Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Fag out the windo FPN
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
ineedmoney
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.
makara
Brent has transmuted into Singapore it seems. How much is the fine? Or not known unless you accept liability?
stamfordman
Not much you can do with FPNs unless there's a clear mistake, such as you don't smoke.
Adders1974
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?
hcandersen
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.
NewJudge
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.
Korting
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?
kernow2015
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.
hcandersen
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.

The Rookie
What statute is that under?
southpaw82
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.
NewJudge
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.

Irksome
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).
NewJudge
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".
southpaw82
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.
Charlie1010
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.
DancingDad
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 ?
cp8759
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.
notmeatloaf
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?
ineedmoney
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.
NewJudge
Post removed due to utter ineptitude!!! blush.gif
DancingDad
@NewJudge.
Aren't those the grounds under the civil PCN legislation ?
This is an FPN under S87 of the 1990 Environmental Protection Act.
NewJudge
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 14:57) *
@NewJudge.
Aren't those the grounds under the civil PCN legislation ?
This is an FPN under S87 of the 1990 Environmental Protection Act.

Yes they are DD. Thanks for pointing that out. I did not read the OP's documents he posted. I've removed my post.
thisisntme
QUOTE (ineedmoney @ Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 08:09) *
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.


This is not true. There is no rule, regulation or law that states that speed cameras have to have any kind of sign warning you of their presence. They often exist, but the lack of them is not a bar to prosecution.
cp8759
I maintain that because the council has no idea who to prosecute, this letter can in principle be ignored. I'm not even sure the police could issue a s172 as it's not obvious that an offence under section 87 relates to the use of a motor vehicle on a road, just because the offender is said to have been driving a vehicle at the time. What I am reasonably sure of is that the police are extremely unlikely to entertain any request for assistance from the council.
Korting
And even in the unlikely event that they did send out an S172, its unlikely to have been served on the registered keeper within 14 days.
Jlc
QUOTE (Korting @ Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 08:14) *
And even in the unlikely event that they did send out an S172, its unlikely to have been served on the registered keeper within 14 days.

What's 14 days got to do with it?

(Clue: only some offences require a notification within 14 days and s172's do not have a time limit per se)
notmeatloaf
If whoever reported it also got a description of the OP, and they took it to court, I'm not sure ignoring it would do much good. It's not like most of us have multiple people who look very similar driving their vehicle. I don't see why a witness description couldn't be used as evidence of who was driving. The OP can't deny they were driving, and can't name an alternative driver under oath.

And therein lies the problem, it's a criminal offence and so the stakes are higher. The OP could FoI the council (under a pseudonym) and ask how many people they have actually taken to court by year. If it's very low it would infer that ignoring is a safer option.
Adders1974
Is it not register keeper liable for moving vehicle? In which case they would take the keeper to court and undoubtedly would win unless an error had occurred.

I guess my issue with it is the way they have issued it and the way they have just accused the registered keeper of littering. Should the letter not say 'you have been sent this FPN because litter was witnessed being deposited from a vehicle of which you are the registered keeper'? It does misleads the OP into believing they have positive ID of him when infact it could be a passenger or another driver of his vehicle. How can you ascertain your own guilt or otherwise if your not being told the real reason why you are receiving the FPN?

Just seems lazy. Try and ID the perpetrator first via the registered keeper and if you cant then issue the FPN to the keeper.
southpaw82
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 12:06) *
If whoever reported it also got a description of the OP, and they took it to court, I'm not sure ignoring it would do much good. It's not like most of us have multiple people who look very similar driving their vehicle. I don't see why a witness description couldn't be used as evidence of who was driving.

That’s dicing with identification evidence, and dock IDs are frowned upon.
DancingDad
QUOTE (Adders1974 @ Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 16:31) *
Is it not register keeper liable for moving vehicle? In which case they would take the keeper to court and undoubtedly would win unless an error had occurred.

I guess my issue with it is the way they have issued it and the way they have just accused the registered keeper of littering. Should the letter not say 'you have been sent this FPN because litter was witnessed being deposited from a vehicle of which you are the registered keeper'? It does misleads the OP into believing they have positive ID of him when infact it could be a passenger or another driver of his vehicle. How can you ascertain your own guilt or otherwise if your not being told the real reason why you are receiving the FPN?

Just seems lazy. Try and ID the perpetrator first via the registered keeper and if you cant then issue the FPN to the keeper.


Had the authority used the Decriminalised legislation available to them, it would be keeper liability, a challenge to authority and then appeal process (to adjudicators).
With Keeper Liability firmly on the plate but a lower burden of proof, ie the Occifer's statement that vehicle ?????? was seen would likely be accepted.
By seeking to convict under S87 of the 1990 Environmental Protection Act, they have no Keeper Liability that I can find and can only bring a case against the person who dropped the fag end.
What evidence they have that may aid them in proving the identity in court is anyone's guess but short of photos, I cannot see a conviction being possible.

