A woman says she was "shocked" when she was fined £150 for tipping the remnants of her coffee down a road gully in west London. Burcu Yesilyurt, who lives in Kew, said she thought she was acting "responsibly" when she poured out a small amount of coffee from her reusable cup down the drain rather than risk spilling it on the bus she was about to catch to work. But to her surprise, she was then stopped by three enforcement officers at the bus stop near Richmond station and fined under Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, external. Richmond-upon-Thames Council said its officers "acted professionally and objectively" and that the fine was issued in line with its policies.
Of course they said that! They were hardly going to say ‘Ooops, we got it wrong!’ were they?
Ms Yesilyurt said she had asked the enforcements officers if there were any signs or information warning people of the law but received no response.
Hardly surprising!
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
And is coffee considered a pollutant, or would any reasonable person feel that this act referred more to other liquids? Coffee is poured down the drain every day, albeit it’s probably phased through a deliveryman’s or taxi driver’s kidneys first…
The Richmond Council spokesperson said: "Nobody likes receiving a fine, and we always aim to apply our policies fairly and with understanding. "We are committed to protecting Richmond's waterways and keeping our borough's streets clean and safe
"Enforcement action is only taken when necessary, and residents who feel a fine has been issued incorrectly can request a review."
But now you've backed down and cancelled the fine, so clearly, either you were wrong to issue it, or it's the weight of public ridicule and oprobium thats forced you to back down.
The council spokesperson said: "Fixed Penalty Notices clearly outline that there is an appeal process available to anyone who wishes to challenge them
"It is likely that, had this case progressed through that route, the notice would have been rescinded because it is a minor contravention which the recipient agreed not to repeat."
Ah. Wrong then. Figures.
No comments:
Post a Comment
A reminder, dear reader, that you're welcome to comment as Anon but if so, please invent a moniker to appear somewhere in your text ... it tells Watchers nothing, it does help the readers.