City Council 'Waste Enforcement' - not providing evidence
Discussion
Tl;dr - MiL was given a FPN (£150) for dropping something on the floor in a city centre. The 'waste enforcement' company won't provide the footage, citing GDPR and DPA 18. Is that allowed?
Longer version - MiL was accompanying my wife's sister to a major appointment in a large city centre. When leaving, the car broke down in the middle of a main road (which caused a bit of chaos!). Whilst SiL went off to try and get help, MiL waited with the car. At some point she got out the car and dropped a snickers wrapper (with some still in) and then picked it up. She was then approached by a 'waste enforcement officer' who demanded her details and being someone who rarely ventures out (she doesn't drive and doesn't even have a passport or email address!) she felt a bit badgered into giving them.
She's now received a FPN in the post for £180. As I'm at least semi-literate and can articulate a point using logic, I've been lumbered with the task of appealing it. I wrote in and appealed the FPN, asking for evidence of the alleged contravention.
Now this story she gave could be BS, could not be (she's adamant it played out in the way described above) - but that's what I'm trying to find out. This whole thing feels like pressure tactics into getting people scared enough to pay and adding enough 'friction' in the process that any challenge will ultimately peter out (albeit with my more objective hat on I can actually appreciate some good data protection practice!).
In my mind, this reads like "Pay the fine and then we'll give you what you asked for" - at which point I suspect it'll be nigh on impossible to get any sort of refund.
My question is: Can they refuse to provide the evidence on the basis cited?
Thanks in advance for any helpful responses!
Longer version - MiL was accompanying my wife's sister to a major appointment in a large city centre. When leaving, the car broke down in the middle of a main road (which caused a bit of chaos!). Whilst SiL went off to try and get help, MiL waited with the car. At some point she got out the car and dropped a snickers wrapper (with some still in) and then picked it up. She was then approached by a 'waste enforcement officer' who demanded her details and being someone who rarely ventures out (she doesn't drive and doesn't even have a passport or email address!) she felt a bit badgered into giving them.
She's now received a FPN in the post for £180. As I'm at least semi-literate and can articulate a point using logic, I've been lumbered with the task of appealing it. I wrote in and appealed the FPN, asking for evidence of the alleged contravention.
- They said they couldn't provide anything without MiL's permission. Fair enough. She called (multiple times) to give permission but there was no answer. She left a voicemail confirming I could deal with it on her behalf. We didn't hear anything back.
- I chased, having not heard anything, and was told they had no record of her calling. I sent a recorded message back to them via email with her consent.
- Having chased again, I was redirected to their Data Protection Officer. Request sent which came back with "You must submit a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the DPO".
- SAR submitted. The following reply was received (which also asked for ID proof of both parties and written confirmation of the agreement for the request):
Waste Enforcement said:
Please be advised that while you have a right to request access to your personal data, there are specific exemptions under the Data Protection Act 2018 that apply to ongoing investigations and anticipated legal proceedings. As the Fixed Penalty Notice remains outstanding and criminal liability has not been discharged, the requested footage and related evidence are exempt from disclosure at this stage. This exemption is in place to prevent prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or ongoing legal proceedings.
Once the matter is concluded either by payment of the Fixed Penalty Notice or the completion of legal proceedings you may submit a Subject Access Request for access to your personal data, including footage, at that time.
Once the matter is concluded either by payment of the Fixed Penalty Notice or the completion of legal proceedings you may submit a Subject Access Request for access to your personal data, including footage, at that time.
- At this point, I feel like I'm starting to be given the run around and being reasonably familiar with GDPR / DPA 18, I replied with:
So I said:
The information you have provided in your earlier response is misleading and false - possibly designed to be. Your wording implies the exemption applies automatically because:
an FPN is outstanding, and
criminal liability has not been discharged.
However:
There is no automatic exemption simply because an FPN is unpaid.
You must show how releasing the footage / evidence would prejudice the investigation or prosecution.
You must still provide any non?exempt personal data and explain precisely which exemption applies and why.
The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) is clear: exemptions cannot be applied broadly or by default. They must be case?specific and justified. If you are still unwilling to release the information I have requested, then I am formally asking you to:
Specify exactly which exemption under Schedule 2 of the DPA 2018 you are relying on.
Explain how disclosure would prejudice the investigation or legal proceedings.
an FPN is outstanding, and
criminal liability has not been discharged.
However:
There is no automatic exemption simply because an FPN is unpaid.
You must show how releasing the footage / evidence would prejudice the investigation or prosecution.
You must still provide any non?exempt personal data and explain precisely which exemption applies and why.
The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) is clear: exemptions cannot be applied broadly or by default. They must be case?specific and justified. If you are still unwilling to release the information I have requested, then I am formally asking you to:
Specify exactly which exemption under Schedule 2 of the DPA 2018 you are relying on.
Explain how disclosure would prejudice the investigation or legal proceedings.
