Tribunal raps council after quashing fixed penalty notice imposed on resident for not placing bins within curtilage of property
Hartlepool Borough Council has been criticised by a judge for an “utterly contemptuous” response to a case brought by a resident over the positioning of a dustbin.
HHJ David Dixon warned the council its actions had been “completely unacceptable” and said any repeat of this conduct “is likely to require attendance of individuals and the issue of costs to be addressed”.
He sat with Judge Armstrong-Holmes at the First-Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber), which quashed a fixed penalty notice issued to resident Joanne Liddle.
She had appealed after the council rejected representations she had made about the fixed penalty notice imposed for failing to place bins within the curtilage of her property, which it rejected.
Ms Liddle said there was a continuing issue with bins used by the residents of her street and a neighbouring one, and that the council’s approach was inconsistent, in that some residents were allowed to place their bins outside their property while she was not.
The tribunal noted that Hartlepool had not contacted it after the appeal was lodged.
Case management directions were made indicating the council might not participate in the appeal unless cooperation followed, but no response has been received.
HHJ Dixon said: “The respondent's behaviour is completely unacceptable. As a result of the failure to act in an acceptable and appropriate manner the respondent was barred from further participation in the appeal.”
He said the penalty notice could not be issued unless Ms Liddle could be shown to have acted improperly, and “there is no evidence”. There was also no evidence the notice was lawfully issued
HHJ Dixon said Ms Liddle “raises a number of points that suggests that the FPN was unfair in light of an arbitrary policy of imposing against some people but not others.
"There is no response from the local authority to rebut, explain or offer any assistance on this issue.
“There may well be something in the argument, and on the balance of probabilities the Tribunal is left to say that the appeal should succeed.”
He concluded: “The respondent authority here has acted in a way that is utterly contemptuous. Whilst no action is taken on this occasion, if this sort of failure to engage is repeated the Tribunal is likely to require attendance of individuals and the issue of costs to be addressed.”
A Hartlepool Borough Council spokesperson said: "As we are still awaiting formal notification of the outcome of the appeal from the tribunal, we are not in a position to comment further."
Mark Smulian
