A single Mum from Manchester has been fined £700 after putting her rubbish bins out a day early.
A single Mum-of-one has been ordered to pay over £700 in council fines simply for putting her rubbish out on the wrong day.
Victoria Clarke from Stockport, near Manchester was summoned to court by her local council after litter patrols spotted the misdemeanor.
The council claim that Miss Clarke left 8 sacks of refuse on a public highway near her home days before the collection date. However this is an accusation she refutes:
”There was no way I had eight bin bags out there. It's just me and my daughter and I put three bags out. The fact is there are other people living on the same row of terraces and they put their bin bags at the end of the entry as well.”
Continuing: “I only left my bags outside my gate before the collection date because and I didn't want my daughter playing in the back yard around it.”
Miss Clarke was initially served a £100 Fixed Penalty notice by the council for violation of Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1990. However, after she failed to make payment the council pursued the issue to court.
Although not in attendance herself when the case was tried, Miss Clarke was fined £350 for ‘the advancement of waste’ in addition to a £350.12 fee to cover costs and a £15 victim surcharge.
She has since announced her intent to appeal the court’s decision, dismissing the outcome as "ridiculous".
"I'm flabbergasted at what's happened." she said.
"There are people out there beating each other up getting drunk in the street and causing all sorts of trouble yet most of them seem to get a slap on the wrist. Meanwhile I'm getting a massive fine for putting out rubbish on the wrong day.”
'I'm a single mum and cannot afford to pay it - £700 represents two months' rent on this house and I've lived here for four years."
Stockport Council have since emphasised the seriousness with which they take refuse violations with Executive Member for the Environment, Councillor Stuart Bodsworth commenting:
“The Council is tackling litter and mess on every front, through investing in more street sweeping both mechanical and manual and by taking on environmental crimes like advancement of waste and fly tipping.”
Source
Comments (7)
Any opinions expressed below are solely those held by individual users and are not in any way endorsed by, or representative of those held by Money.co.uk. We accept no responsibility or liability for the accuracy or content of any material submitted and maintain the right to publish, remove or edit it as we see fit.
Sandra Carr
12th Sep 2008 14:25
That is absurd! So what if she put her trash out early?
Nora Jones
13th Sep 2008 11:21
Have you heard of recycling? How can a household of two people create so much rubbish. That is disgusting. Pay the fine. I have no sympathy for you.
, ,C,B, Reid
23rd Sep 2008 16:29
We use large Garbage cans place then at the edge of our property line next to the street. I am glad I do not live where this lady does.I live alone and put out my large can once a month,but am charged the same as everyone else.Which is fair in my opinion.
Welcome to Iran, errr I mean England... :)
Seems the council are simply attacking for the sake of it rather than enforcing public good.
This is just garbage left on side of road ONE day in advance. I fail to see the public health risk. As for the amount of garbage, the investigation seems negligent in that no others were charged.
The fines are absurd and reveal this is just an attack for the sake of it:
£350 for ‘the advancement of waste’ (what is this?)
£350.12 fee to cover costs (legal? if so then the council use expensive representation, )
£15 victim surcharge.
What the hell is a victim surcharge?!!! Where does this go? The council is a victim of what exactly?
Totally absurd.
Glad I don't live in the UK. Bloody police state.
spot on, DS.
"Stockport Council have since emphasised the seriousness with which they take refuse violations..."
Indeed they have. They have also emphasised the seriousness of the human resources problem within the council, in that an IQ requirement urgently needs to be included in their hiring process.
Chris Pelly
8th Feb 2009 19:31
It says "Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1990", but that makes no reference to putting rubbish out early! If that is what she was fined under then it is more likely that it was for not putting the sacks in a wheely-bin.
They also conveniently brush over the fact that "she failed to make payment" on the originaly £100 fine.
If she was indeed fined for failing to put her rubbish in the proper receptacle and she did indeed fail to pay then maybe she's brought this on herself!
On the other hand it is a ludicrously large fine for such a small offense.
