First-tier Tribunal
General Regulatory Chamber
(Environment) Appeal reference: FT-EV-2024-0003
NCN: [2025] UKFTT 00059 (GRC)
Dealt with on Papers
Before
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MATHEWS
Between
ANA CORREIA FERREIRA
Appellant
and
LEICESTER CITY COUNCIL
Respondent
Representation:
This appeal, with the consent of the parties, was dealt with on the papers.
Decision.
The appeal is dismissed. The decision of 16th January 2024 is upheld.
Background
This appeal concerns a decision of Leicester City Council made on 22nd January 2024 to impose a fixed penalty. The penalty was imposed for an offence of leaving a wheelie bin on the highway other than at the times specified in a notice for collection.
The appellant was one of three students living as tenants in a terraced property. The fixed penalty was said to have been imposed after warnings were given, for leaving wheelie bins on the highway after collection day. The appellant asserts that the penalty is unfair because they did not know that bins had to be returned to the rear of the property and in any event neighbours had effectively blocked the side alley to the appellant’s property and prevented the appellant from being able to return the wheelie bin to the rear of the property and away from the footpath.
The appellant now appeals the respondent’s fixed penalty notice decision of 22nd January 2024.
Appeal to the Tribunal
The appellant’s notice of appeal, dated 10th February 2024, relies on the following grounds:-
We are students renting a house (68 Grasmere Street) from Priya Properties, we share a walkway with the neighbours (70 Grasmere Street). We didn’t know when we moved to the house that we had to bring the bins into the property, nor could we due to the rubbish and everything blocking the walkway.
We initially contacted Priya Properties about this issue and they contacted the landlord, we were told that they would talk to the neighbours about cleaning it up since all the rubbish and the wood blocking it, is their property. We have paid the initial fine, and upon advice of the agency we have kindly talked to the neighbours face to face and asked them that they clean it up.
This happened within the first week of this year. As you can see it clearly hasn’t been cleaned up. Not only is it unpleasant to walk through this every day, but it is extremely unsanitary. We have now received another letter about the same issue addressed to this address but it has the name of someone who does not live here (we suspect a previous tenant).
Considering the fact that most, if not all houses on this street keep their bins on the outside of their property past collection day we understood that it is common practice. Furthermore, we want to appeal this fine because of the following reasons:
No further reasons are provided.
The respondent asserts that appropriate warnings and notice of an intention to impose a penalty were served. The appellant made no representations against any such penalty and accordingly a fixed penalty was imposed and should be paid.
Mode of Determination
The parties and the tribunal agreed that this matter was suitable for determination on the papers in accordance with rule 32 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009, as amended.
I have considered the bundles submitted to me and all other documents provided by the parties in relation to the appeal.
The Law
The respondent issued a legal notice on the 22nd of November 2023 under section 46 of the Environmental Protection act 1990. That notice alleged that wheelie bins had been left on the highway other than that appropriately specified times.
Section 46A Written warnings and penalties for failure to comply with requirements relating to household waste receptacles: England
This section applies where an authorised officer of a waste collection authority in England is satisfied that—
a person has failed without reasonable excuse to comply with a requirement imposed by the authority under section 46(1), (3)(c) or (d) or (4) (a “section 46 requirement”), and
the person's failure to comply—
has caused, or is or was likely to cause, a nuisance, or
has been, or is or was likely to be, detrimental to any amenities of the locality.
Where this section applies, the authorised officer may give a written warning to the person.
A written warning must—
identify the section 46 requirement with which the person has failed to comply,
explain the nature of the failure to comply,
explain how the failure to comply has had, or is or was likely to have, the effect described in subsection (1)(b),
if the failure to comply is continuing, specify the period within which the requirement must be complied with and explain the consequences of the requirement not being complied with within that period, and
whether or not the failure to comply is continuing, explain the consequences of the person subsequently failing to comply with the same or a similar section 46 requirement.
Where a written warning has been given in respect of a failure to comply that is continuing, an authorised officer of the waste collection authority may require the person to whom the written warning was given to pay a fixed penalty to the authority if satisfied that the person has failed to comply with the section 46 requirement identified in the warning within the period specified by virtue of subsection (3)(d).
The respondent alleges that such activity did not cease following that notice and accordingly issued the penalty notice that generated the present appeal on the 22nd of January 2024.
The burden of proof in satisfying the tribunal that the respondent’s decision was wrong rests with the appellant.
Evidence.
The appellant has submitted grounds of appeal and supporting photographs and copies of notices received. The respondent has submitted photographs, coppers of all relevant notices and print out from internal computer systems showing the payment of previous fixed penalties.
Findings
I have noted with care all submissions and documents placed before me.
I note that the fixed penalty notice in this case is addressed to Mr Luke Lamkin. The appellant believes that he may be a previous occupant of the property.
In my judgement the appearance of that name, Mr Lamkin, has two consequences. Firstly it is clear that the fixed penalty notice in this case does not name the appellant and the appellant herself has no entitlement in any event to challenge that notice as it has not been issued against her and is not enforceable against her. It appears that the consequence of that finding must be that the appeal is rejected since on the evidence before me the appellant has no basis upon which to appeal a fixed penalty that was not issued against her. There is nothing before me to suggest that Mr Lamkin has been notified of or is aware of these proceedings. I must dismiss the appeal. In doing so I re-iterate that the fixed penalty in this case, issued against Mr Lamkin, is not enforceable against this appellant as it does not name her.
Secondly, I also observe, though this may be otiose in view of my finding above, that the earlier notices issued by the respondent in this case, did not name Mr Lamkin and accordingly the asserted fixed penalty against him may be invalid as he was not served with the necessary written warning of a contravention of notice requiring the occupier to address alleged concerns with household waste. In the present case that notice, warning of a contravention, was issued on 22nd November 2023, but not against Mr Lamkin and on the evidence before me Mr Lamkin has never received any such notice. If he received no such notice it is difficult to see how an asserted fixed penalty against him can be appropriate or lawful.
For the reasons set out above the appeal is dismissed. The respondent may however wish to consider whether the fixed penalty notice in this case is valid. It does not name this appellant, and the man it does name does not appear to have had any proper prior notice of the asserted failures.
Signed:-
Deni Mathews 19th January 2025
Judge of the First-Tier Tribunal Decision Given on: 22 January 2025