BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) >> Wallbridge v Hartlepool Borough Council (Re Environment) [2025] UKFTT 622 (GRC) (03 June 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2025/622.html
Cite as: [2025] UKFTT 622 (GRC)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] UKFTT 622 (GRC)
Case Reference: FT/EV/2024/0022

First-tier Tribunal
(General Regulatory Chamber)
Environment

Heard by Cloud Video Platform
Heard on: 20 May 2025
Decision Given On: 03 June 2025

B e f o r e :

JUDGE WILSON
JUDGE DWYER

____________________

Between:
CHERYL WALLBRIDGE
Appellant
- and -

HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH COUNCIL
Respondent

____________________

Representation:
For the Appellant: Cheryl Wallbridge
For the Respondent: No Attendance

____________________

HTML VERSION OF DECISION
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    Decision: The appeal is Allowed.

    Substituted Decision Notice: The requirement for the Appellant to pay a fixed penalty of £60 pursuant to section 46A(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 ("The Act"), is withdrawn.

    REASONS

    Background

  1. The Appellant appeals against the imposition of a fixed penalty by the Respondent in relation to an alleged failure to comply with a notice served under section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (the Act). The notice states that green and grey bins were left out on a non-collection day.
  2. The appeal was listed for an oral CVP hearing. The Appellant attended the hearing and gave oral evidence. A representative for the Respondent did not attend. The Respondent had not provided a response to the appeal or responded to directions stating that failure to comply with the directions of the Tribunal, may lead to barring them from further involvement in the appeal under Rule 7(e) of the Tribunal Rules. We were satisfied that the Respondent had been notified of the hearing and considered it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing, in the Respondent's absence, to avoid further delay to the Appellant and that we could give proper consideration of the issues on the basis of the Appellant's evidence, in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules.
  3. The Law

  4. Section 46 of the Act provides that a waste collection authority may serve a notice (a section 46 notice) requiring an occupier to place waste for collection in receptacles of a kind and number specified. It may also impose requirements as to the placing of receptacles and steps to be taken by the occupier to facilitate waste collection.
  5. Section 46A of the Act provides that where a waste collection authority is satisfied that a person has without reasonable excuse failed to comply with a section 46 notice and the person's failure to comply has caused or is likely to cause a nuisance or has been or is likely to be detrimental to any amenities of the locality, they may give a written warning to the occupier of the relevant property. Subsection (3) makes provision as to the content of the written warning.
  6. Subsection (4) provides that where a written warning has been served, the waste collection authority may require the person 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. Subsection (7) provides that where a written warning has been given a requirement to pay a fixed penalty may be imposed if within one year of the date the written warning was given, the person has again failed without reasonable excuse to comply with the section 46 requirement identified in the warning and the failure to comply has had or is likely to have the consequences described.
  7. Section 46C of the Act requires that before a requirement to pay a fixed penalty can be issued, a notice of intent must be served. This must set out the grounds for requiring payment of a fixed penalty; the amount that would be required to be paid; and the right to make representations as to why payment of a fixed penalty should not be required. It provides that a final notice must be served not before 28 days after the notice of intent. The final notice must contain the grounds for requiring payment of a fixed penalty; the amount of the fixed penalty; details of how payment should be made; notice of the right of appeal; and the consequences of not paying the fixed penalty.
  8. Pursuant to section 46D a person served with a fixed penalty final notice may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. On appeal the tribunal may withdraw or confirm the requirement to pay a fixed penalty. The requirement to pay the fixed penalty is suspended pending determination of any appeal.
  9. It is for the respondent to show on the balance of probabilities that subsection 46A(1) is satisfied. If so, the appellant may raise a reasonable excuse. If one is shown, it is then for the respondent to show that the excuse is not reasonable or should not be accepted.
  10. The Notices

