The Lemon Fool

Is it worthwhile appealing the above under zero tolerance rule in Wandsworth council?

A friend left her Metro paper on an electric circuit box with a view of picking it up (to complete the crossword puzzles) after her visit to Podiatrist & food shopping. She was not aware of the zero tolerance policy.

The fine is £100 which is very stiff for an OAP. Is it worth her while appealing?

Thanks

If it does not cost anything to appeal then it is worth doing.

John

Does anyone know if it is worthwhile appealing littering fine for council of Wandsworth?

A friend left her copy of the paper ‘Metro’ on the electric circuit box (outside Clapham Junction Rail Station) on St John’s Hill Road as she was going shopping in Asda after her visit to the Podiatrist. Her intention was to pick the newspapers up on her return to Clapham Junction Railway Station as she wanted to complete the crosswords puzzle during her journey back home.

The fine is £100 & that is pretty stiff for an OAP. Has anyone had any experience about appealing?

Thanks

It sounds as though she left litter to me. The claim that she intended to pick it up again is one person's word against another. Anyone walking past would have seen unsightly litter. Surely if you intend to complete the crossword in a paper, you carry the paper with you?

Friend just received the penalty notice in writing. No indication of right to appeal . Just pay up within 10 days of notice ( dated 14 but just received today 17 Sept) or legal action.

The notice was inaccurate - “friend threw newspaper onto pavement “ Of course, it will be words of friend against officer.

That is outrageous. certainly she should appeal.

Dod

Ifnotnow8 wrote:Is it worthwhile appealing the above under zero tolerance rule in Wandsworth council?

A friend left her Metro paper on an electric circuit box with a view of picking it up (to complete the crossword puzzles) after her visit to Podiatrist & food shopping. She was not aware of the zero tolerance policy.

The fine is £100 which is very stiff for an OAP. Is it worth her while appealing?

How did the council know who to fine? A left newspaper would not normally have any identifying information on it?

Why can't she just deny leaving it there?

s87(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides that:

A person is guilty of an offence if he throws down, drops or otherwise deposits any litter in any place to which this section applies and leaves it.

It appears to be a strict liability offence (like speeding) - there's no element of intention in the defiinition of the offence.

As far as I can see, there's no specific appeal against the issue of an FPN, but I suggest your friend writes to the relevant authority and explains the situation. She may get let off for a first offence possibly. She needs to pay the penalty within 14 days so don't hang about.

I'm not sure I'd have relied on depositing a newspaper on a bit of street furniture with a view to expecting it to still be there some hours later. Does her explanation include a reason why she couldn't have taken it with her?

Scott.

My friend doesn’t deny leaving the newspaper on the top of the electric circuit box. The enforcement officer stopped her and took her details. The report on the summon today was “ my friend dropped the papers on the pavement”was untrue. My friend is a retired nurse who has recently returned to help with the vaccination programme. Her NHS Pension just about paid for her rent and bills. If she doesn’t pay within 10 days, it will increase to £150 if settle within 14 days.

I think it is the Wandsworth council way of increasing their revenue on people who do not live in the area.

It was very clear from the attitude of the enforcement officer from the word go.

Reply to Scott,

My friend was going to drop into Asda to do her food shopping and to lighten her load she was going to pick up the Metro on her way back to Clapham Junction Rail Station. She likes doing crosswords puzzle on the train.

Ifnotnow8 wrote:Reply to Scott,

My friend was going to drop into Asda to do her food shopping and to lighten her load she was going to pick up the Metro on her way back to Clapham Junction Rail Station. She likes doing crosswords puzzle on the train.

This seems very odd indeed and has the touch of post hoc invention. To leave a paper on a piece of street furniture is littering and apart from anything else risks it blowing away on to the pavement or into the road.

I agree the fine seems draconian, but: she littered which ever way you look at it, and her straightened circumstances or worthy occupation are hardly relevant. To encourage her to appeal is to condone littering, increase public costs as well as to increase her emotional burden, especially when she loses. If she "gets off" on the technical ground that the enforcement officer was inaccurate in the placement of the newspaper it will be a sad outcome for the authorities who are trying to make our streets a tidier place.

