Unfortunately it's not that straightforward. There is no single definition of "Litter". Some legislation gives examples of what could be considered litter. It does not include material deposited by spitting but that is not an exhaustive list. As mentioned above, there have been a couple of threads where the definition of litter was discussed. Somebody suggested as a "rule of thumb" that if you can pick it up, it's litter, if you can't then it's not. This would seemingly rule out urine and phlegm, but this simple definition is not mentioned anywhere in any case law that I know of. There is certainly a strong case to suggest that urine is not litter. Whilst it's unpleasant, the litter laws were framed to prevent a different kind of "mischief". I would suggest that a similar principle could be applied to phlegm. I would think that if your son declined to pay the fixed penalty the council would look long and hard before prosecuting. You should let them know about his difficulties and also that they may find it hard to secure a conviction in the circumstances you describe. That said, once the FP has been declined he is at the mercy of the court. Being under 18 the matter will go before the Youth Court and whilst the burden of proof remains the same, the range of penalties is more restricted than in the adult court. I would like to think, however, that the council would take the view that for a couple of reasons a conviction may be difficult to secure but in any case that a prosecution is not "in the public interest". Local Authorities usually employ "Civil Enforcement Officers" and, without being unkind, their training is often not what it should be, especially when their decisions can result in criminal prosecutions. It's a bit late now but if I get time tomorrow I'll have a further think and look at the legislation and some case law (if I can find it).

What would he declare? That he is not John Smith? It should be fairly easy to prove that to anybody who asked, surely.

I would be a bit careful about how you phrase that. If your prosecution is indeed out of time (and from what you say it certainly appears to be) the council has no further alternatives. I would firstly get their view on the legality of their prosecution. Make absolutely sure of the date of the "written charge" which they sent to the court. If it is later than 10th November, ask them if they are aware of the provisions of Section 127 of the Magistrates' Court Act (which provides the "six month" rule) and how they believe a Magistrates' Court will deal with their prosecution: Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to the jurisdiction of, and the practice and procedure before, magistrates’ courts and the functions... If it is earlier than 10th November (Making it considerably earlier than the date on your SJPN) ask them to explain why the two were not issued "at the same time" as required by Section 46 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act (note 46.3): Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK The prosecution is either in time (and so is lawful) or it is late (and so is unlawful). There is no reason why you should give them an incentive to decide one way or the other. Making an offer to pay the FP might give them the impression you are unsure of your ground. There is no need to be adverserial about this. They should be able to answer your questions quite readily.

Under the "Single Justice" procedure the court does not issue any paperwork - that is the responsibility of the prosecutor. The prosecutor must raise a "written charge". This is the equivalent of "laying an information" with the court. He must also issue an SJPN. This is the equivalent of a summons or postal requisition. The legislation says these should be issued "at the same time". Whilst there may be a momentary difference between the time these two are issued there should be no substantial difference. This means that if the OP's SJPN has a date of 30th November, the accompanying written charge should have the same date. This seems to be confirmed as the OP says he has a "charge date" of 30th November. - which appears to be out of time.

Then perhaps a puzzled phone call or eMail to whoever issued it, to establish on what basis they have begun court proceedings outside the statutory six month time limit.

The offence is a "summary" offence, meaning it can only be dealt with in the Magistrates' Court. With a few exceptions (which do not apply here) court proceedings for summary offences must begin within six months of the date of the alleged offence. Those dealt with under the "Single Justice" procedure are begun with a "written charge" (which goes to the court) and an SJPN (which goes to the defendant). The legislation (s.29 Criminal Justice Act) says that these should be issued "at he same time". What is the date on your SJPN?

Thanks for letting us know. It always helps to get feedback. I'm surprised at the addition of the surcharge. Yes, it must be imposed by law but the usual way to get round it is to make the fine £72 and the surcharge £28. You could argue that if they accepted that you did comply with the conditions of the offer you should not be disadvantaged at all and there is adequate mechanism for that. Their Legal Advisor (the person sitting in front of them) should have advised them accordingly. All in all a decent - if slightly incorrect - outcome and appealing against the sentence is probably not worth the hassle. As you say, "lessons learned" (but of course you won't be caught speeding again, will you?

Thanks for the update. Did you contact the court to reverse your guilty plea? If so, simply take a copy of the form you have found and follow the advice I provided in posts #13 and #7. Do let us know how it goes.

Understood!

I strongly recommend that you respond to the request rather than trying to pick holes in the information provided in the letter. You know when the incident took place, you know what they are asking you about. The penalty for failing to provide the driver's details is a hefty fine, six points and an endorsement code (MS90) which rings alarm bells with insurers. As for the alleged offence itself, you must wait to see what action (if any) the police propose to take. As an aside, the letter from the police contains misleading information It suggests that the "current owner of the vehicle or any other person who is able to do so is required by law to give any information which will lead to the identification of the driver". The police have no ready mechanism to establish who "the current owner" is and in any case Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act places no obligation on that person or body. "The person keeping the vehicle" has a duty to provide "...such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police" whilst "any other person" has a duty "...to provide any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver". It doesn't help you much but if they're quoting legislation you'd think they'd take the trouble to get it right. But bear in mind, Ethel, his s172 notice does not mention a suspicion of committing any offences involved with his driving. It only mention s170 (Failure to stop/report).

