Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Fpn For Dropping Cigarette Butt Out Of Window
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
bargepole
Hi,

My daughter received a FPN from the Council in whose area she works, for allegedly dropping a cigarette butt out of her car window. The letter has been sent to her as the registered keeper, with no request to identify the driver. In the statement from the Council operative, it states "the driver dropped the cigarette end out of his window."

As they clearly haven't properly identified the alleged offender, and haven't followed the DEFRA guidelines, my advice would be to appeal against the FPN, and if that fails, fight this one in court.

Does anyone else have experience of dealing with these jobsworths?
dave-o
Yes there was a recent thread and victory on these lines. Can't find it right now, but perhaps someone else can direct you.

The council operative's evidence isn't taken to be sacrosanct like it would if he was a police officer, and the wording mistake would seem to be in your favour.

As it's an FPN though, it'll probably go to the magistrates unless you can convince someone to see sense.
bama
councils keep trying this on. I wonder if this one was prompted by the recent dropping of the 'apple core' case ?
southpaw82
Identification would seem to be an issue. She can not be compelled to take part in an ID parade so the only way she could be identified is in court - not to be relied upon, since everyone IDs the person in the dock! If it ever got that far, she could probably decline to attend and send a brief - certainly no ID then.
Glacier2
Only problem is could the court demand the appearance of the accused?
southpaw82
I can't recall whether the accused has to appear for such an offence. I doubt the court would adjourn in order to demand attandance. In any case, dock IDs are notoriously unreliable and should not be carried out.
Rob S
Bargepole,

Take a look at this thread which I started earlier in the year, the circumstances are identical.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...mp;#entry235945
Top Link
Firstly did the alleged offence occur in London? The reason I ask is that the most recent London Local Authorities Act allows an FPN to be issued to the driver even if the fag was dropped by another person in the vehicle. The powers have to be adopted and that is a legal and administrative nightmare. However to establish who the driver was they should have served a notice requiring that information under s17 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1972 (This is similar to s172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988).

The fixed penalty notice should have been issued to a person positively identified as the driver not the registered keeper who the Council think was the driver. If it was to go to Court the he / she identification issue could be interesting if vehicle is registered in the young ladies name and she looks very much like a lady, slight build long hair etc and standing in Court in a nice dress asks 'Do I look like a bloke your worships?' This then calls all of the Council officers evidence into question and no sef respecting legal dept should take this one to Court.
Pigfarmer
QUOTE (bargepole @ Thu, 4 Sep 2008 - 11:02) *
As they clearly haven't properly identified the alleged offender, and haven't followed the DEFRA guidelines, my advice would be to appeal against the FPN, and if that fails, fight this one in court.


What do the fcukwits at DEFRA have to do with 'motoring' offences ?
southpaw82
Nothing, but they do have quite a bit to do with littering offences rolleyes.gif
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Top Link @ Fri, 5 Sep 2008 - 21:36) *
under s17 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1972

You sure? Statutelaw has no such act.
There is a 1974 act, but S17 of that refers to street trading.
southpaw82
Perhaps they mean s. 24 of the London Local Authorities Act 2007?
Top Link
The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1972 does certainly exist. It is what is termed a private act in as much as it only applies to a specific jurisdiction, Greater London. Make sure you are looking in the right part of statute law data base and you should find it.

The actual offence is one of leaving litter s87 Environmental Protection Act 1990 as amended by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005.

As for an appeal. Write and ask for the matter to be reviewed on the basis that the actual offender has not been identified only the registered keeper. Be very careful not to admit anything or overplay your hand. DEFRA guidlines may be useful but at the end of the day that is what they are guidlines.
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Top Link @ Mon, 8 Sep 2008 - 19:29) *
The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1972 does certainly exist. It is what is termed a private act in as much as it only applies to a specific jurisdiction, Greater London.

Such an Act would be a Local Act (as is the 1974 one), not a Private Act (unless, AFAIK, the GLC actually sponsored it).

QUOTE (Top Link @ Mon, 8 Sep 2008 - 19:29) *
Make sure you are looking in the right part of statute law data base and you should find it.

Nope, only the 1974 one.

In the absence of any deeming provisions, in a criminal case, the RK cannot be inferred to have been the driver, merely by virtue of RKship; the identity of the driver is for the prosecution to prove, to a criminal standard (Clark v DPP).
Top Link
The Greater London Council (GLC) would certainly have sponsored the Act. Following the demise of the GLC the London Boroughs collectively sponsor the London Local Authorities Acts although the Association of London Council's has a co-ordinating role.
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Top Link @ Tue, 9 Sep 2008 - 14:46) *
The Greater London Council (GLC) would certainly have sponsored the Act.

I don't know why you say 'certainly', as I've already said, the 1974 Act is a Local Act, not a Private Act.
bargepole
Update: After my daughter wrote to the Council (NOT in Greater London) pointing out the non-compliance with DEFRA guidelines, and the wrong gender identification, she has now had a reply.

They have cancelled the FPN in her name, but have requested her to identify the miscreant. Apparently, according to their Enforcement Officer, it was "a white male, aged about 50, with short greying hair". She is 27, noticeably female, with long dark hair.

The thing is, this alleged offence occurred at 8:40 am when she would have been on her way to her office, and she never gives anyone a lift to work, or has ever had anyone of that description as a passenger in her car. She'll write back and tell them that, then I think this one will be heading for the bin.
Alexis
I'm intrigued what 'noticably female' means biggrin.gif
The Rookie
Not sure, but I'm imagining it....

Sensibly, your daughter is of course under no legal obligation to ID the alleged offender, however, if she was driving solo, it would no doubt be some sense of satisfaction to poor some scorn on the nymnuts that overstepped there authority, maybe even pointint out that there is no obligation, but as a good citizen she is happy to try and help!

Simon
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.