Conclusion: she should pay up and move on with her life having learnt a lesson.

Arb.

Ifnotnow8 wrote:....to lighten her load ...

If that's the rationale for an appeal, I don't think it's worth the postage stamp....

V8

Ifnotnow8 wrote:My friend doesn’t deny leaving the newspaper on the top of the electric circuit box. The enforcement officer stopped her and took her details. The report on the summon today was “ my friend dropped the papers on the pavement”was untrue. My friend is a retired nurse who has recently returned to help with the vaccination programme. Her NHS Pension just about paid for her rent and bills. If she doesn’t pay within 10 days, it will increase to £150 if settle within 14 days.

I think it is the Wandsworth council way of increasing their revenue on people who do not live in the area.

It was very clear from the attitude of the enforcement officer from the word go.

Sounds like your friend was unduly and unusually cooperative. In the same situation I imagine that I would simply ignore the EO and walk off. Since the EO would not have the power of arrest, there would not be much he or she could do about it. Without a conversation the identity of the litterer would not be known to the council, so there could be no fine or citation.

I might pick up the newspaper first, however, so there isn't any evidence or fingerprints either!

So I guess my question is why anyone would cooperate with such a snide and confiscatory "enforcement" process?

Lootman wrote:
So I guess my question is why anyone would cooperate with such a snide and confiscatory "enforcement" process?

My question is would anyone not want to comply with the reasonable and lawful request from an enforcement officer?

When I showed this thread to my wife ( an ex teacher) her immediate reaction was "It's like a child at school saying the dog ate my homewrok".

This is a person who knows she's done wrong and who is just making feeble excuses for her behaviour. Her story about wanting to lighten her load before shopping is beyond belief, especially as she tells us she expected to pick it up later when carrying the shopping. Pull the other one madam.
The EO saw straight through her and she was annoyed that he did so: instead of putting her hand up and admitting her fault, she's now having a fit of peek to hide her embarassment.
To make it even sillier, she is trying to justify her wrongdoing by a doomed appeal. Best to save emotional energy and get on with life.

Arb.

Arborbridge wrote:

Lootman wrote:So I guess my question is why anyone would cooperate with such a snide and confiscatory "enforcement" process?

My question is would anyone not want to comply with the reasonable and lawful request from an enforcement officer?

When I showed this thread to my wife ( an ex teacher) her immediate reaction was "It's like a child at school saying the dog ate my homewrok".

This is a person who knows she's done wrong and who is just making feeble excuses for her behaviour. Her story about wanting to lighten her load before shopping is beyond belief, especially as she tells us she expected to pick it up later when carrying the shopping. Pull the other one madam.

The EO saw straight through her and she was annoyed that he did so: instead of putting her hand up and admitting her fault, she's now having a fit of peek to hide her embarassment.

To make it even sillier, she is trying to justify her wrongdoing by a doomed appeal. Best to save emotional energy and get on with life.

Oh I agree the things she said did not help her situation at all.

I guess what I don't understand is the basis of any jurisdiction that the enforcement officer claims to have over a private individual in a public place if he is just a council employee and not a policeman. I guess an analogy is a parking meter guy - they cannot detain you but driving off doesn't help as they have your number plate. But in this case the "officer" has no way to ID you unless you cooperate.

Perhaps a better analogy is a fare inspector on a train. But on a train you cannot just leave. With a "litter officer" there can be nothing to force you to cooperate. So I think this woman could have ignored him and walked off. I am not saying she should have done; only that she could have done and avoided the whole thing.

But yeah, all that said, people should not litter.

Lootman wrote:I guess what I don't understand is the basis of any jurisdiction that the enforcement officer claims to have over a private individual in a public place if he is just a council employee and not a policeman.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/section/40, or, more readably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_safety_accreditation_scheme

Lootman wrote: So I think this woman could have ignored him and walked off. I am not saying she should have done; only that she could have done and avoided the whole thing.

But yeah, all that said, people should not litter.

