Litter Fixed Penalty`s

[larry12]

If they do persue this, you may find yourself in hot water. You have actually stated in writing that you were not the driver? You of course have a record of who was driving and can prove that person was insured to drive your car at the time can you? And that person will be prepared to go to court, admit they were driving and that they did throw litter and will accept the fine will they?

 

Very, very foolish.

I did not state i was the driver, i have asked for proof as to who the driver was, there are a large number of people who are insured to drive my car as i have comprehensive insurance, i think that it is for them to prove who was driving, as in court you have to be able to prove without question that the charge is correct, if that were not the case, a warder could stand on any road junction take the reg number and sent the fixed penalty in the post, and the RK would have to pay it? that could not be right!!!

[Lula]

Can you explain to me why, if you have Comprehensive insurance, a large number of people are able to drive your car?

[larry12]

Can you explain to me why, if you have Comprehensive insurance, a large number of people are able to drive your car?

If you have comprehensive motor insurance you can drive any car (3rd Party only) with the owners permission

[ClampingKing]

Not unless that car is also insured in the first place.

[larry12]

Not unless that car is also insured in the first place.

I would have though that went without saying

the car would be confiscated if it were not insured, and your insurance would be invalid if you did not have it taxed and a current MOT ir required

[ClampingKing]

Well, you would have thought that and so would I an many others. But others reading the post may be fooled into believing that they can drive any car if they have fully comp. Hence my comment.

 

Your insurance would NOT be invalid if you didn't have an Mot or tax. But as you seem so wise on the matter, I will let you carry on offering poor advise.

[My Real Name]

All of which is super interesting.

 

But still nothing to do with the council.

 

Even if the car was uninsured, being driven by a baboon, and painted with the apple sauce.

 

But you go ahead and rock the good 'advise' CK.

[larry12]

Well, you would have thought that and so would I an many others. But others reading the post may be fooled into believing that they can drive any car if they have fully comp. Hence my comment.

 

Your insurance would NOT be invalid if you didn't have an Mot or tax. But as you seem so wise on the matter, I will let you carry on offering poor advise.

Your insurance would be most certainly be invalid if you have no tax and indeed if would also be invalid if you did not have an MOT if the car requires one.

[lamma]

irrelevant to the issue in hand.

[Lula]

Sorry, people shouldnt go away with the impression that because they have comprehensive insurance that they can drive another vehicle, you can only drive another vehicle under your insurance IF your policy says so. It isnt a "standard".

[mightymouse_69]

A lot of companies do not offer the "drive other vehicle" clause now anyway, as it was open to abuse.

 

I would be very careful about assuming that just because you are fully comp, you have cover to drive other cars.

[My Real Name]

irrelevant to the issue in hand.

..

[toffee2]

Sorry to butt in here, but can anyone help with my post, which is relevant the OP Larry12's too? - i.e. what would be likely to happen in court given the witness statements that the Council have issued, seemingly to both of us?

 

Car insurance is all very interesting but a bit off topic

[electron99]

I think the correct response here is to write to the Council denying any offence took place, and asking them to describe in greater detail the litter they saw. For all we know, it could have been a trick of the light with nothing being thrown out.

[lamma]

they have to identify the defendent before starting proceedings, they days of identifying in court on the day are long gone. if the council invites you to interveiw under caution don't go. What legislation is the council quoting at you ?

[toffee2]

Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

 

The chronology of my dealings with them is as follows:-

1. They issued a fixed penalty notice to me as the registered keeper of the vehicle from which the alleged littering took place.

2. I asked them to provide details of who was driving at the time. I offered no other information

3. They provided the witness statement as described in my earlier post

4. They sent me a reminder notice stating I have only a few days to pay the FPN, failure of which will result in the case being forwarded to the Authority's legal department for further action

 

What is this further action likely to be, what are my options here?

[lamma]

S.87 defines the offence.read on to S.88 "he may give that person a notice " so they have not dentified 'that person' at all have they ? the read on abit more "(1) Where on any occasion an authorised officer of a litter authority finds a person who he has reason to believe has on that occasion committed an offence under section 87 above in the area of that authority, he may give that person a notice offering him the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for that offence by payment of a fixed penalty." they have issued the FPN outwith that condition. I supect the council will quietly drop iut and if they don't you can have back at them. have good read here Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) - Statute Law Database

[letshelp]

Your insurance would be most certainly be invalid if you have no tax and indeed if would also be invalid if you did not have an MOT if the car requires one.

Nonsense.

[mummy2sam]

Hi, Can someone help me.

 

I received a letter from Bridgend Council (as the RK) asking who was driving the vehicle at this particular time as they threw smoking related litter out of the vehicle.

 

I repled (after doing some searching on here) as above, asking who witnessed it, providing evidence etc etc.

 

They have now responded with the following:

 

" would advise you that photographic or physical (e.g. the item of litter itself) evidence is not necessary due to the offence being witnessed by an Officer with Enforcement powers employed by Bridgend County Borough Council, who is classed by the judicial system as a professional witness and complies with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1985. I trust this provides sufficient clarification in this matter. Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate in contacting this department."

Any one have any ideas on what i do now? I was actually driving the vehicle and it was at 7.40am in the morning, when i had my little one in the car and taking him to nursery. I DO NOT SMOKE in the car when i have my children in the vehicle (we dont even smoke in the house since they came along and go outside in all weather).

Your help would be much appreciated.

Thanks

Han

[Conniff]

You have no option but to challenge the witness if that is the case.

[mummy2sam]

Thanks

 

How do i go about that?

 

The original letter was sent to me as (RK) just asking for the details of who was driving that day at that time! I sent them the letter for details and that was the reply i got.

 

Interestingly on the original letter there is a statement attached, similiar to what the police say when they arrest you "anything you say will be given in evidence etc etc".

 

Should i just ignore it or reply with who was driving?

 

all information is much appreciated!

 

Thanks:)

[B & T]

mummy2sam

 

There is a recent thread over on pepipoo on the same subject which you may find informative & interesting.

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=50374&hl=litter

[toffee2]

I'm no expert, but I have done this a couple of times successfully (previous in this thread?)

 

It seems to me they have ignored the content of your request for confirmation of the driver's identity, and have spun you a intimidating line that mentions judicial action etc to scare you into paying the fine.

 

Cut through the BS and write them a very brief letter stating that they have failed to identify the alleged offender and that unless they can do so, suggest they never contact you again. Do not offer any other information or anything else other than that (important).

 

This is basically a 'put up or shut up' response, you will be in no worse a position for it and I would like to think they will probably back down, as my Local Authority did in my case. They may send a witness statement from the officer with a vague description of the driver and alleged incident but your position will still be the same. Don't give in to this thievery !

[2 pints]

very good advice from connif

[2 pints]

as far as im concerned the council can kiss my ass . charging to much council tax and they dont even earn it

but good luck with your matter . the people on this great site will help you