Ok, say i get one of these proposed £70 penalty notices issued by my council, for a "bin offence" whether it be the wrong type of 
rubbish in it, bin put out too early/returned too late, too full a bin, or whatever else these town hall mandarins can dream up.
Lets then say i decide to dig my heels in and refuse to pay it by any given time.
(I would be doing this on the now somewhat naive grounds of my right to be seen as innocent before being proved guilty, and not 
being given the chance to state my case)
Then, the council decide i have been a naughty boy and take me to court for this arrogant act of non payment.
As i would STILL have no right to state my case in court as to whether the council found me guilty of any offence, i would STILL 
refuse to pay any fine(which has now increased by court fees etc)
Could i then be liable to imprisonment for this non payment, or would it be just a civil matter?

Tom

On Sep 1, 2:33 pm, "Tom & Linda"  wrote:
> Ok, say i get one of these proposed £70 penalty notices issued by my council, for a "bin offence" whether it be the wrong type of
> rubbish in it, bin put out too early/returned too late, too full a bin, or whatever else these town hall mandarins can dream up.
> Lets then say i decide to dig my heels in and refuse to pay it by any given time.
> (I would be doing this on the now somewhat naive grounds of my right to be seen as innocent before being proved guilty, and not
> being given the chance to state my case)
> Then, the council decide i have been a naughty boy and take me to court for this arrogant act of non payment.
> As i would STILL have no right to state my case in court as to whether the council found me guilty of any offence, i would STILL
> refuse to pay any fine(which has now increased by court fees etc)
> Could i then be liable to imprisonment for this non payment, or would it be just a civil matter?
>
> Tom


You recieve an FPN for breaking whatever rule regarding your waste.
If you consider yourself guilty you can pay it, and avoid a court
appearance OR you can consider yourself innocent.  If you consider
yourself innocent you can choose to pay it to get it over with as you
would rather pay it than go to court and fight your corner. OR you can
choose not to pay it and be taken to court.....

You would be taken to court for a criminal offence under section 46 of
The Environmental Protection Act 1990.  If found guilty liable to a
fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.  If you refuse to
pay, imprisonment is an option.

For any rule to be enforceable, however, you MUST have been previously
informed of those rules by notice from the waste collection authority.

"freepo"  wrote in message news:c31e5c93-4739-4cb3-89bf-4087830b9d53@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 1, 2:33 pm, "Tom & Linda"  wrote:
> Ok, say i get one of these proposed £70 penalty notices issued by my council, for a "bin offence" whether it be the wrong type of
> rubbish in it, bin put out too early/returned too late, too full a bin, or whatever else these town hall mandarins can dream up.
> Lets then say i decide to dig my heels in and refuse to pay it by any given time.
> (I would be doing this on the now somewhat naive grounds of my right to be seen as innocent before being proved guilty, and not
> being given the chance to state my case)
> Then, the council decide i have been a naughty boy and take me to court for this arrogant act of non payment.
> As i would STILL have no right to state my case in court as to whether the council found me guilty of any offence, i would STILL
> refuse to pay any fine(which has now increased by court fees etc)
> Could i then be liable to imprisonment for this non payment, or would it be just a civil matter?
>
> Tom


You recieve an FPN for breaking whatever rule regarding your waste.
If you consider yourself guilty you can pay it, and avoid a court
appearance OR you can consider yourself innocent.  If you consider
yourself innocent you can choose to pay it to get it over with as you
would rather pay it than go to court and fight your corner. OR you can
choose not to pay it and be taken to court.....

You would be taken to court for a criminal offence under section 46 of
The Environmental Protection Act 1990.  If found guilty liable to a
fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.  If you refuse to
pay, imprisonment is an option.

For any rule to be enforceable, however, you MUST have been previously
informed of those rules by notice from the waste collection authority.

Thanks for that, but, from what i understand from reading the article i saw
in a few newspapers last week, any court case wouldnt have anything to do
with any Environment act, but more one of non payment of an FPN only.
This being a way of bypassing any challenge of the person issued with said
FPN, with regards to guilt or not

Tom

On Sep 1, 5:46 pm, "Tamale-Loco"  wrote:

> Thanks for that, but, from what i understand from reading the article i saw
> in a few newspapers last week, any court case wouldnt have anything to do
> with any Environment act, but more one of non payment of an FPN only.
> This being a way of bypassing any challenge of the person issued with said
> FPN, with regards to guilt or not
>
> Tom

Then IMHO those newspaper articles you refer to are either wrong or
you recall them incorrectly.  The law clearly states that FPN can be
issued and the person cannot be prosecuted for 14 days after the FPN,
if the FPN is not paid then proceedings **for the alleged offence**
can begin.  It is at this point that you will be judged by a court as
to whether you a guilty or not guilty of the offence.  After 14 days
(and non-payment) the FPN is forgotten about, and the court will
concentrate purely on the offence that may or may not have been
committed.

"freepo"  wrote in message news:bde08eb5-a390-439e-8c02-684f30814b05@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 1, 5:46 pm, "Tamale-Loco"  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for that, but, from what i understand from reading the article i saw
>> in a few newspapers last week, any court case wouldnt have anything to do
>> with any Environment act, but more one of non payment of an FPN only.
>> This being a way of bypassing any challenge of the person issued with said
>> FPN, with regards to guilt or not
>>
>> Tom
>
> Then IMHO those newspaper articles you refer to are either wrong or
> you recall them incorrectly.  The law clearly states that FPN can be
> issued and the person cannot be prosecuted for 14 days after the FPN,
> if the FPN is not paid then proceedings **for the alleged offence**
> can begin.  It is at this point that you will be judged by a court as
> to whether you a guilty or not guilty of the offence.  After 14 days
> (and non-payment) the FPN is forgotten about, and the court will
> concentrate purely on the offence that may or may not have been
> committed.