Well, in these posts there are lots of woulds, coulds, shoulds

It seems to me by saying you would have just walked away rather implies you thing she should have done that.
I'm sad to see you - a relatively well off citizen who I guess wants to be seen as being an "upright" one too - condoning such behaviour.

It seems some people try to baulk at the rules or over step the mark if they can to their advantage, and others prefer to go along with regulation which they see as for the common good.

Some of us keep off the grass if a notice tells us to even though no one will fine us (probably) others just ignore it to claim a selfish and minute short cut saving. Likewise with the softish regulations about Covid which some tried to ignore or bend, whereas the majority went along for the common good - or because they respected authority. And some of us obey the speed limit even though we are in a hurry, not because we might "get caught" but out of respect for the people who live there.

It has been said that the British have two populations: those who drop litter, and those who never drop litter. So it is with these various regulations, large or small: some people selfishly push the boundaries, sacrifice common decency, others are happy to tow the line out of altruism and a desire to maintain a well ordered civic life which we all enjoy.

Arb.

Arborbridge wrote:

Lootman wrote: So I think this woman could have ignored him and walked off. I am not saying she should have done; only that she could have done and avoided the whole thing.

But yeah, all that said, people should not litter.

Well, in these posts there are lots of woulds, coulds, shoulds

It seems to me by saying you would have just walked away rather implies you thing she should have done that.
I'm sad to see you - a relatively well off citizen who I guess wants to be seen as being an "upright" one too - condoning such behaviour.

It seems some people try to baulk at the rules or over step the mark if they can to their advantage, and others prefer to go along with regulation which they see as for the common good.

Some of us keep off the grass if a notice tells us to even though no one will fine us (probably) others just ignore it to claim a selfish and minute short cut saving. Likewise with the softish regulations about Covid which some tried to ignore or bend, whereas the majority went along for the common good - or because they respected authority. And some of us obey the speed limit even though we are in a hurry, not because we might "get caught" but out of respect for the people who live there.

It has been said that the British have two populations: those who drop litter, and those who never drop litter. So it is with these various regulations, large or small: some people selfishly push the boundaries, sacrifice common decency, others are happy to tow the line out of altruism and a desire to maintain a well ordered civic life which we all enjoy.

Arb.

Interesting thread this. I think you (Arb) are being a bit absolutist about this. For a start I don't litter (e.g. throw a used takeaway box onto the street), but I do often leave a copy of the Metro where the next person can use it (e.g. on the seats in the tube, on a bench on a platform etc). I don't consider that littering, and if I were to dispose of it in a bin I would consider that a huge waste of the planets resource, so not in the greater good, even if I was technically in the wrong.
And if I did get called on it, at that point I would do whatever I could to get out of a penalty. This might involve the post hoc rationalisation that I think happened in this case, or more likely trying to convince the enforcement officer it wasn't littering, and if that didn't work walking away without giving my details, which is what Lootman would do.
Not all regulations are cast iron morally correct in all situations (walk across the grass because you've twisted your ankle and shortening the journey causes you less pain?) and not all regulations are enforced fairly/un-offensively.
And if I did succeed in not paying a penalty I would probably modify my behaviour so as not to get into that position in the future, so, Job done and win-win for everyone.
Peace out
May Lix

Ifnotnow8 wrote:Friend just received the penalty notice in writing. No indication of right to appeal . Just pay up within 10 days of notice ( dated 14 but just received today 17 Sept) or legal action.

The notice was inaccurate - “friend threw newspaper onto pavement “ Of course, it will be words of friend against officer.

Surely the "right of appeal" lies within the option for "legal action". The fixed penalty principle is to give you a chance to admit guilt, stump up the penalty and save the court the time a hearing would otherwise take when you were planning to plead "guilty" all along.

Given your friend denies liability and also has a string of mitigating reasons anyway (is a retired nurse, was gonna pick it up later, etc), but also an arguable reason to plead not guilty (i.e. the council jobsworth's evidence is fabricated), she should choose the "legal action" route in order to state her case before the magistrates. If found guilty, options to appeal will become available.

Just my view of it as an experienced barrack room lawyer