'gang' in the country), if it is just like reasoning with any Mafiosa racketeer where any victim's observations are cast aside in the ultimate quest for ¢a$h, then it probably is an extortion racket. Or as I like to call it State Sponsored Theft Remember you have a vote at the next local and general elections: Tell your currently elected representatives how you feel. Make sure you go and vote !!! |
|
|
|
|
Fri, 1 Aug 2008 - 23:52
Post
#6
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 17,239 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
QUOTE (fightthepower @ Sat, 17 May 2008 - 14:33) for the enforcement officer, who originally witnessed the alleged offence, to visit the address of the registered keeper to see if they are the person they witnessed, or if they might be able to provide information as to who might have been driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence; for the enforcement officer to write to the registered keeper to invite them in for an interview; for the enforcement officer to write to the registered keeper ‘under caution’ (see earlier explanation under ‘Correspondence under caution’) to gain further details in relation to the offence. Quite simply - bollocks. If an identification is to be made then it must be carried out in accordance with PACE and the Codes of Practice. There is case law to the effect that a police officer (much less a council jobsworth) can not turn up on spec and say "yes, you're the one". --------------------  You are the result of billions of years of evolutionary success. Now act like it. |
|
|
|
|
Thu, 4 Mar 2010 - 19:09
Post
#7
|
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 4 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,053 |
I myself have had this problem with the "Jobs-Worths" and was absolutely devastated, I smoke and feel I have been targetted by a couple of nasty men who "Claimed" they saw me throwing a cigarette butt from my car window, as it happens I may have done. I came online to find out if there was anything I could do to resolve this as the fine was £80.00 reduced to £60.00 if I paid quickly without asking questions and I was skint. I found this post and printed the letter on my printer and added that "If there were no pictures of me to prove the claim that I would be prepared to go to court", 0.32p, a bit of ink, an envelope plus 20 mins to read up on this crap on the DEFRA website (just like Blue Peter). Four (4) days after I posted my letter I recieved the following reply :
Dear Mr......... Environmental Protectioni Act 1990 Offence of Dropping Litter Section 87. With reference to your letter received at this office on the ............2010 concerning the fixed penalty notice, .......................... I have discussed the incedent with the issuing officer and due to the identification of the driver of the vehicle has not been proved your appeal has been allowed and there will be no further action. If you wish to discuss the incedent with me further I can be contacted on the above telephone number. Yours sincerely, ......................... I now do not have to pay the fine and am very happy to say that I will not be contacting this person any further unless I send them a bill for the letter that this site provided and my time wasted worrying about some jumped up charges that they could not actually prove. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY is not true anymore in this country and the government and it's minions are total proof of this. I can't believe that the person who wrote this letter is paid by my taxes and can not even put together a couple of paragraphs that make sense in "English" or even spell correctly for that matter, yes I copied it out but my word I don't even need a spell checker to see the errors, let alone have one of his officers out on the street making up charges that they can not prove. If you pay these fines then more fool you, thank you to the original poster "fightthepower" and to PePiPOO for hosting this invaluable forum. God bless all the innocent victims of the regime we call our government, are they really here to protect us? |
|
|
|
|
Wed, 17 Mar 2010 - 01:46
Post
#8
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 557 Joined: 11 Oct 2006 From: stapleford,nottingham Member No.: 8,176 |
I am currently awaiting the reply of an appeal on the same grounds for a driver at work.I will let you know the result as soon as it happens.Nottingham City Council are the beggars.I have already challenged them and won for a driver whose car was clamped.£140.00 refund.Same council, different scenario.Same me .
|
|
|
|
|
Sun, 6 Jun 2010 - 17:51
Post
#9
|
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 5 Jun 2010 Member No.: 37,998 |
I find this quite amusing.
I was under the understanding that the ONLY person you need to provide your name/address to (and only after being told what offense you committed) is the police. Their whole litter fining system relies not only on their officers telling the truth and having very good eyesight but the people who are stopped telling the truth. Whats to stop someone throwing away litter and when approached, giving MY name and details? TBH if i was ever unfortunate enough to receive one of these, i would be asking for photographic evidence. Not only of the litter in my personal vicinity but of it previously being in my hand and also half way to the ground. Thereby ensuring it was me that dropped it. However, given that i sometimes pick litter UP (i know, i'm crazy), if they were to take the pictures in reverse order, they could easily say i dropped it instead. |
|
|
|
|
Mon, 21 Jun 2010 - 17:02
Post
#10
|
|
|
Member  Group: Bad Boyz & GirlzPosts: 10,570 Joined: 23 Mar 2009 Member No.: 27,239 |
QUOTE (Unholy @ Sun, 6 Jun 2010 - 18:51) I find this quite amusing. I was under the understanding that the ONLY person you need to provide your name/address to (and only after being told what offense you committed) is the police. Their whole litter fining system relies not only on their officers telling the truth and having very good eyesight but the people who are stopped telling the truth. Whats to stop someone throwing away litter and when approached, giving MY name and details? TBH if i was ever unfortunate enough to receive one of these, i would be asking for photographic evidence. Not only of the litter in my personal vicinity but of it previously being in my hand and also half way to the ground. Thereby ensuring it was me that dropped it. However, given that i sometimes pick litter UP (i know, i'm crazy), if they were to take the pictures in reverse order, they could easily say i dropped it instead. Refusing or giving false details to an environmental officer is an offence. |
|
|
|
|
Mon, 28 Jun 2010 - 00:30
Post
#11
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,452 Joined: 9 Jan 2008 From: manchester Member No.: 16,521 |
QUOTE (Gan @ Mon, 21 Jun 2010 - 18:02) [ Refusing or giving false details to an environmental officer is an offence. it is but, ironically, difficult to prosecute for the offence of not giving your name and address, without a name and address This post has been edited by jobo: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 - 00:31 -------------------- jobo
anyone but Murray, Wish granted for another year, |
|
|
|
|
Thu, 7 Apr 2011 - 19:00
Post
#12
|
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 7 Apr 2011 Member No.: 45,738 |
I today received a letter from Kirklees council (west Yorkshire) claiming I have been spotted ejecting a cigarette butt from the car window ( a month ago). They are offering a reduction from £75 to £50 for payment within 7 days.