I suspect that is the main driver for your remorse. However, no matter. As you know, Freedom Passes are provided free and are essentially financed by the taxpayer. As well as that, they are very valuable, providing free travel on most transport right across London and beyond. For that reason, TfL tend to treat misuse of a them very seriously and they rarely offer out of court disposals. When they eventually get to the bottom of this (as I'm fairly sure they will) the fact that you provided false details will, in my view, put any slim chance that there might have been of an out of court offer completely off the table. If TfL do finally track you down I think there is very little chance of you avoiding court action. Only you can decide whether to come clean with TfL or let matters lie, in the hope that they do not discover your identity. If you do opt for that strategy I think your Gran and brother can look forward to some more close questioning. Your choice.

Depends how much more aggravation you want to see your gran and brother face. Really? Or do you simply regret being caught? Have a think about that one and begin by asking yourself whether you would show similar regret had you not been caught. It's very likely that TfL will eventually get to the bottom of this. In the meantime your gran and brother will no doubt face further questions from them. If you are prosecuted, the matter will be dealt with by way of a fine (plus a 40% "Victim Surcharge", prosecution costs and compensation for unpaid fares) and since it will probably be prosecuted under a TfL bylaw, it will be a "non-recordable" offence. Only if they decide to prosecute you for Fraud should it have any repercussions. But even if it does, you must decide whether you want to face those consequences without your gran and brother being subject to any further intrusive enquiries.

You can't contest the penalty because you've paid it. If you read the report you will find that the adjudicator's decision is subject to a Judicial Review, which has not yet been concluded. One of the issues for that review is that if the adjudicator's decision is upheld, whether and how TfL should deal with repayments to those who have paid fines based on the CCTV evidence. TfL have form for this sort of thing. It is only recently they were found to have issued Bus Lane fines based on evidence from unapproved devices.

Did you tell them who your employer is?

4. This is not a civil claim. It is an accusation of a criminal offence - probably under TfL's bylaws, the court paperwork should provide details.. Any financial orders made (such as TfL's costs and reimbursement of the unpaid fare) will be made by the Magistrates at their discretion.

There's no point in writing to the court. The court only hears what is put before it. It is up to the prosecuting body (in this case TfL) to either continue or discontinue the court action. As well as that, it is likely that TfL will not deal with you. Their action is against a 21 year old adult and they have no reason to deal with a third party, other than a legal representative. I recommend that anything you compile to go to TfL comes from and is signed by your daughter. TfL may be persuaded to revert to an out-of-court settlement given the circumstances but it is likely to be more than any original offer that was made.

You have no idea why the limit was still in place. Could have been for any one of a number of reasons. National Highways will only remove the lower limit when the carriageway has been declared clear by the workforce, and it obviously hadn't been. The logical conclusion to your argument would be that it is for drivers to decide whether or not a lower limit is justified and ignore it if they see fit. Obviously that can't happen. Take this to court and you will be convicted and sentenced in accordance with the usual guidelines. These suggest a fine of half a week's net income, a "Victim Surcharge" of 40% of the fine and the prosecution will ask for a contribution towards their costs, the usual amount being £620. If your income is £500 per week it will cost you just shy of £1k. One thing which puzzles me is that speed (60mph in a 50mph limit) would normally qualify for a speed awareness course. Have you done one in the last three years?

Sorry I've been away. You won't receive a summons - they are not used for motoring offences now. Instead you will receive a "Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN)." The police have six months from the date of the offence to issue that and in many areas they take all of that time. When you receive your SJPN you will have 21 days to respond to it. You will be asked whether you plead guilty or not guilty (I assume you will plead guilty) and whether you want your case to be dealt with under the Single Justice Procedure (at a hearing which you cannot attend) or you want a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court (which you can). In practice it's a bit academic. A SJ will not disqualify you in your absence but that speed is certainly excessive enough for a ban to be considered. So I am fairly certain that the SJ will pass your case to the normal Magistrates' Court and you will be invited to attend. That speed is on the cusp between a short ban and six points. Neither is guaranteed though if forced to gamble, my money would be on a short ban. "Short" in this context (according to the guidelines) is between 7 and 56 days but if a ban is imposed I would suggest it is unlikely to exceed 28 days. The guidelines suggest a fine of 150% of your net weekly income, but you will receive a one third discount if you plead guilty. So with a maximum for the offence of £2,500, the most you will be fined is £1,667 and only then if your weekly income was that much or greater. You will also pay a "Victim Surcharge" of 40% of the fine and prosecution costs which will be £85 or £90.