I can't find any equivalent to an S172 that could apply and lead to other issues either??


cp8759
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 12:06) *
If whoever reported it also got a description of the OP, and they took it to court, I'm not sure ignoring it would do much good. It's not like most of us have multiple people who look very similar driving their vehicle. I don't see why a witness description couldn't be used as evidence of who was driving. The OP can't deny they were driving, and can't name an alternative driver under oath.

You're forgetting this is a criminal case, so the defendant doesn't need to prove a single thing. The prosecution must, in the first instance, present evidence that shows beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. Don't forget the accused is not even required to attend court (not can he be compelled to do so as this is not an imprisonable offence), so even if they had a very accurate description, so what? Even if they had photos, these would prove nothing unless they can somehow show that the person in the photos is the accused, which could be difficult if the accused doesn't turn up (aside from the fact that the accused can always send a solicitor to represent him and make a no case to answer submission).

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 17:00) *
I can't find any equivalent to an S172 that could apply and lead to other issues either??

Councils have section -172 like powers, most notably under section 112 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, but all such powers relate to the use of a motor vehicle on a road. I am not aware of anyone, not even the police, having the power to compel a driver nomination if the offence in question is not an offence related to the use of a vehicle on a road.

Given that criminal laws must be strictly constructed, I see little chance of the courts allowing any such powers being used to identify the perpetrator of a non-motoring offence, simply because the offender happened to be using a motor vehicle at the time. In this instance the fact that the alleged offender was using a motor vehicle appears to be purely incidental and nothing suggests that section 87 EPA creates an offence related to the use of a motor vehicle on a road, just because the offender happens to be driving a car.
Glacier2
Brent's next letter will be interesting.
ineedmoney
Funny story. Sent to mumblings to brent or at least I thought I did because the email adress has been pasted twice. A week later they sent the attached extension/reminder, took a photo to post here then immediately completely forgot about it, like it was erased from memory.
What was the consensus on this again? Because theres interesting bits of law and arguments you guys posted, its only to me not very clear what I should be doing.
NewJudge
I think the general consensus is that since what is threatened is a criminal prosecution they have to name the alleged perpetrator (i.e. the person who is said to have deposited the litter) in order to prosecute them. At present all they have is that the offender was in the vehicle of which you are the keeper. If they launch a prosecution against you (and it's hard to see them choosing anybody else) they have to serve you with the evidence they intend to rely on to convict you. It will be interesting to see what evidence they have to prove that it was you who did the dastardly deed. Hopefully their "legal department" will realise their case is somewhat deficient and common sense will prevail.
cp8759
I would ignore it, realistically they don't have enough evidence to prosecute and I agree this is what their legal department will confirm to them.
flexeh
We have the litter CEO's operate where i work (kingdom enforcement, on behalf of the council). Generally we have noticed (and had it confirmed by one we get on with) any footage they have (if on foot) is generally after the incident has occurred. They start the body cams on the approach to an individual and they start off by "I have just witnessed you drop...." the moment you apologise or offer to pick you up is admission of guilt, so they have you by the balls.

If you have been witnessed by an on foot individual, chances of footage is unlikely and they prey on your response.

Possible that this was also Kingdom as in 2017 Brent was using Kingdoms services. Here they are: https://www.kingdom.co.uk/services/local-authority-support/
NewJudge
QUOTE (flexeh @ Mon, 6 May 2019 - 14:17) *
If you have been witnessed by an on foot individual, chances of footage is unlikely and they prey on your response.

And even if there was such footage it would have to be pretty good to identify the driver. That is, to identify him from the rest of the population so that a prosecution can be launched, not merely to identify him from a couple of known individuals. All they would have is an unidentified individual in a specific vehicle.
Charlie1010
The owner of the vehicle is liable so footage might be helpful to a prosecution.
NewJudge
QUOTE (Charlie1010 @ Mon, 6 May 2019 - 16:09) *
The owner of the vehicle is liable so footage might be helpful to a prosecution.

Leaving aside that they don't know who the owner is (they only know the identity of the Registered Keeper) neither is liable for the offence alleged (see various earlier posts).
cp8759
QUOTE (Charlie1010 @ Mon, 6 May 2019 - 16:09) *
The owner of the vehicle is liable so footage might be helpful to a prosecution.

The owner is not liable under the criminal law. He might be under the civil enforcement legislation but no civil PCN has been issued in this case.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.