Well, here is a link to the article in one of the papers i read it in
The last part of what i pasted from the article is what i am on about

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/58917

Exeter City Council is the first local authority in the country to start fining residents, and others are expected to follow suit. 
Anyone putting the "wrong" waste into a green bin will be sent a fixed-penalty notice to compensate the council for the cost of 
cleaning it.
Those who fail to pay will then be taken to court and prosecuted for non-payment of the fine rather than misuse of the bin. The idea 
is to get round a legal loophole.
In 2006 the council lost a landmark legal action against mother-of-three Donna Challice, who was taken to court for putting rotting 
food and cigarette ends in her green bin.
Now if we find a contaminated bin, under the terms of Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act, we serve a notice on every 
adult person in the household concerned.
"This instructs them what they should put in their bins. If we do bill them and they don't pay, they will not be prosecuted under 
Section 46 but can be prosecuted for non-payment of a bill, which is much easier to prove and will be easier to enforce in the 
courts."

Tom

"Tom & Linda"  wrote in message 
news:00803b0c$0$10330$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>
> "freepo"  wrote in message 
> news:bde08eb5-a390-439e-8c02-684f30814b05@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 1, 5:46 pm, "Tamale-Loco"  wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for that, but, from what i understand from reading the article i 
>>> saw
>>> in a few newspapers last week, any court case wouldnt have anything to 
>>> do
>>> with any Environment act, but more one of non payment of an FPN only.
>>> This being a way of bypassing any challenge of the person issued with 
>>> said
>>> FPN, with regards to guilt or not
>>>
>>> Tom
>>
>> Then IMHO those newspaper articles you refer to are either wrong or
>> you recall them incorrectly.  The law clearly states that FPN can be
>> issued and the person cannot be prosecuted for 14 days after the FPN,
>> if the FPN is not paid then proceedings **for the alleged offence**
>> can begin.  It is at this point that you will be judged by a court as
>> to whether you a guilty or not guilty of the offence.  After 14 days
>> (and non-payment) the FPN is forgotten about, and the court will
>> concentrate purely on the offence that may or may not have been
>> committed.
>
>
> Well, here is a link to the article in one of the papers i read it in
> The last part of what i pasted from the article is what i am on about
>
> http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/58917
>
> Exeter City Council is the first local authority in the country to start 
> fining residents, and others are expected to follow suit. Anyone putting 
> the "wrong" waste into a green bin will be sent a fixed-penalty notice to 
> compensate the council for the cost of cleaning it.
> Those who fail to pay will then be taken to court and prosecuted for 
> non-payment of the fine rather than misuse of the bin. The idea is to get 
> round a legal loophole.
> In 2006 the council lost a landmark legal action against mother-of-three 
> Donna Challice, who was taken to court for putting rotting food and 
> cigarette ends in her green bin.
> Now if we find a contaminated bin, under the terms of Section 46 of the 
> Environmental Protection Act, we serve a notice on every adult person in 
> the household concerned.
> "This instructs them what they should put in their bins. If we do bill 
> them and they don't pay, they will not be prosecuted under Section 46 but 
> can be prosecuted for non-payment of a bill, which is much easier to prove 
> and will be easier to enforce in the courts."


Surely they still have to prove the same thing, "that it is *you* who put 
the offending waste in the bin"

tim

On Sep 1, 6:45 pm, "Tom & Linda"  wrote:
> "freepo"  wrote in messagenews:bde08eb5-a390-439e-8c02-684f30814b05@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 1, 5:46 pm, "Tamale-Loco"  wrote:
>
> >> Thanks for that, but, from what i understand from reading the article i saw
> >> in a few newspapers last week, any court case wouldnt have anything to do
> >> with any Environment act, but more one of non payment of an FPN only.
> >> This being a way of bypassing any challenge of the person issued with said
> >> FPN, with regards to guilt or not
>
> >> Tom
>
> > Then IMHO those newspaper articles you refer to are either wrong or
> > you recall them incorrectly.  The law clearly states that FPN can be
> > issued and the person cannot be prosecuted for 14 days after the FPN,
> > if the FPN is not paid then proceedings **for the alleged offence**
> > can begin.  It is at this point that you will be judged by a court as
> > to whether you a guilty or not guilty of the offence.  After 14 days
> > (and non-payment) the FPN is forgotten about, and the court will
> > concentrate purely on the offence that may or may not have been
> > committed.
>
> Well, here is a link to the article in one of the papers i read it in
> The last part of what i pasted from the article is what i am on about
>
> http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/58917
>
> Exeter City Council is the first local authority in the country to start fining residents, and others are expected to follow suit.
> Anyone putting the "wrong" waste into a green bin will be sent a fixed-penalty notice to compensate the council for the cost of
> cleaning it.
> Those who fail to pay will then be taken to court and prosecuted for non-payment of the fine rather than misuse of the bin. The idea
> is to get round a legal loophole.
> In 2006 the council lost a landmark legal action against mother-of-three Donna Challice, who was taken to court for putting rotting
> food and cigarette ends in her green bin.
> Now if we find a contaminated bin, under the terms of Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act, we serve a notice on every
> adult person in the household concerned.
> "This instructs them what they should put in their bins. If we do bill them and they don't pay, they will not be prosecuted under
> Section 46 but can be prosecuted for non-payment of a bill, which is much easier to prove and will be easier to enforce in the
> courts."
>
> Tom

A pity they don't mention what the legal loophole was, perhaps it was
proving which member of the household or that it wasn't  a passing
member of the public who put the chicken into the recyling bin.

The passage does at least show that what I said was true.  All I
suppose they do in addition to the serving of the notice, is instruct
them that the bin will need to be cleaned.   I would have thought that
the householder can clean their own bin, and thus avoid a bill for
cleaning it.