  11. On 20 January 2024, the Respondent served a notice on the Appellant after an Officer noticed that the green and grey bins were left out on a non-collection day. This was followed by a written warning notice for the same contravention on 05 February 2024. The warning notice stated that failure to rectify may result in waste not being collected in future and/or the Appellant may be served with a Fixed Penalty of £60. The notice explained that failing to rectify has, or is likely to lead to nuisance by, for allowing rubbish to blow into the street, allowing rubbish to become a target for arson or the wheelie bin obstructing the highway unnecessarily. A fixed penalty notice of intent was issued on 02 March 2024 on the basis that the Appellant had continued to leave their green and grey bins out on a non-collection day. On 18 September 2024, the final fixed penalty was issued for £60.
  12. The Appellant did not raise any issue that the Respondent had not complied with the requirements under the Act and we are satisfied that the required notices were served by the Respondent, before the fixed penalty was issued and there are no procedural deficits.
  13. The Evidence and Findings of Fact

  14. The Appellant provided a diagram of an alleyway behind their street in which, they and their neighbours leave their green and grey bins. The Appellant explained that they have lived at the property since 2016 and all of the street and the street behind use the communal alleyway to store their bins and this has not been an issue with the Respondent until recently. At the time of the appeal, only the Appellant's street had been issued fixed penalties but the street behind had not, despite both streets using the communal alleyway. By the time of the hearing, the street behind had also been issued fixed penalty notices. The Appellant understands that one of her neighbours has an exemption from the Council to store their bins in the alleyway, as they have an extension to their property which means the bins would need to be carried through an inside area, if not stored in the alleyway. The end of the Alleyway is not owned by the Council and is owned by the houses and those houses store their bins in the alleyway. Other neighbours have paid their fixed penalties but still store their bins in the alleyway, as all back yards are small and unusable if the bins were placed in the back yard area. The Appellant considers it would be a health and safety issue for the bins to be stored in the yards. The Appellant showed photographs of the alleyway with the bins in and pictures of her back yard area which she had renovated to create an extra living space to use in good weather. The bins are not collected from the alleyway, all residents need to move their bins on the street for collection on collection day.
  15. The Appellant stated that as far as they know and certainly in the time that they have lived at that address, the bins have never blown open or been subject to an arson attack. The alleyway is not accessible by car, but with all the bins out, it is still accessible to two people walking side by side. The alleyway is used by residents to go in and out of the back of their properties and a lot of residents hang their washing out in the alleyway.
  16. We found the Appellant to be a credible witness. The Appellant gave evidence in open and instinctive manner, doing her best to answer the Tribunal's questions as fully as possible. When assessed as a whole the Appellant's evidence was consistent and coherent. The Appellant's evidence was corroborated by the photographic evidence that she produced. The Appellant's evidence was unchallenged by the Respondent. For all these reasons we found the Appellant to be a credible witness and we accept her evidence as set out above.
  17. We note that even though the alleyway is inaccessible by car it is still a public highway and footpath accessible by foot. However, the warning and fixed penalty notices lack any specificity as to the nuisance caused by the Appellant's bin being stored in the alleyway. Whilst it gives a general warning of what may happen, we accept the Appellant's evidence that despite living in a windy area no waste has ever escaped and there have been no attempts at arson. We also note that the bin has not been left out at the collection point on a non-collection day. The bins are not collected from the area where they are stored and must be moved on collection day. We are not satisfied that the Appellant's bins cause a specific nuisance when the alleyway as a highway (albeit suitable for pedestrians only) is still accessible and used by the neighbours on foot. Due the exemption already granted in respect of one property and the bins being out in the privately owned part of the alleyway, there will always be some bins in the alleyway and therefore we cannot find any specific nuisance caused by the Appellant's bin.
  18. Therefore, we do not consider that the Respondent has shown, on the balance of probabilities, that subsection 46A(1)(b) is satisfied and the appeal is allowed.
  19. The Appellant also requested that this Tribunal make a finding that allows them to keep their wheelie bin in the alleyway. As explained to the Appellant in the oral hearing, this Tribunal only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal against the fixed penalty.
  20. Signed Judge Dwyer

    Date: 3/6/2025.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010