- They have now responded (all the while stressing that the clock is ticking and the FPN needs to be settled and the conditional offer will expire etc. etc.) with:
Waste Enforcement said:
We have carefully considered your request and the personal data held in relation to the Fixed Penalty Notice and at this time are unable to release this information as disclosure would prejudice the ongoing law enforcement process.
Waste Investigations Support and Enforcement acts on behalf of xxxx Council which is a competent authority for the purposes of Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Personal data is processed for law enforcement purposes, including the investigation of offences and the execution of criminal penalties. Your request has therefore been considered under the law enforcement processing provisions contained within Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Whilst section 45 of the Data Protection Act 2018 provides a right of access to personal data processed for law enforcement purposes, that right is not absolute and may be restricted where necessary and proportionate to protect specified law enforcement objectives.
The Fixed Penalty Notice remains subject to an active enforcement process and has not yet been concluded. Having carefully considered the circumstances of your request, we have determined that disclosure of the requested information at this stage would be likely to prejudice the ongoing enforcement process and/or the execution of a criminal penalty. Accordingly, the right of access is being restricted pursuant to section 44(4) of the Data Protection Act 2018 and section 45(4), as we consider this to be a necessary and proportionate measure in the circumstances.
We have therefore concluded that the requested information cannot be disclosed at this time. Once the enforcement process has concluded, any further request for access to personal data will be considered based on the circumstances applicable at that time and in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018.
Waste Investigations Support and Enforcement acts on behalf of xxxx Council which is a competent authority for the purposes of Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Personal data is processed for law enforcement purposes, including the investigation of offences and the execution of criminal penalties. Your request has therefore been considered under the law enforcement processing provisions contained within Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Whilst section 45 of the Data Protection Act 2018 provides a right of access to personal data processed for law enforcement purposes, that right is not absolute and may be restricted where necessary and proportionate to protect specified law enforcement objectives.
The Fixed Penalty Notice remains subject to an active enforcement process and has not yet been concluded. Having carefully considered the circumstances of your request, we have determined that disclosure of the requested information at this stage would be likely to prejudice the ongoing enforcement process and/or the execution of a criminal penalty. Accordingly, the right of access is being restricted pursuant to section 44(4) of the Data Protection Act 2018 and section 45(4), as we consider this to be a necessary and proportionate measure in the circumstances.
We have therefore concluded that the requested information cannot be disclosed at this time. Once the enforcement process has concluded, any further request for access to personal data will be considered based on the circumstances applicable at that time and in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018.
Now this story she gave could be BS, could not be (she's adamant it played out in the way described above) - but that's what I'm trying to find out. This whole thing feels like pressure tactics into getting people scared enough to pay and adding enough 'friction' in the process that any challenge will ultimately peter out (albeit with my more objective hat on I can actually appreciate some good data protection practice!).
In my mind, this reads like "Pay the fine and then we'll give you what you asked for" - at which point I suspect it'll be nigh on impossible to get any sort of refund.
My question is: Can they refuse to provide the evidence on the basis cited?
Thanks in advance for any helpful responses!
Edited by Notshortnottall on Tuesday 14th July 12:04
Edited by Notshortnottall on Tuesday 14th July 13:58
Even if they are acting beyond their authority in withholding the evidence you would ultimately need a court to force them to release it. But if it goes to court as a prosecution presumably they would have to show it anyway.
You mention "footage" so I assume that we think there is video evidence in which case I would explain to the MIL that if the video looks like her version of events that she should call their bluff as they would never take it to court.
Working with how they want the system to operate doesn’t always work, make it obvious that you will be creating the maximum amount of work possible for them if they want to pursue this.
You mention "footage" so I assume that we think there is video evidence in which case I would explain to the MIL that if the video looks like her version of events that she should call their bluff as they would never take it to court.
Working with how they want the system to operate doesn’t always work, make it obvious that you will be creating the maximum amount of work possible for them if they want to pursue this.
I'm sorry OP without wanting to start a row, I don't believe she accidentally dropped half a chocolate bar, bent down to pick it up, presumably to carry on eating it and Mr. Jobsworth swooped in and started demanding things.
Certainly if that was the case, I suspect the vast majority of people, including my own 79 year old mother in law, would have said 'job on' or something similar.
Now, if she'd took a bite and chucked it aside, well then she deserves her fine, littering is the mark of the scummy scumbag.
Only she knows the truth, and certainly without ANY DOUBT whatsoever in my mind, IF and it's a massive IF, if it were accidental, I'd be saying, 'see you in court old boy' and making this my absolutely greatest ever hill to die on.
I'd love an update though!
Certainly if that was the case, I suspect the vast majority of people, including my own 79 year old mother in law, would have said 'job on' or something similar.
Now, if she'd took a bite and chucked it aside, well then she deserves her fine, littering is the mark of the scummy scumbag.
Only she knows the truth, and certainly without ANY DOUBT whatsoever in my mind, IF and it's a massive IF, if it were accidental, I'd be saying, 'see you in court old boy' and making this my absolutely greatest ever hill to die on.