On Sep 1, 8:52 pm, "tim....."  wrote:
> "Tom & Linda"  wrote in messagenews:00803b0c$0$10330$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "freepo"  wrote in message
> >news:bde08eb5-a390-439e-8c02-684f30814b05@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Sep 1, 5:46 pm, "Tamale-Loco"  wrote:
>
> >>> Thanks for that, but, from what i understand from reading the article i
> >>> saw
> >>> in a few newspapers last week, any court case wouldnt have anything to
> >>> do
> >>> with any Environment act, but more one of non payment of an FPN only.
> >>> This being a way of bypassing any challenge of the person issued with
> >>> said
> >>> FPN, with regards to guilt or not
>
> >>> Tom
>
> >> Then IMHO those newspaper articles you refer to are either wrong or
> >> you recall them incorrectly.  The law clearly states that FPN can be
> >> issued and the person cannot be prosecuted for 14 days after the FPN,
> >> if the FPN is not paid then proceedings **for the alleged offence**
> >> can begin.  It is at this point that you will be judged by a court as
> >> to whether you a guilty or not guilty of the offence.  After 14 days
> >> (and non-payment) the FPN is forgotten about, and the court will
> >> concentrate purely on the offence that may or may not have been
> >> committed.
>
> > Well, here is a link to the article in one of the papers i read it in
> > The last part of what i pasted from the article is what i am on about
>
> >http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/58917
>
> > Exeter City Council is the first local authority in the country to start
> > fining residents, and others are expected to follow suit. Anyone putting
> > the "wrong" waste into a green bin will be sent a fixed-penalty notice to
> > compensate the council for the cost of cleaning it.
> > Those who fail to pay will then be taken to court and prosecuted for
> > non-payment of the fine rather than misuse of the bin. The idea is to get
> > round a legal loophole.
> > In 2006 the council lost a landmark legal action against mother-of-three
> > Donna Challice, who was taken to court for putting rotting food and
> > cigarette ends in her green bin.
> > Now if we find a contaminated bin, under the terms of Section 46 of the
> > Environmental Protection Act, we serve a notice on every adult person in
> > the household concerned.
> > "This instructs them what they should put in their bins. If we do bill
> > them and they don't pay, they will not be prosecuted under Section 46 but
> > can be prosecuted for non-payment of a bill, which is much easier to prove
> > and will be easier to enforce in the courts."
>
> Surely they still have to prove the same thing, "that it is *you* who put
> the offending waste in the bin"
>
> tim


I imagine the idea is that the householder is responsible for keeping
the recycled waste receptacles clean and if they don't then the
council will clean it because it is council property.

Also I expect the condition of keeping the recycled bin clean is
within the 'Notice' that is issued to inform householders what the
rules are.

On Sep 1, 2:33 pm, "Tom & Linda"  wrote:
> Ok, say i get one of these proposed £70 penalty notices issued by my council, for a "bin offence" whether it be the wrong type of
> rubbish in it, bin put out too early/returned too late, too full a bin, or whatever else these town hall mandarins can dream up.
> Lets then say i decide to dig my heels in and refuse to pay it by any given time.
> (I would be doing this on the now somewhat naive grounds of my right to be seen as innocent before being proved guilty, and not
> being given the chance to state my case)
> Then, the council decide i have been a naughty boy and take me to court for this arrogant act of non payment.
> As i would STILL have no right to state my case in court as to whether the council found me guilty of any offence, i would STILL
> refuse to pay any fine(which has now increased by court fees etc)
> Could i then be liable to imprisonment for this non payment, or would it be just a civil matter?
>
> Tom

So now I know what you have been reading I wil give you another
answer.

If they issue a fixed penalty under section 46 and you don't pay, they
might take you to court, but depending on what the loophole was, they
might now decide that to be a waste of time.

But if they issue a notice asking you to clean the bin, otherwise they
will bill you for the service of them having to clean your bin......It
would seem that is entirely reasonable.

You mentioned the following offences
1. the wrong type of rubbish in it,
2. bin put out too early/returned too late,
3. too full a bin,

Only No.1 could result in a bill for cleaning the bin, 2 & 3 could
ONLY be dealt with by a FPN.

So it only concerns people who don't keep their recycling bin(s)
clean.

Now the only thing left to discuss is whether the council is allowed
under any law to charge you for cleaning the bin.

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:45:13 +0200, "Tom & Linda" 
wrote:

>
>"freepo"  wrote in message news:bde08eb5-a390-439e-8c02-684f30814b05@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 1, 5:46 pm, "Tamale-Loco"  wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for that, but, from what i understand from reading the article i saw
>>> in a few newspapers last week, any court case wouldnt have anything to do
>>> with any Environment act, but more one of non payment of an FPN only.
>>> This being a way of bypassing any challenge of the person issued with said
>>> FPN, with regards to guilt or not
>>>
>>> Tom
>>
>> Then IMHO those newspaper articles you refer to are either wrong or
>> you recall them incorrectly.  The law clearly states that FPN can be
>> issued and the person cannot be prosecuted for 14 days after the FPN,
>> if the FPN is not paid then proceedings **for the alleged offence**
>> can begin.  It is at this point that you will be judged by a court as
>> to whether you a guilty or not guilty of the offence.  After 14 days
>> (and non-payment) the FPN is forgotten about, and the court will
>> concentrate purely on the offence that may or may not have been
>> committed.
>
>
>Well, here is a link to the article in one of the papers i read it in
>The last part of what i pasted from the article is what i am on about
>
>http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/58917
>
>Exeter City Council is the first local authority in the country to start fining residents, and others are expected to follow suit. 
>Anyone putting the "wrong" waste into a green bin will be sent a fixed-penalty notice to compensate the council for the cost of 
>cleaning it.
>Those who fail to pay will then be taken to court and prosecuted for non-payment of the fine rather than misuse of the bin. The idea 
>is to get round a legal loophole.
>In 2006 the council lost a landmark legal action against mother-of-three Donna Challice, who was taken to court for putting rotting 
>food and cigarette ends in her green bin.
>Now if we find a contaminated bin, under the terms of Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act, we serve a notice on every 
>adult person in the household concerned.
>"This instructs them what they should put in their bins. If we do bill them and they don't pay, they will not be prosecuted under 
>Section 46 but can be prosecuted for non-payment of a bill, which is much easier to prove and will be easier to enforce in the 
>courts."
>

They must have taken legal advice before doing this, but I find it
very hard indeed to believe they can do it.

