Emmanuel Bernard v Leicester City Council

1. The Appellant appeals against a Notice of intent to serve a fixed penalty notice issued to him because the Respondent observed his wheelie bin on the pavement outside his house outside the permitted hours. Residents are permitted to leave their wheelie bins on the pavement not before 7pm on Monday evening and not later than 7am on Wednesday morning...

Source officielle

3 min de lecture 600 mots

1. The Appellant appeals against a Notice of intent to serve a fixed penalty notice issued to him because the Respondent observed his wheelie bin on the pavement outside his house outside the permitted hours. Residents are permitted to leave their wheelie bins on the pavement not before 7pm on Monday evening and not later than 7am on Wednesday morning each week to allow for refuse collection.

2. The Respondent council is responsible for refuse collection in the area where the Appellant lives and has duties to maintain the local environment under the Environment protection Act 1990.

3. On 22/11/2021 the Respondent council issued a written warning to the Appellant warning him that if his wheelie bin was again observed to be on the highway outside the hours permitted for bin collection then he would face a fixed penalty of £80 under the Environmental protection Act 1990.

4. The bin was again observed to be on the highway in breach of the warning notice on 08/12/2021, 04/02/2022. On 23/02/2022 the Respondent served a Notice of intent to serve a fixed penalty notice on the Appellant. The Appellant sent an email to the Respondent requesting a waiver of the penalty stating that ; a. He is a student trying to complete his PhD thesis at the University of Leicester. He has been unable to complete his field research due to Covid 19 restrictions and his three-year PhD has taken longer than expected to complete. He had sponsorship for 3 years but this has now expired. He has lost his immigration status and he has applied for an extension to his student visa to enable him to complete his studies b. Due to the expiry of his visa he is unable to work c. Because he was so busy trying to complete his PhD thesis, he did not read the warning notice from the Respondent. His daughter read it and misunderstood it, believing it to be referring to the recycling bin. She did not speak to her father about it as he was under pressure and consequently, he was unaware of the situation.

5. In response the Local authority states that the reasons given by the Appellant for not complying with the written notice did not amount to a reasonable excuse and refused to waive the penalty. Findings

6. I am satisfied that the Respondent has established by photographs and evidence of stickers attached by the Respondent’s officers to the wheelie bin, that the Respondent duly notified the Appellant that he was failing to comply with the s46 Written warning notice served on 22/11/2021 and he faced a penalty of £80.

7. I find that the Appellant left his wheelie bin on the highway outside of the permitted hours on 22/11/2021, 08/12/2021 and 04/02/2022. On 13/04/2022 the Respondent properly issued a fixed penalty notice against the Appellant under s46A(4) of the Environmental protection Act 1990.

8. I agree with the Respondent Council that the reasons given by the Appellant for leaving the Wheelie bin out and causing an obstruction and possible nuisance to other residents in the area did not amount to a reasonable excuse.

9. Taking into account the Appellant’s current straitened circumstances and given that there is no evidence of failure to comply with any other warning notices issued to the Appellant on previous occasions, I reduce the penalty on this occasion to £25. SignedDate: 24/08/2022


Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).

A propos de cette decision

Décisions similaires

Royaume-Uni

First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Information Rights

Fiscal EN

Beacon Counselling Trust v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Introduction to the Appeal 1. On 23 May 2024, the Appellant submitted a request (“the Request”) to the Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) for copies of correspondence making reference to the Appellant, which had been sent to or from a named person at the Trust from 1 February 2023 to the date of the Request. 2....

Royaume-Uni

High Court (Chancery Division)

Fiscal EN

Kalaivani Jaipal Kirishani v George Major

Sir Anthony Mann : Introduction 1. This is an appeal from an order of HHJ Gerald sitting in the County Court at Central London dated 23rd December 2024 in which he dismissed two of three claims made by Ms Kirishana as claimant against her former cohabitee Mr Major. The claims were for a contribution to household and other domestic expenses,...

Royaume-Uni

High Court (Insolvency and Companies List)

Commercial EN

Joanna Rich v JDDR Capital Limited

ICC JUDGE AGNELLO KC: Introduction 1. This is the judgment in relation to an application to set aside a statutory demand against Mrs Joanna Rich (Mrs Rich) and a petition against Mr Clive Rich (Mr Rich) relating to the same debt claimed under a personal guarantee provided by them in relation to a loan granted to LawBit Limited (Lawbit). Mr...

Analyse stratégique offerte

Envoyez vos pièces. Recevez une stratégie.

Transmettez-nous les pièces de votre dossier. Maître Hassan KOHEN vous répond personnellement sous 24 heures avec une première analyse stratégique de votre situation.

  • Première analyse offerte et sans engagement
  • Réponse personnelle de l'avocat sous 24 heures
  • 100 % confidentiel, secret professionnel garanti
  • Jusqu'à 1 Go de pièces, dossiers et sous-dossiers acceptés

Cliquez ou glissez vos fichiers ici
Tous formats acceptes (PDF, Word, images, etc.)

Envoi en cours...

Vos donnees sont utilisees uniquement pour traiter votre demande. Politique de confidentialite.