Then you need to contact the court and retract that Not Guilty plea, substituting "guilty" instead. If you maintain a Not Guilty plea you will face a trial and in the highly likely event that you are convicted, you will face sentencing under the normal guidelines with no discount for a guilty plea. This will also be accompanied by a request from the prosecution for a contribution towards their costs and that usually starts at £620. You should also ensure that your request for a hearing which you can attend is maintained otherwise you will be sentenced under the "Single Justice" procedure at a hearing which you cannot attend. Assuming you appear in court in person you should request that you are sentenced at the fixed penalty level in accordance with the guidance I provided at post #7. You will have to convince the court that you did indeed comply with the conditions of the fixed penalty offer. It's a pity you did not at least retain a copy of your response. It's always a good idea to keep a copy of anything you send and obtain a free certificate of posting at the Post Office. Because the only option open to the police when you have failed to comply with the conditions of their offer of a fixed penalty is to prosecute you via the courts. They have six months (from the date of the offence) to begin proceedings and in many areas they take almost all of that time.

Ok, so has your £100 been refunded? Whether it has or it hasn’t is really of no consequence. However, you should make sure it is returned. Did you plead guilty or not guilty in response to the SJPN? The process you should have adopted is to plead guilty and in the “mitigating circumstances” section state that you paid the penalty and submitted your DL details as the law requires. You should go on to respectfully request that you are sentenced at the Fixed Penalty level (£100 and 3 points). However, since you have asked for a court hearing, you can do the same when you appear. Magistrates have guidance which suggests such an approach should be taken in your circumstances: "Where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender, the starting point should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be imposed. The offender should not be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice in these circumstances."

The specific regulations can be found in Section 54(3)(b) and Section 57A(3) of the Road Traffic Offenders' Act. If you look here you will see an amendment to those sections dated 30th November 2022: Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to the prosecution and punishment (including the punishment without conviction) of road traffic... If the OP could tell us exactly what has happened I may be able to assist him to proceed with his SJPN.

A NIP requires no response. It is simply a notice informing you that a prosecution is being considered. Are you talking about submitting your licence when accepting a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (£100 and 3 points)? If so, the requirement to submit your licence when accepting such an offer was discontinued late last year (around the beginning of December, IIRC). I can't think of any other circumstances where you would have to submit your licence but let me know what has happened and I should be able to tell you how to proceed.

Do you have comprehensive insurance cover? If so, what have your insurers had to say about this?

The process is that, assuming you are the vehicle's Registered Keeper, within 14 days of the date of the alleged offence you should receive a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) together with a "Request for Driver's Details" - also known as a s172 request, so named after the section of the Road Traffic Act which provides for its issue. The NIP requires no response but the s172 request requires you to provide the driver's details. You will have 28 days to do so and you must respond. Failure means you will commit a separate offence which carries six points, a hefty fine and increased insurance premiums for up to five years. Courses are usually offered up to 42mph where the limit is 30mph. These are held either online or by personal attendance (arrangements vary from area to area). It will take about three hours of your time and cost around £100. No endorsement or points are involved and very few, if any insurers ask you to declare it. If you don't fancy that, the alternative is a fixed penalty of £100 and three points. Larger fines, together with a "victim surcharge" (40% of the fine) and prosecution costs (usually £85-£90) are handed down in court but your case won't go there unless you either ask for a court appearance or you fail to comply with the requirements of the process. Make sure you keep a copy of your response and get a free certificate of posting from the Post Office. You should get your offer within two to three weeks after you sent your response. If you don't get it after about four weeks, contact the ticket office to ensure your response has been received. If it has not, the next you will hear will be a prosecution for "failing to Provide Driver's Details" (see above). Whilst it is usually possible to have this reverted to just the speeding offence it is aggravation that can be avoided if you just keep on top of everything.

The fundamental element that you missed in my view is that even if there was an offence, it wasn't committed by you. Ah, we got there! I had an idea that was what you were referring to. I did touch briefly on it earlier. I was going on this: It is quite clear from that, that the OP was responsible for moving the slate from where the driver was going to leave it to where it was seen by the council officials. It may have been that the same offence would have been alleged if it had been seen in their original position, but it was not. It is at least arguable that he deposited it and I suspect it is an argument that may go against him. However, I think far more pertinent than that is the officials' definition of "litter". But reading through again, one thing concerns me: the council officer's statement only mentions a pallet. I had (wrongly) assumed that both the slate and the pallet had been moved together. But there is no mention of the slate. So where was the pallet in relation to the slate? If it was just the pallet that had caught the officers' attention it could well be that the delivery driver was solely responsible for leaving it. I still find it difficult to believe that a court would see a pallet as "litter" but it does put a different slant on things. Perhaps the OP can help us.