Which part of the Act (or any "contract" they have with you) gives
them the right to "bill" you for things you have not explicitly agreed
to?
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Laughter: The shortest distance between two people.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On 1 Sep, 21:25, freepo  wrote:
> On Sep 1, 6:45 pm, "Tom & Linda"  wrote:
>
>
>
> > "freepo"  wrote in messagenews:bde08eb5-a390-439e-8c02-684f30814b05@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Sep 1, 5:46 pm, "Tamale-Loco"  wrote:
>
> > >> Thanks for that, but, from what i understand from reading the article i saw
> > >> in a few newspapers last week, any court case wouldnt have anything to do
> > >> with any Environment act, but more one of non payment of an FPN only> > >> This being a way of bypassing any challenge of the person issued with said
> > >> FPN, with regards to guilt or not
>
> > >> Tom
>
> > > Then IMHO those newspaper articles you refer to are either wrong or
> > > you recall them incorrectly.  The law clearly states that FPN can be
> > > issued and the person cannot be prosecuted for 14 days after the FPN,
> > > if the FPN is not paid then proceedings **for the alleged offence**
> > > can begin.  It is at this point that you will be judged by a court as
> > > to whether you a guilty or not guilty of the offence.  After 14 days
> > > (and non-payment) the FPN is forgotten about, and the court will
> > > concentrate purely on the offence that may or may not have been
> > > committed.
>
> > Well, here is a link to the article in one of the papers i read it in
> > The last part of what i pasted from the article is what i am on about
>
> >http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/58917
>
> > Exeter City Council is the first local authority in the country to start fining residents, and others are expected to follow suit.
> > Anyone putting the "wrong" waste into a green bin will be sent a fixed-penalty notice to compensate the council for the cost of
> > cleaning it.
> > Those who fail to pay will then be taken to court and prosecuted for non-payment of the fine rather than misuse of the bin. The idea
> > is to get round a legal loophole.
> > In 2006 the council lost a landmark legal action against mother-of-three Donna Challice, who was taken to court for putting rotting
> > food and cigarette ends in her green bin.
> > Now if we find a contaminated bin, under the terms of Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act, we serve a notice on every
> > adult person in the household concerned.
> > "This instructs them what they should put in their bins. If we do bill them and they don't pay, they will not be prosecuted under
> > Section 46 but can be prosecuted for non-payment of a bill, which is much easier to prove and will be easier to enforce in the
> > courts."
>
> > Tom
>
> A pity they don't mention what the legal loophole was, perhaps it was
> proving which member of the household or that it wasn't  a passing
> member of the public who put the chicken into the recyling bin.
>
> The passage does at least show that what I said was true.  All I
> suppose they do in addition to the serving of the notice, is instruct
> them that the bin will need to be cleaned.   I would have thought that
> the householder can clean their own bin, and thus avoid a bill for
> cleaning it.

Assuming that the council don't clean it, *then* bill the householder.

"freepo"  wrote in message news:88b73132-4fb4-4eda-a7d6-53e35dc90b80@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

So now I know what you have been reading I wil give you another
answer.

If they issue a fixed penalty under section 46 and you don't pay, they
might take you to court, but depending on what the loophole was, they
might now decide that to be a waste of time.

But if they issue a notice asking you to clean the bin, otherwise they
will bill you for the service of them having to clean your bin......It
would seem that is entirely reasonable.

You mentioned the following offences
1. the wrong type of rubbish in it,
2. bin put out too early/returned too late,
3. too full a bin,

Only No.1 could result in a bill for cleaning the bin, 2 & 3 could
ONLY be dealt with by a FPN.

So it only concerns people who don't keep their recycling bin(s)
clean.

Now the only thing left to discuss is whether the council is allowed
under any law to charge you for cleaning the bin.
________________________________________

The court case that the council lost was because the onus of proof was put on THEM to supply
evidence that the householder had contaminated the bin:

"In the case of Donna Challice, the court decided that we had to have evidence from either eye
witnesses or CCTV to ensure that the person taken to court was in fact the person responsible"

The below pasting not only removes any burden of proof of who was responsible for the contamination, but
also ANY proof that it WAS contaminated.....doesn't it?

"Those who fail to pay will then be taken to court and prosecuted for non-payment of the fine rather
than misuse of the bin"

On the subject of contamination, thats open to interpretation. This could be as little as ONE PIECE
of non recyclable material in a recycle bin, and vice versa, not just the "rotting food and cigarette
ends" mentioned in the article.

I suppose the "legal loophole" is precisely the above
Doesnt seem like "just a bill for cleaning a dirty bin " to me

T-L

On Sep 1, 11:49 pm, freepo  wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2:33 pm, "Tom & Linda"  wrote:
>
> > Ok, say i get one of these proposed £70 penalty notices issued by my council, for a "bin offence" whether it be the wrong type of
> > rubbish in it, bin put out too early/returned too late, too full a bin, or whatever else these town hall mandarins can dream up.
> > Lets then say i decide to dig my heels in and refuse to pay it by any given time.
> > (I would be doing this on the now somewhat naive grounds of my right to be seen as innocent before being proved guilty, and not
> > being given the chance to state my case)
> > Then, the council decide i have been a naughty boy and take me to court for this arrogant act of non payment.
> > As i would STILL have no right to state my case in court as to whether the council found me guilty of any offence, i would STILL
> > refuse to pay any fine(which has now increased by court fees etc)
> > Could i then be liable to imprisonment for this non payment, or would it be just a civil matter?
>
> > Tom
>
> So now I know what you have been reading I wil give you another
> answer.
>
> If they issue a fixed penalty under section 46 and you don't pay, they
> might take you to court, but depending on what the loophole was, they
> might now decide that to be a waste of time.
>
> But if they issue a notice asking you to clean the bin, otherwise they
> will bill you for the service of them having to clean your bin......It
> would seem that is entirely reasonable.
>
> You mentioned the following offences
> 1. the wrong type of rubbish in it,
> 2. bin put out too early/returned too late,
> 3. too full a bin,
>
> Only No.1 could result in a bill for cleaning the bin, 2 & 3 could
> ONLY be dealt with by a FPN.
>
> So it only concerns people who don't keep their recycling bin(s)
> clean.
>
> Now the only thing left to discuss is whether the council is allowed
> under any law to charge you for cleaning the bin.

