Wrongly fined €150 for illegal dumping

enterprise2017 · 16-07-2017 1:05am

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The suggestion now is to go to America for legal advice?

cheaper than one of ours lol

noodler · 16-07-2017 1:06am

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yours should be <snip>
So the cowboy builder is alright and can continue, since the incompetent gombeens at the council won't bother their hole going after them?

OP, don't listen to <snip>on the internet, contact the gards and a solicitor.

Nonsense.

Stop throwing your toys out of the pram.

Council are absolutely correct to go after the person whose personal details are in the litter.

That would be the culprit 99% of the time.

You calling them "jobsworths" or "gombeens" to make a point is pathetically childish.

Hitman3000 · 16-07-2017 1:07am

enterprise2017 wrote:

cheaper than one of ours lol

True, cudos.

LionelNashe · 16-07-2017 1:22am

The council are correct to fine somebody who uses an unlicenced contractor to remove waste. If it goes to court, the fine can be as high as €5k. €150 is cheap.

They should go after the contractor at the same time, but that's a separate issue and nothing to do with whether or not the householder should be fined.

lucernarian · 16-07-2017 10:29am

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Link doesn't work.

So the use of a Ferry is somehow similar to illegal dumping, explain please

You are required to be responsible with the disposal of waste. The fine is for irresponsibility.

Why because you feel everyone should agree with the OP, differing opinions upset you?

I hate multi-quote replies, hard to follow and respond to and drag a discussion down to the pedantic minutiae of lines and sentences. So I'll keep it short. Ferry's is the name of an "interesting" rubbish disposal crowd in Donegal. It should have been blindly obvious I wasn't talking about using boats from the context and from the fact that the plural of "ferry" is "ferries". Not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse.

I fixed the link. And please don't speak on my behalf as to how much I agree with the OP, I merely said that it's not as hard to follow as people are making out. I also happen to think there is a remarkable level of ignorant and obnoxious posting going on, more akin to After Hours or Politics than a specialised forum like this. People should really wonder if they would say what they write in real life.

Hitman3000 · 16-07-2017 11:40am

lucernarian wrote:

I fixed the link. And please don't speak on my behalf as to how much I agree with the OP, I merely said that it's not as hard to follow as people are making out. I also happen to think there is a remarkable level of ignorant and obnoxious posting going on, more akin to After Hours or Politics than a specialised forum like this. People should really wonder if they would say what they write in real life.

I would have absolutely no problem in repeating what I have wrote in as you put it real life. I fail to see what is obnoxious or ignorant in the posts here. Not speaking on your behalf read what I wrote it's still there, phrased as a question.

nuac · 16-07-2017 2:56pm

Dr Ben wrote: »

An elderly woman was taking advantage of yet they they fine her instead of going after the scumbags that ripped her off.

Sure Ireland is a great little country to be a criminal.

The Council are not responsible for this incident

nuac · 16-07-2017 3:20pm

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Love the hindsight some people here have. Obviously have never dealt with these types of thugs.

And on praising the council for a job well done? I think it's a fairly poor effort on their part. Not bothering to investigate the circumstances before issuing a fine to the person mosr likely to pay, and not going after the dumper.

Actually I have acted for householders caught with this scam. There has been some pirate operators who, for pay, collect stuff from houses, promising to dispose of it lawfully. Difficult for local authority to identify them. Whatever else may be left in the rubbish there will be nothing incriminating the illegal operator.

Most local authorities will go after the pirate if they get the evidence.

There are some parts of this story causing me to wonder. E.g. he seems more concerned with the OTS fine of 150 Euro rather than with the fact that five guys, only one of which he has met, came into his mother's attic when she was by herself in the house and cleared it. I would have gone to AGS about that pronto.

Does he realise that the On the Spot fine of Euro 150 in purely concessionary?. Designed for minor incidents.

In the case of major breaches of the Litter Pollution code the Council may in its discretion issue summonses to the District Court. Max fine 3,000 Euro on each summons
.
There appear to be a number of offences here, so there may be more than one summons

Of course we may not have the full story nor the correct story here.

nuac · 16-07-2017 3:32pm

paulb06 wrote: »

My mother called me after he had left, crying down the phone that she has to go down to the bank and withdraw €2,000, that he will be back at 2pm to collect the money. (he being the man who arrived on his own before getting the other 4)

The bags were gone at the stage when she called.

She was intimidated, frightened and wanted them out of the house - there was no telling them to leave the bags there.

5 men versus my 65 year old mother. What would you do?

I would phone AGS immediately, and get there myself. In the meantime I would ask a reliable neighbour to call to your mother.

nuac · 16-07-2017 4:00pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The problem is that the cowboy can carry on illegally dumping rubbish because the council don't care.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The suggestion now is to go to America for legal advice?

Where was that suggested?

TheChizler · 16-07-2017 4:06pm

nuac wrote: »

Where was that suggested?

I think someone used the term lawyer instead of solicitor, and the only possible response was to be deliberately obtuse.

nuac · 16-07-2017 4:09pm

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Any thoughts that the OP is slightly economical with the truth?

Agreed.

Sam Russell · 16-07-2017 8:38pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yours should be <Mod:snip>
So the cowboy builder is alright and can continue, since the incompetent gombeens at the council won't bother their hole going after them?

OP, don't listen to <Mod:snip> on the internet, contact the gards and a solicitor.

Mod: dr.fuzzenstein banned for offensive language.

lucernarian · 17-07-2017 9:18am

Hitman3000 wrote: »

I would have absolutely no problem in repeating what I have wrote in as you put it real life. I fail to see what is obnoxious or ignorant in the posts here. Not speaking on your behalf read what I wrote it's still there, phrased as a question.

"
Why because you feel everyone should agree with the OP"

Just to re-emphasise, that's not a question. Some other question was stuck on with a comma. You're being liberal with the truth here.

One user has already gotten banned for the language used so clearly there's an issue with some of the posts. My main beef is with the focus on the OP's supposed bad behaviour when there are folks, we all know the sort, who are leaving rubbish around with impunity, can make tens of thousands and more per year, and are subject to fines that are really not that severe for the most flagrant offences at least not if convicted under the litter act 1997.

Hitman3000 · 17-07-2017 9:45am

lucernarian wrote:

" Why because you feel everyone should agree with the OP"

So you cropped the sentence to exclude a question.

lucernarian wrote:

Just to re-emphasise, that's not a question. Some other question was stuck on with a comma. You're being liberal with the truth here.

Actually the rest of the sentence after the comma was relevant it posed a question relating to the first part.
Now liberal with the truth, explain please.

lucernarian wrote:

One user has already gotten banned for the language used so clearly there's an issue with some of the posts. My main beef is with the focus on the OP's supposed bad behaviour when there are folks, we all know the sort, who are leaving rubbish around with impunity, can make tens of thousands and more per year, and are subject to fines that are really not that severe for the most flagrant offences at least not if convicted under the litter act 1997.

The OP's supposed bad behaviour relates to rubbish being found which contains information that identifies him as the owner, hes being fined on this basis. I'm sticking with the topic of the thread. You however if you wish may engage in 'Whataboutery ' about the actions of others.

lucernarian · 17-07-2017 11:01am

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So you cropped the sentence to exclude a question.

Actually the rest of the sentence after the comma was relevant it posed a question relating to the first part.
Now liberal with the truth, explain please.

The OP's supposed bad behaviour relates to rubbish being found which contains information that identifies him as the owner, hes being fined on this basis. I'm sticking with the topic of the thread. You however if you wish may engage in 'Whataboutery ' about the actions of others.

I suggest you Google what a straw man is. It's not even your first in this thread. Your remark about going to America for legal advice was equally inane and and in another poster's words, "deliberately obtuse".

By your own words you say the first part was related to the question. So, can you show me the evidence for saying I "feel" everyone should agree with the OP? That's right; you can't.

Hitman3000 · 17-07-2017 11:06am

lucernarian wrote:

I suggest you Google what a straw man is. It's not even your first in this thread. Your remark about going to America for legal advice was equally inane and and in another poster's words, "deliberately obtuse".

Going to America for legal advice was tongue in cheek and considering my interaction with another poster about said comment shows at least one person has a sense of humour.
I haven't attempted to put forward a straw man argument at all. So please stop attributing things to me that I did not engage in. Honesty is a nice quality to have. Now I have work to do and apologies but I won't be engaging with you any further.

paulb06 · 17-07-2017 2:11pm

Wow wasn't expecting there to be such a debate over this, was just asking for advice and I am not replying to all the keyboards warriors as much as it annoys the hell out of me.

I will appeal, if unsuccessful which from reading here I probably will be, I have no issue paying the €150.

Sorry if there appears to be "holes" in my story but I can assure you what happened, happened.

I am happy to answer questions on what doesn't make sense and will try make sense of it.

My mam only dealt with one man who she spoke to initially, the other 4 were called in to help remove the stuff from the attic - she had no dealings with them. He was the intimidating one and clearly did this many time before.

He went up the attic, then he went out the back with a ladder, came back in 5 minutes to my mam and said 'OK that's done now, but I'm going to have to charge you €2,000" my mam replied advising she never asked him to do it, then she got frightened as he was so intimidating and just "agreed" to the price to get him out of the house. Then she called me about it.

Hitman3000 · 17-07-2017 2:16pm

paulb06 wrote:

He went up the attic, then he went out the back with a ladder, came back in 5 minutes to my mam and said 'OK that's done now, but I'm going to have to charge you â‚¬2,000" my mam replied advising she never asked him to do it, then she got frightened as he was so intimidating and just "agreed" to the price to get him out of the house. Then she called me about it.

So your Mum was intimidated, but it never occurred to you to involve the Guards? Why not?

alig123aileen · 17-07-2017 2:29pm

Hi there I posted my comments before. I respect everyone's right to have differing views. But personal attacks here and on you are unwarranted undeserved and intolerable in my view. If these people could direct their negative energy towards positive solutions that would be a real outcome!

The blame vitrol and moral police attitude is alive and kicking and lurking on boards just Waiting for the unsuspected poster to kick the crap outta him when he is already down and looking for help. I say shame to all of them! Good luck with your battle with the council!

Hitman3000 · 17-07-2017 2:34pm

alig123aileen wrote:

Good luck with your battle with the council!

He'll need it.

paulb06 · 17-07-2017 3:16pm

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So your Mum was intimidated, but it never occurred to you to involve the Guards? Why not?

When did I say at any stage that it never occurred to me to get the Gardai involved? Of course it occurred to me!

He knows where she lives. Thinking of my mother's safety - the main reason we didn't get them involved.

This was all forgotten about as far as I was concerned until I received the fine.

Sam Kade · 17-07-2017 3:20pm

paulb06 wrote: »

I allowed this person to dump? Seriously? Good man.

To access the problem, you need access through the attic to check the extent of the problem - that is the connection.

The attic was full of black bags stored up there over the years.

Why would he need to go into the attic to get to the gutter? Doesn't make sense.

Hitman3000 · 17-07-2017 3:24pm

paulb06 wrote:

When did I say at any stage that it never occurred to me to get the Gardai involved? Of course it occurred to me!

You do realise if you are going to appeal it you need to provide the details of who removed the rubbish.

Hitman3000 · 17-07-2017 3:28pm

paulb06 wrote:

This was all forgotten about as far as I was concerned until I received the fine.

In you're initial post you asked for advice. Well here's some if you choose to accept it. First pay the fine, tough pill to swallow but less hassle. Second if you ever want work done for you or any other family member seek recommendations from family, friends or neighbours and look at previous work carried out by whoever is recommended to you. Not being a smarta$$ just some advice.

paulb06 · 17-07-2017 3:31pm

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You do realise if you are going to appeal it you need to provide the details of who removed the rubbish.

Yes I know that.

Shelflife · 17-07-2017 3:41pm

Hi Paul, I recently had an issue similar to your own. I did some building work and some rubble was taken away and dumped at another site for foundations all legit and above board.

The other site was refused planning permission so the foundation rubble became waste and the removal of the rubble became my problem. I queried how it was my issue and the council said as it was my property it was my responsibility to ensure it was dumped legally.

In my case it was the contractor who sorted it out for me, but the legal obligation lay at my door.

It will probably be the same with yourself, your rubbish was given to someone to dump correctly, even though the fault lay with the "contractor" the rubbish is still your property and the responsibility to dump correctly remains yours.

Appeal away if you want , but just dont throw good money after bad as its stacked against you.

Alun · 17-07-2017 3:45pm

I agree. Just view the €150 "fine" as the money you would have had to pay to dispose of it properly in the first place, and forget about it.

wench · 17-07-2017 3:48pm

paulb06 wrote: »

He knows where she lives. Thinking of my mother's safety - the main reason we didn't get them involved.

Is your mother's continued safety not worth another €150?

Roger Hassenforder · 18-07-2017 6:17pm

Shelflife wrote: »

Hi Paul, I recently had an issue similar to your own. I did some building work and some rubble was taken away and dumped at another site for foundations all legit and above board.

The other site was refused planning permission so the foundation rubble became waste and the removal of the rubble became my problem. I queried how it was my issue and the council said as it was my property it was my responsibility to ensure it was dumped legally.

In my case it was the contractor who sorted it out for me, but the legal obligation lay at my door.

out of curiosity, was it not always "waste"?
I thought you could only use rubble on the same site for fill, but once it goes off site, it becomes waste, so the site it goes to, would need some kid of permit to use it, rather than planning permission..

Effects · 18-07-2017 6:23pm

Sam Kade wrote: »

Why would he need to go into the attic to get to the gutter? Doesn't make sense.

Please see page one where this was already discussed. It makes perfect sense in the bigger picture.

Shelflife · 18-07-2017 8:20pm

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

out of curiosity, was it not always "waste"?
I thought you could only use rubble on the same site for fill, but once it goes off site, it becomes waste, so the site it goes to, would need some kid of permit to use it, rather than planning permission..

It was about 10 years ago, not sure of the ins and outs but that's the way it was explained to me.

As regards to the OPs case , my point was that the waste was mine and the disposal of it correctly was my responsibility.

nuac · 22-07-2017 11:46pm

Paulb06

I presume you have got legal advice by now.
The 150 Euro is an OTS fine for minor matters
The Council could still issue and serve a DC summons on you, as this considerable amount of litter is traceable to you . Max fine 3,000 Euro.

Or/ by any chance are you telling the full story here?

paulb06 · 23-07-2017 12:13am

nuac wrote: »

Paulb06

I presume you have got legal advice by now.
The 150 Euro is an OTS fine for minor matters
The Council could still issue and serve a DC summons on you, as this considerable amount litter is traceable to you . Max fine 3,000 Euro.

Or/ by any chance are you telling the full story here?

This "considerable" amount litter was not all mine but that's another thing I won't be able to prove Nuac, but thanks again for accusing me of not being fully truthful.

Again, I have asked anyone who had doubts over my story to query with directly with me and I felt I had answered them but anyway - it's extremely frustrating trying to answer all the keyboard warriors here when whatever I say is never going to be good enough or will prompt a stupid reply.

I am now aware I will not able to prove to the council that this absolute toerag dumped my stuff so I will be biting the bullet and will be paying the €150 fine and will know in future to use reputable companies to dispose of my rubbish.

Wanderer78 · 23-07-2017 8:54am

Hard lesson op but I'm fairly sure I've seen illegal dumping like this before. came across some before, it was blatantly obvious where the waste came from, local business, but like yourself, I suspect they used unlicensed remover. We reported it anyway, never followed it up, so no idea if there was a fine or prosecution, probably not, waste was removed though

paulb06 · 10-08-2017 9:28am

Hi all

Just a follow up, in the end I decided to appeal the fine directly with the council as it wasn't costing me anything to do so.

Wrote out a letter explaining the entire situation and that the main point I wanted to get across was that that we never used this "company" to remove any rubbish, we only used them to provide us with a quote to fix the issue with the birds nesting in the gutter. I also printed out 2 ads from the paper which I sent to the council and requested they actively pursue them.

I am happy to confirm they have reviewed the whole situation the appeal was successful!

Absolutely delighted!

degsie · 10-08-2017 11:01am

A lesson for everyone, current radio ads also raising awareness. Only use licenced operators who should have ID and licence number on display.

Wrongly fined €150 for illegal dumping

Comments