I have copy/pasted the appeal letter from earlier in the post (thanks to member) I have finished the letter with the promise that if they cannot provide photographic evidence of the offence that I shall defend myself in court. The road I was 'allegedly' spotted on is a busy A road and I can only presume that I have had a council vehicle behind me who has scratched down my details and sent me a letter with the offence and fine attached. They are asking for me as the registered owner to provide details of the offender. I find this kind of jobs-worth street policing infuriating. i am not one for fly-tipping or littering and always keep litter in my car to be binned when i arrive home. (with the exception of the odd cigarette butt) This fine comes from the same council that will come to collect the wheelie bins and leave an absolute mess in the road when they spill the contents of a bin and is then left for the residents to sweep up. Where are the litter police then to hand out fines to the bin men?? I am a law abiding, hard working tax payer. Everyday I see people walking through the town centre leaving a trail of juice cartons, McDonald's' packets, cans and god knows what else behind them. No litter police there then. The difference is, I work in a town where unemployment is sky high, and drugs/alcohol abuse are rife. If they police there, they get abuse, false addresses or simply people on benefits that cannot or will not pay. By targeting the motorist they are increasing their chances of being paid as we are routinely shafted anyway. I pay income tax, VAT, petrol tax, smokers tax, council tax, tax tax tax tax. If 000000000.1% of the tax I pay goes towards someone spending one second of their day to pick up a cigarette butt, or it gets hoovered up with the leaves and everything else with the road-sweeper, then so be it. After all. I sure am paying for it. I refuse (no pun) to back down to these selective location street police. Some few months ago. A friend of mine who works for a high street bank, was fines £50 at the side of the bank building for dropping his cigarette butt. Why? Because he's wearing a suit and is unlikely to give false details or react strongly to the fine. The 3 pubs down the road are horrible outside with cigarette butts, and other litter all over the pavement. Jobs-worth wont go there though because he'd rather not approach a group of drunken smokers where he can stamp all over the sober bank worker. I'll await the reply to my letter to Kirklees council and report back. Its time everyone stood up and fought, if nobody paid, there would be no fines. Reckless. |
|
|
|
|
Thu, 7 Apr 2011 - 21:02
Post
#13
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24,599 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
http://www.cieh.org/ehn/kirklees_call_to_c...r_loophole.html
I wonder how he got on ? ?  clear admission by him that they are now/still ignoring DEFRA Plus there is this "Enforcement The Council has a team dedicated to the enforcement of environmental legislation. The areas covered by this team include abandoned vehicles, fly-tipping, littering, uncontained trade waste and other Duty of Care issues. Wherever appropriate evidence and/or witnesses are available the Council will prosecute alleged offenders through the courts or issue fixed penalty notices." from http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/community/envir...ageStrategy.pdf and try this s/sheet https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ao...JCcUE&hl=en and there is this "Other local authorities are using powers under Section 71 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or Section 108 of the Environment Act 1995 to find out from the registered keeper who committed the offence. The problem here is that, if challenged, the courts would have no option other than to rule that this is an inappropriate use of these powers." from http://www.cieh.org/ehp/ehp3.aspx?id=8314 which is worth a read This post has been edited by bama: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 - 21:06 -------------------- NOTICE The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents".
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
|
|
Fri, 8 Apr 2011 - 23:59
Post
#14
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,452 Joined: 9 Jan 2008 From: manchester Member No.: 16,521 |
QUOTE (bama @ Thu, 7 Apr 2011 - 22:02) and there is this "Other local authorities are using powers under Section 71 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or Section 108 of the Environment Act 1995 to find out from the registered keeper who committed the offence. The problem here is that, if challenged, the courts would have no option other than to rule that this is an inappropriate use of these powers." from http://www.cieh.org/ehp/ehp3.aspx?id=8314 which is worth a read which is why im concern some are giving out blankety advice to ignore, with out finding out which bit of the EPA their using,, its a lot bigger fight under s 71 and will almost certainly end up in court -------------------- jobo
anyone but Murray, Wish granted for another year, |
|
|
|
|
Sat, 16 Apr 2011 - 21:19
Post
#15
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 24,599 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
The problem here is that, if challenged, the courts would have no option other than to rule that this is an inappropriate use of these powers."
-------------------- NOTICE The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents".
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
|
|
Fri, 10 Jun 2011 - 09:31
Post
#16
|
||||
 Webmaster  Group: Root AdminPosts: 4,349 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
If you think the letter reproduced in this thread is appropriate to your own case, please don't just copy it without checking that it's still correct and that any documents it refers to are current (for example the DEFRA publication number has already changed, and doubtless will do so in the future).
-------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
 |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Saturday, 18th May 2013 - 18:23 |