WIth regard to number 3, a solicitor acting in person recently won a
judgment which found that councils could not restrict the amount of
rubbish taken away, where it has been legitimately produced by a
household and sorted into the appropriate receptacles.

I am also not sure to what extent number 2 would be legitimate, if you
had reasonable grounds for putting the bin out earlier or later.

freepo  posted
>You would be taken to court for a criminal offence under section 46 of 
>The Environmental Protection Act 1990.  If found guilty liable to a 
>fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.  If you refuse to 
>pay, imprisonment is an option.
>
>For any rule to be enforceable, however, you MUST have been previously 
>informed of those rules by notice from the waste collection authority.


Another condition for the enforceability of a rule  is that the 
authority has been granted the legal power to impose that particular 
rule. There is certainly no such general power; for example, suppose the 
council made a rule asserting that householders must stand at attention 
beside their bins and salute while the bins are emptied. This rule would 
be unenforceable whether or not the council had informed the 
householders of its existence.

The question thus arises, what powers do the authority have to require 
householders to clean their bins?

-- 
Les
"God will save her, fear you not, be you the men you've been.
Get you the sons your fathers got and God will save the Queen."

Ste  posted
>WIth regard to number 3, a solicitor acting in person recently won a 
>judgment which found that councils could not restrict the amount of 
>rubbish taken away, where it has been legitimately produced by a 
>household and sorted into the appropriate receptacles.

That could be useful. Do you have the reference?

-- 
Les
"God will save her, fear you not, be you the men you've been.
Get you the sons your fathers got and God will save the Queen."

On Sep 1, 10:22 pm, Alex Heney  wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:45:13 +0200, "Tom & Linda" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"freepo"  wrote in messagenews:bde08eb5-a390-439e-8c02-684f30814b05@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Sep 1, 5:46 pm, "Tamale-Loco"  wrote:
>
> >>> Thanks for that, but, from what i understand from reading the article i saw
> >>> in a few newspapers last week, any court case wouldnt have anything to do
> >>> with any Environment act, but more one of non payment of an FPN only.
> >>> This being a way of bypassing any challenge of the person issued with said
> >>> FPN, with regards to guilt or not
>
> >>> Tom
>
> >> Then IMHO those newspaper articles you refer to are either wrong or
> >> you recall them incorrectly.  The law clearly states that FPN can be
> >> issued and the person cannot be prosecuted for 14 days after the FPN,
> >> if the FPN is not paid then proceedings **for the alleged offence**
> >> can begin.  It is at this point that you will be judged by a court as
> >> to whether you a guilty or not guilty of the offence.  After 14 days
> >> (and non-payment) the FPN is forgotten about, and the court will
> >> concentrate purely on the offence that may or may not have been
> >> committed.
>
> >Well, here is a link to the article in one of the papers i read it in
> >The last part of what i pasted from the article is what i am on about
>
> >http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/58917
>
> >Exeter City Council is the first local authority in the country to start fining residents, and others are expected to follow suit.
> >Anyone putting the "wrong" waste into a green bin will be sent a fixed-penalty notice to compensate the council for the cost of
> >cleaning it.
> >Those who fail to pay will then be taken to court and prosecuted for non-payment of the fine rather than misuse of the bin. The idea
> >is to get round a legal loophole.
> >In 2006 the council lost a landmark legal action against mother-of-three Donna Challice, who was taken to court for putting rotting
> >food and cigarette ends in her green bin.
> >Now if we find a contaminated bin, under the terms of Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act, we serve a notice on every
> >adult person in the household concerned.
> >"This instructs them what they should put in their bins. If we do bill them and they don't pay, they will not be prosecuted under
> >Section 46 but can be prosecuted for non-payment of a bill, which is much easier to prove and will be easier to enforce in the
> >courts."
>
> They must have taken legal advice before doing this, but I find it
> very hard indeed to believe they can do it.
>
> Which part of the Act (or any "contract" they have with you) gives
> them the right to "bill" you for things you have not explicitly agreed
> to?

I suspect that the people they're targeting are people who repeatedly
put the wrong stuff in the recycling bin and have repeatedly been told
that it's the wrong stuff but have just ignored the letters.

The council probably expect that these people will just ignore any FPN
and not appeal it. I expect the FPN will have something like "you have
60 days to appeal" on it. Once they don't appeal then the remaining
problem becomes enforcing the FPN.

Tim.

On Sep 2, 8:56 am, Big Les Wade  wrote:

>
> Another condition for the enforceability of a rule  is that the
> authority has been granted the legal power to impose that particular
> rule. There is certainly no such general power; for example, suppose the
> council made a rule asserting that householders must stand at attention
> beside their bins and salute while the bins are emptied. This rule would
> be unenforceable whether or not the council had informed the
> householders of its existence.

Any rule the council makes can presumably be challenged as
unreasonable in the court when they prosecute you for breaking that
rule.  That's surely all part of the normal judicial process, we don't
know what they can and can't enforce until case law has had a chance
to become established, such as the example givien in this thread that
said a solicitor won a case against him for producing too much waste.
Although it is is possible (in that case) the solicitor decided to
start proceedings against the council rather than the other way
around.

> The question thus arises, what powers do the authority have to require
> householders to clean their bins?

That would be EPA Section 46 (4)(a)(d) & (e)

On Sep 1, 10:12 pm, "Tom & Linda"  wrote:

>
> The court case that the council lost was because the onus of proof was put on THEM to supply
> evidence that the householder had contaminated the bin:

I thought that would be it.


> The below pasting not only removes any burden of proof of who was responsible for the contamination, but
> also ANY proof that it WAS contaminated.....doesn't it?
>
> "Those who fail to pay will then be taken to court and prosecuted for non-payment of the fine rather
> than misuse of the bin"

It puts the responsibility for cleaning the bin onto the householder,
or perhaps a council nominated occupant - the former being reasonable,
the latter maybe not.  The evidence of contamination would be the
council officer who witnessed that it was, so that would be the
proof.  Plus the word "fine" in the pasted section above, does rather
confuse matters, in the rest of the article they are talking about a
'bill' not a 'fine'.


> On the subject of contamination, thats open to interpretation. This could be as little as ONE PIECE
> of non recyclable material in a recycle bin, and vice versa, not just the "rotting food and cigarette
> ends" mentioned in the article.

I'm pretty sure any one prosecuted for the non payment of the bill
will be entitled to defend themselves as to the evidence and nature of
the contamination and whether the council has that authority and
whether it is reasonable.


> Doesnt seem like "just a bill for cleaning a dirty bin " to me

But it does only affect issues of bin cleanliness, not bin too full
and time of bin placed on highway etc.

On Sep 2, 9:33 am, "goo...@woodall.me.uk" 
wrote:
> On Sep 1, 10:22 pm, Alex Heney  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:45:13 +0200, "Tom & Linda" 
> > wrote:
>
> > >"freepo"  wrote in messagenews:bde08eb5-a390-439e-8c02-684f30814b05@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> > >> On Sep 1, 5:46 pm, "Tamale-Loco"  wrote:
>
> > >>> Thanks for that, but, from what i understand from reading the article i saw
> > >>> in a few newspapers last week, any court case wouldnt have anything to do
> > >>> with any Environment act, but more one of non payment of an FPN only.
> > >>> This being a way of bypassing any challenge of the person issued with said
> > >>> FPN, with regards to guilt or not
>
> > >>> Tom
>
> > >> Then IMHO those newspaper articles you refer to are either wrong or
> > >> you recall them incorrectly.  The law clearly states that FPN can be
> > >> issued and the person cannot be prosecuted for 14 days after the FPN,
> > >> if the FPN is not paid then proceedings **for the alleged offence**
> > >> can begin.  It is at this point that you will be judged by a court as
> > >> to whether you a guilty or not guilty of the offence.  After 14 days
> > >> (and non-payment) the FPN is forgotten about, and the court will
> > >> concentrate purely on the offence that may or may not have been
> > >> committed.
>
> > >Well, here is a link to the article in one of the papers i read it in
> > >The last part of what i pasted from the article is what i am on about
>
> > >http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/58917
>
> > >Exeter City Council is the first local authority in the country to start fining residents, and others are expected to follow suit.
> > >Anyone putting the "wrong" waste into a green bin will be sent a fixed-penalty notice to compensate the council for the cost of
> > >cleaning it.
> > >Those who fail to pay will then be taken to court and prosecuted for non-payment of the fine rather than misuse of the bin. The idea
> > >is to get round a legal loophole.
> > >In 2006 the council lost a landmark legal action against mother-of-three Donna Challice, who was taken to court for putting rotting
> > >food and cigarette ends in her green bin.
> > >Now if we find a contaminated bin, under the terms of Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act, we serve a notice on every
> > >adult person in the household concerned.
> > >"This instructs them what they should put in their bins. If we do bill them and they don't pay, they will not be prosecuted under
> > >Section 46 but can be prosecuted for non-payment of a bill, which is much easier to prove and will be easier to enforce in the
> > >courts."
>
> > They must have taken legal advice before doing this, but I find it
> > very hard indeed to believe they can do it.
>
> > Which part of the Act (or any "contract" they have with you) gives
> > them the right to "bill" you for things you have not explicitly agreed
> > to?
>
> I suspect that the people they're targeting are people who repeatedly
> put the wrong stuff in the recycling bin and have repeatedly been told
> that it's the wrong stuff but have just ignored the letters.
>
> The council probably expect that these people will just ignore any FPN
> and not appeal it. I expect the FPN will have something like "you have
> 60 days to appeal" on it. Once they don't appeal then the remaining
> problem becomes enforcing the FPN.
>
> Tim.

It's 14 days to pay, I'm not sure there is a provision for appeal, you
effectively get that provision when you allow the council to take you
to court.

On Sep 2, 9:53 am, freepo  wrote:
>
> > The question thus arises, what powers do the authority have to require
> > householders to clean their bins?
>
> That would be EPA Section 46 (4)(a)(d) & (e)

However, it seems to me the correct process for enforcing those rules
would be a FPN followed by court action for the offence.   Not a bill
for cleaning.

freepo  posted
>On Sep 2, 8:56 am, Big Les Wade  wrote:
>
>>
>> Another condition for the enforceability of a rule  is that the
>> authority has been granted the legal power to impose that particular
>> rule. There is certainly no such general power; for example, suppose the
>> council made a rule asserting that householders must stand at attention
>> beside their bins and salute while the bins are emptied. This rule would
>> be unenforceable whether or not the council had informed the
>> householders of its existence.
>
>Any rule the council makes can presumably be challenged as
>unreasonable in the court when they prosecute you for breaking that
>rule.  That's surely all part of the normal judicial process,

The normal judicial process is that you are prosecuted if you break laws 
enacted by Parliament.  Any "rules" made by councils only have the force 
of law if they have been specifically granted power to impose such a 
rule. I agree that councils have the power to serve notices under s.46 
of the Act, but only to impose certain conditions regarding the 
construction of the bins.

>we don't
>know what they can and can't enforce until case law has had a chance
>to become established, such as the example givien in this thread that
>said a solicitor won a case against him for producing too much waste.
>Although it is is possible (in that case) the solicitor decided to
>start proceedings against the council rather than the other way
>around.
>
>> The question thus arises, what powers do the authority have to require
>> householders to clean their bins?
>
>That would be EPA Section 46 (4)(a)(d) & (e)
>

I see nothing about cleaning there.

-- 
Les
"God will save her, fear you not, be you the men you've been.
Get you the sons your fathers got and God will save the Queen."

On Sep 2, 11:14 am, Big Les Wade  wrote:

> The normal judicial process is that you are prosecuted if you break laws
> enacted by Parliament.  Any "rules" made by councils only have the force
> of law if they have been specifically granted power to impose such a
> rule.

Then you will have your opportunity to demonstrate those rules made by
the council -for which you are being prosecuted- are unlawful.

> I agree that councils have the power to serve notices under s.46
> of the Act, but only to impose certain conditions regarding the
> construction of the bins.

Not limited only to the construction (see below)

> >> The question thus arises, what powers do the authority have to require
> >> householders to clean their bins?
>
> >That would be EPA Section 46 (4)(a)(d) & (e)
>
> I see nothing about cleaning there.

Subsection (2) refers to the number and kind of receptacles and that
certain receptacles or compartments of receptacles must be used for
certain types of waste (recylable).

Subsection (4) May make provisions for...
(a) making requirements (upon the occupier) as to maintenance - This
could include cleaning.
(b) where they may/may not be placed
(c) Require them to be placed on the highway i.e. may stipulate times
that are to be adhered to.
(d) The types of waste that are to be put into the the bins
(e) The steps to be taken by occupiers - this could also include
keeping certain bins clean.

Just because 'cleaning' is not specifically mentioned does not mean
that the authority is not authorised to make a provision for that.
And as I said if you disagree, you would be able to defend yourself in
court by arguing that point.  But until someone does argue the point
and wins, they will be authorised to do it.

"freepo"  wrote in message news:d6fe93bf-f11e-4200-8a7a-7cc4a489fe7e@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 2, 11:14 am, Big Les Wade  wrote:
>
>> The normal judicial process is that you are prosecuted if you break laws
>> enacted by Parliament.  Any "rules" made by councils only have the force
>> of law if they have been specifically granted power to impose such a
>> rule.
>
> Then you will have your opportunity to demonstrate those rules made by
> the council -for which you are being prosecuted- are unlawful.
>
>> I agree that councils have the power to serve notices under s.46
>> of the Act, but only to impose certain conditions regarding the
>> construction of the bins.
>
> Not limited only to the construction (see below)
>
>> >> The question thus arises, what powers do the authority have to require
>> >> householders to clean their bins?
>>
>> >That would be EPA Section 46 (4)(a)(d) & (e)
>>
>> I see nothing about cleaning there.
>
> Subsection (2) refers to the number and kind of receptacles and that
> certain receptacles or compartments of receptacles must be used for
> certain types of waste (recylable).
>
> Subsection (4) May make provisions for...
> (a) making requirements (upon the occupier) as to maintenance - This
> could include cleaning.
> (b) where they may/may not be placed
> (c) Require them to be placed on the highway i.e. may stipulate times
> that are to be adhered to.
> (d) The types of waste that are to be put into the the bins
> (e) The steps to be taken by occupiers - this could also include
> keeping certain bins clean.
>
> Just because 'cleaning' is not specifically mentioned does not mean
> that the authority is not authorised to make a provision for that.
> And as I said if you disagree, you would be able to defend yourself in
> court by arguing that point.  But until someone does argue the point
> and wins, they will be authorised to do it.

I might be misreading all that you've said on this matter, but i get
the impression you are missing what i am trying to get across here.
That of a council (and therefore, soon, every other council) can adopt
a policy of bypassing the need to provide evidence of any "crime" for
which they issue an FNC for. And with THAT goes the right of a citizen
to state HIS case in a court of law. In other words, not only will we
be seen as guilty until we can prove our innocence, but we lose that
chance (right?) to prove it.
Ones so called " day in court" will consist of "did you pay?" "No"
"then do so" is how i read the news article.
Also i feel you seem to be getting bogged down on the subject of
"contamination"
I could contaminate a whole row of bins left out on collection day
with but a handful of plastic shopping bags, food cartons, or other
non recyclable, but dry and clean waste in each of them.
It doesnt need to be something "icky and nasty" you know;-)
Certainly nothing that warrents a £70 "cleaning bill" !!!!
And, by virtue of the fact that it was ME who contaminated
a whole row of bins, how can the council issue ANY FPN
to the householder?

Tom

Sorry, not FNC.........i mean FPN
Doh !!!!! :-)

Tom

On Sep 2, 1:12 pm, "Tom & Linda"  wrote:
> "freepo"  wrote in messagenews:d6fe93bf-f11e-4200-8a7a-7cc4a489fe7e@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 2, 11:14 am, Big Les Wade  wrote:
>
> >> The normal judicial process is that you are prosecuted if you break laws
> >> enacted by Parliament.  Any "rules" made by councils only have the force
> >> of law if they have been specifically granted power to impose such a
> >> rule.
>
> > Then you will have your opportunity to demonstrate those rules made by
> > the council -for which you are being prosecuted- are unlawful.
>
> >> I agree that councils have the power to serve notices under s.46
> >> of the Act, but only to impose certain conditions regarding the
> >> construction of the bins.
>
> > Not limited only to the construction (see below)
>
> >> >> The question thus arises, what powers do the authority have to require
> >> >> householders to clean their bins?
>
> >> >That would be EPA Section 46 (4)(a)(d) & (e)
>
> >> I see nothing about cleaning there.
>
> > Subsection (2) refers to the number and kind of receptacles and that
> > certain receptacles or compartments of receptacles must be used for
> > certain types of waste (recylable).
>
> > Subsection (4) May make provisions for...
> > (a) making requirements (upon the occupier) as to maintenance - This
> > could include cleaning.
> > (b) where they may/may not be placed
> > (c) Require them to be placed on the highway i.e. may stipulate times
> > that are to be adhered to.
> > (d) The types of waste that are to be put into the the bins
> > (e) The steps to be taken by occupiers - this could also include
> > keeping certain bins clean.
>
> > Just because 'cleaning' is not specifically mentioned does not mean
> > that the authority is not authorised to make a provision for that.
> > And as I said if you disagree, you would be able to defend yourself in
> > court by arguing that point.  But until someone does argue the point
> > and wins, they will be authorised to do it.
>
> I might be misreading all that you've said on this matter, but i get
> the impression you are missing what i am trying to get across here.
> That of a council (and therefore, soon, every other council) can adopt
> a policy of bypassing the need to provide evidence of any "crime" for
> which they issue an FNC for. And with THAT goes the right of a citizen
> to state HIS case in a court of law. In other words, not only will we
> be seen as guilty until we can prove our innocence, but we lose that
> chance (right?) to prove it.
> Ones so called " day in court" will consist of "did you pay?" "No"
> "then do so" is how i read the news article.
> Also i feel you seem to be getting bogged down on the subject of
> "contamination"
> I could contaminate a whole row of bins left out on collection day
> with but a handful of plastic shopping bags, food cartons, or other
> non recyclable, but dry and clean waste in each of them.
> It doesnt need to be something "icky and nasty" you know;-)
> Certainly nothing that warrents a £70 "cleaning bill" !!!!
> And, by virtue of the fact that it was ME who contaminated
> a whole row of bins, how can the council issue ANY FPN
> to the householder?
>
> Tom

I do understand what you are saying.  However the news article is not
clear at all on what the council is proposing.  For one thing it talks
of billing the customer for cleaning and also talks of a FPN for
having to clean the bin, then talks of "non payment of the fine"  It's
either a fine or it's a bill for cleaning.

If it's a fine,
You will have your day in court, And you can ask that the council
proves to the court they have the right to issue the fine. Then you
can argue that you were not responsible for cleaning the bin.

If it's a bill,
They would have to show the court that they have the right to bill you
for the service in the first place and the evidence that the bin
required cleaning. And you equally have the right to defend your point
of view that they have no such right to bill you for cleaning.

So you do get your day in court either way.

Even if I am wrong (above) and they don't have to prove anything *Any*
action or decesion taken by a council is open to judicial review, if
you think they have no right, you can challenge them in the courts.

Ste wrote:
> On Sep 1, 11:49 pm, freepo  wrote:
>> On Sep 1, 2:33 pm, "Tom & Linda"  wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, say i get one of these proposed £70 penalty notices issued by my council, for a "bin offence" whether it be the wrong type of
>>> rubbish in it, bin put out too early/returned too late, too full a bin, or whatever else these town hall mandarins can dream up.
>>> Lets then say i decide to dig my heels in and refuse to pay it by any given time.
>>> (I would be doing this on the now somewhat naive grounds of my right to be seen as innocent before being proved guilty, and not
>>> being given the chance to state my case)
>>> Then, the council decide i have been a naughty boy and take me to court for this arrogant act of non payment.
>>> As i would STILL have no right to state my case in court as to whether the council found me guilty of any offence, i would STILL
>>> refuse to pay any fine(which has now increased by court fees etc)
>>> Could i then be liable to imprisonment for this non payment, or would it be just a civil matter?
>>> Tom
>> So now I know what you have been reading I wil give you another
>> answer.
>>
>> If they issue a fixed penalty under section 46 and you don't pay, they
>> might take you to court, but depending on what the loophole was, they
>> might now decide that to be a waste of time.
>>
>> But if they issue a notice asking you to clean the bin, otherwise they
>> will bill you for the service of them having to clean your bin......It
>> would seem that is entirely reasonable.
>>
>> You mentioned the following offences
>> 1. the wrong type of rubbish in it,
>> 2. bin put out too early/returned too late,
>> 3. too full a bin,
>>
>> Only No.1 could result in a bill for cleaning the bin, 2 & 3 could
>> ONLY be dealt with by a FPN.
>>
>> So it only concerns people who don't keep their recycling bin(s)
>> clean.
>>
>> Now the only thing left to discuss is whether the council is allowed
>> under any law to charge you for cleaning the bin.
> 
> WIth regard to number 3, a solicitor acting in person recently won a
> judgment which found that councils could not restrict the amount of
> rubbish taken away, where it has been legitimately produced by a
> household and sorted into the appropriate receptacles.
> 
> I am also not sure to what extent number 2 would be legitimate, if you
> had reasonable grounds for putting the bin out earlier or later.
  would have thought that if the council was fining people about recycle 
bins that you would just put the bin in the back yard for the dog to use 
as kennel and put all rubbish and recyclables in the non recycle bin

On Sep 3, 11:24 am, F Murtz  wrote:

>   would have thought that if the council was fining people about recycle
> bins that you would just put the bin in the back yard for the dog to use
> as kennel and put all rubbish and recyclables in the non recycle bin

I suspect if you did that, Exeter council would still periodically
clean the bin and charge you for the pleasure.  You would be better
asking them to come and collect the recyle bin and take it away.

It could also be argued that Section 46 (4)(d) can require people to
recycle.

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:31:17 +0200, "Tom & Linda"  wrote:

>Sorry, not FNC.........i mean FPN

That would be bit extreme... I have a couple of FNC rifles, and very nice they
are too, but probably overkill for bin issues :-)

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'