I'd love an update though!
dundarach said:
I'm sorry OP without wanting to start a row, I don't believe she accidentally dropped half a chocolate bar, bent down to pick it up, presumably to carry on eating it and Mr. Jobsworth swooped in and started demanding things.
Certainly if that was the case, I suspect the vast majority of people, including my own 79 year old mother in law, would have said 'job on' or something similar.
Now, if she'd took a bite and chucked it aside, well then she deserves her fine, littering is the mark of the scummy scumbag.
Only she knows the truth, and certainly without ANY DOUBT whatsoever in my mind, IF and it's a massive IF, if it were accidental, I'd be saying, 'see you in court old boy' and making this my absolutely greatest ever hill to die on.
I'd love an update though!
Agreed - I'm as open as the next person on this but it's almost a moot point for me now. I have no reason to disbelieve her but have seen enough videos showing some shady (at best) practices with these types of 'enforcement' things. My focus now is just on the stance being taken by them that they "cannot share the data" - which I don't believe is a legitimate position, hence wanting some more objective / learned views (as appreciate the potential for unconscious bias here). Certainly if that was the case, I suspect the vast majority of people, including my own 79 year old mother in law, would have said 'job on' or something similar.
Now, if she'd took a bite and chucked it aside, well then she deserves her fine, littering is the mark of the scummy scumbag.
Only she knows the truth, and certainly without ANY DOUBT whatsoever in my mind, IF and it's a massive IF, if it were accidental, I'd be saying, 'see you in court old boy' and making this my absolutely greatest ever hill to die on.
I'd love an update though!
skyebear said:
Take their reply and paste it in your AI of choice (Chatgpt, Gemini, Claude). and ask it to write you a response.
They'll get your reply and paste it into their AI of choice.
See if you or they give in first.
They won't give in until their day in court, there is always the chance MIL will think can't be arsed I'll pay upThey'll get your reply and paste it into their AI of choice.
See if you or they give in first.
Simpo Two said:
All that for ' for dropping something on the floor in Manchester'.
How many people have been involved and how many person-hours spent (wasted) in that fiasco over basically nothing? Another reason the country is going up its own backside.
I detest littering, and if I dropped say a receipt and picked it up immediately and got "caught" by one of these people, I would have no compunction in giving a very believable fake name and address.How many people have been involved and how many person-hours spent (wasted) in that fiasco over basically nothing? Another reason the country is going up its own backside.
Presumably this is the nub "Having carefully considered the circumstances of your request, we have determined that disclosure of the requested information at this stage would be likely to prejudice the ongoing enforcement process and/or the execution of a criminal penalty"?
I can't see how releasing any information they have could be prejudicial. But as you say it's a technical matter that needs technical knowledge to determine.
Looking at what might happen, if you refuse to pay, is there a route to getting it heard or adjudicated? Or does it just end up in the hands of a debt collector? Is there a way to make sure they have to go to court with it?
I can't see how releasing any information they have could be prejudicial. But as you say it's a technical matter that needs technical knowledge to determine.
Looking at what might happen, if you refuse to pay, is there a route to getting it heard or adjudicated? Or does it just end up in the hands of a debt collector? Is there a way to make sure they have to go to court with it?
Notshortnottall said:
Agreed - I'm as open as the next person on this but it's almost a moot point for me now. I have no reason to disbelieve her but have seen enough videos showing some shady (at best) practices with these types of 'enforcement' things. My focus now is just on the stance being taken by them that they "cannot share the data" - which I don't believe is a legitimate position, hence wanting some more objective / learned views (as appreciate the potential for unconscious bias here).
I absolutely believe her. I remember this story doing the rounds a few years ago now. I despise littering as much as the next citizen, but these roles seem to be filled by absolute jobsworths. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/912801/Littering...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLxU38FYz84
In short, a motorcycle instructor dropped a full packet of cigarettes on the floor (without realising it, obviously) and then is fined for littering. From memory, isn't there some rule where they have to give you the option to pick it up? I may well have remembered that wrong.
CouncilFerrari said:
From memory, isn't there some rule where they have to give you the option to pick it up? I may well have remembered that wrong.
You are absolutely correct. If you then refuse, they can then fine you. A lot of these are private companies and they tend to omit this all important step of the processCPRE said:
Level of fines for FPN
The minimum charge for a FPN is £65, the maximum is £150, while the default is often £100. The maximum a court can apply if the FPN is not paid is £2,500.
https://www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-care-about/litter-and-recycling/cleaner-countryside/litter-and-the-law/what-is-litter/The minimum charge for a FPN is £65, the maximum is £150, while the default is often £100. The maximum a court can apply if the FPN is not paid is £2,500.
How is it £180?
speedking31 said:
Mea culpa - you're right and it's my fat fingers / lack of checking. It's £150 (at the reduced rate / conditional offer) and I've amended the opening post. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff