Unfortunately, as I said in my first reply, there is not a simple answer to the definition of littering. If the allegation is “littering” and it’s not being made under railway bylaws, then I suspect it is under s87 of the Environmental Protection Act. This is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/87 There is an interesting report by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England. It’s a lengthy tome, but the relevant passage begins on page 14: https://www.cpre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/CPRE-Litter-Law-Report.pdf There are a number of points you could take on board: The High Court

Ok, I understand. Let's see what more knowledgeable colleagues here think, it's not something I've been involved with before, although my first thought is that YW have no legal duty to tell you that might have a leak if you have never asked them to investigate the reason for increased water usage. And if they have no legal duty then you wouldn't have the right to get them to pay any of your increased costs. I can't envisage any circumstance where they would be responsible for paying your plumber's bill. Toilet fittings wear out and need replacing from time to time; it's a home maintenance cost.

And I've just noticed your remarks about the letter. It should give you details of the alleged offence (citing the legislation), how to pay the penalty (should that be your choice) and how to appeal (either to an arbitrator if it is appropriate or in the Magistrates' Court). Any chance you could post a redacted copy on here?

Well, you'd petter prey for redemption Dave...

Agree: unless you believe your dismissal was due to a protected characteristic - and it sounds like that is not the case - then at this point the best revenge is to move on, be happy, live well... do not let this eat you up!

Unfortunately it's not that straightforward. There is no single definition of "Litter". Some legislation gives examples of what could be considered litter. It does not include material deposited by spitting but that is not an exhaustive list. As mentioned above, there have been a couple of threads where the definition of litter was discussed. Somebody suggested as a "rule of thumb" that if you can pick it up, it's litter, if you can't then it's not. This would seemingly rule out urine and phlegm, but this simple definition is not mentioned anywhere in any case law that I know of. There is certainly a strong case to suggest that urine is

Fill this out and people should be along to help soon

I tend to agree with my site team colleague – unless you can find something in writing on their website – or else on the regulators website which suggests that in addition to reading the meter there will be some kind of visual inspection and report back on the condition of it. I think there is very little chance that you will find something

I wasn't thinking about the law so much as why you think Yorkshire Water might have a responsibility for knowing you had a small leak. Reredaing your thread I see that it was something YW informed youabout last month. Did they actually tell you specifically that your toilet had a leak? How would they know that? What did they actually say?

Yes I'm not sure either but it seems to me that the responsibility is with the finance companies so it should probably be them documents, Key – everything. Don't forget, that this is not the end of the problem. They will probably still rise up in fury but at least you have unloaded the car and that is part of the problem. After that, if they don't play ball then you will have to continue the action. Monitor the court website very closely around the time of the deadline. The moment you get an opportunity – just go straight in and apply for judgement. Even though you applied, it takes about a week or so for the application to go t

Okay so you got to establish that they would have seen the problem and that they had a duty to flag it up to you. It may be practice for them to do so but I think you would have to find something in writing and you may have your work cut out. Have you any idea what was the cause of the leak?

What damage has the leak caused? What is the value of the damage? I know that they are meant to read their meters but have they actually done so? Are the meters in a place which would ordinarily be visible to you?

opps wheres the T&C's might only be a 1yrs contract that must be renewed each year...wonder what they are hiding by not sending the T&C's??? dx

Just a note on the CCTV issue. It would be more likely that the card use database would be where TFL start. From that decide whether it is worthwhile sitting at a terminal in Palestra House scanning foot traffic at barriers

@Andyorch - Just an FYI if you open a raw PDF that has had the marker tool used over it you can still just open in Firefox, highlight the text and copy it out. Would suggest digital PDFs like this is to "print" them as a PDF then edit over them.

That's strange it hasn't saved. Paragraph 3, I altered 'prayed' to 'preyed'. HB

Otherwise known as standing on the shoulders of giants That is a cracking snotty letter - well done! I've changed a couple of "your" to "their" as it's actually the client's case, and I wouldn't overegg it with mentioning the ICO as they are allowed to use cameras (as long as they have planning permission). I've also removed the word "fine". Apart from that it's good to go. Invest in two 2nd class stamps and get two free Certificates of Posting from the post office. Don't worry about their silly Christmas Eve deadline, they're not going to start court action on Christmas Day. If you want to have a laugh at their e

From experience based on my previous incarnation, if I had been presented with this bylaws offence to supervise, I would have discontinued it because - It involves a juvenile who probably has some needs that require input from an appropriate adult. Also because the offence is "de-minimus" Too trivial to proceed with. Whilst there are still railways offences of spitting on platforms (originating in times when TB was prevalent) that's not mentioned here. The letter should have details of how to proceed with a challenge. But as one poster said, local news and embarrassing the issuer may be more effective.

You need to work out when your defence is due and start working on that. Please tell us what the deadline date is. From memory, that information is in the sticky thread questionnaire you filled in about the claimform. Don't wait for a response to anything that could take you over that deadline. You really need to start reading other threads now, to understand the court process. Try looking at cases that have already been to court and won in our Successes form. Start with the newest ones. HB

How`s this for a shot at a snotty letter? Have heavily plagiarised other peoples I take it I ignore all the DOCs they sent and just send this. Get proof of posting. As i`ve left it so late, should I make sure it`s delivered before the 24th (which was their imposed cut of date)? Dear BW Legal, I write in response to your so-called ‘Letter Before Claim’ dated 24th November 2023 which has been received in relation to PCN Number xxxx, issued by GXS Services Limited for alleged parking breaches. I am writing to confirm that I have no intention of paying this ridiculous sum of money for the alleged breach of contract

I wonder how this will pan out. Trump's likely to be seeing a lot of the US Supreme Court one way or another. Colorado supreme court disqualifies Trump from state’s 2024 ballot | US news | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM State’s highest court declares former president ineligible for White House under the US constitution’s insurrection clause

Sorry I missed your earlier posts about the PCN not being compliant. It relates to Schedule 4 S9[2][e] (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges they missed out asking the KEEPER to pay the PCN. They did get the next part right but the damage was done by not advising the keeper to pay . At the start of Section 9 [2] it says "The Notice [ie the PCN] MUST......." then gives a list of what conditions the PCN must carry out to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms

I'm asthmatic although fortunately the last time I had an attack was 23 years ago. However in my teenage years I had it really badly, and having a simple cold was terrible, I would start wheezing and having to cough up phlegm. On occasion this was when I was out and about and would come out of nothing, and it was damn embarrassing having to find somewhere to get rid of the phlegm. I remember running around the back of buildings or coughing it up on a grass verge hoping no-one was around. Just a suggestion by someone who knows very little about "littering" - but could a medical emergency suffered by a disabled person be a road to g

You'll find in life that people aren't willing to help people who don't even bother to help themselves.

Beavis applies narrowly on its own facts and in reality could be turned and used against them in certain circumstances, anyway the link Nicky Boy provided will explain.

not his problem he doesn't have to ID himself or interact with bailiffs at all they really have no powers to demand people ID themselves, same as the Police in public or at your home, if you've not been charged with anything you are under ZERO liability under Law to ID yourself. dx

Ok, thanks. Merry Christmas everyone!

A question for the bailiff experts, if a bailiff comes to the door they will start by asking for John Smith, to which @brownie2024 will reply doesn't live here/don't know him. To which the bailiff will presumably reply "can you prove to me that you aren't John Smith". Do we advise that brownie2024 should show the bailiff photo ID - passport, driving licence - to prove they aren't John Smith, as the quickest way to get rid of the bailiff? Hold the ID up from inside the window so bailiff can see it, don't hand it to them.

The interview hasn't gone down well and people are comparing it to the Price Andrew interview with Emily Maitlis. Maybe they thought Laura K would go easy on them. At least one news organisation that received libel threats from Mone and Barrowman's lawyers is talking about suing them for the legal costs they incurred for dealing with the threatening legal letters.

Ministers mocked after boasting of using £235million taken from cancelling HS2 train line to fix roads in London ... and branding it part of a scheme to improve connectivity in the North | Daily Mail Online WWW.DAILYMAIL.CO.UK The Department for Transport sparked uproar this morning when it hailed the new spending in the capital as being made possible by using 'rerouted HS2... Ministers mocked after boasting of using £235million taken from cancelling HS2 train line to fix roads in London ... and branding it part of a scheme to improve connectivity in the North '''Network North'' seems to include eve