Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Woman fined over £900 for dropping cigarette butt
Here's 'behaviour change' with a vengeance!
A woman was fined over £900 last week for dropping a cigarette on the pavement and failing to pay her penalty notice.
Cllr Nilgun Canver, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods,said:
"People seem to think it's ok to drop cigarette butts in the street. Well it's not ok. It costs the council a lot of money to sweep up this litter and I hope this fine will make people think twice before throwing a butt away in future."
On Thursday the 5th of August Haringey Council Enforcement Officers spotted Kristina Djemal of 13 Charmwood Road, Enfield, throwing away a cigarette in Wood Green High Road and making no attempt to pick it up.
The officers were in the middle a litter patrol exercise with local police at the time.
Djemal was advised that dropping the cigarette was a littering offence and issued her with a fixed penalty notice of £75.
Despite reminder letters being sent, the fixed penalty notice was not paid, and the case was referred for prosecution.
Although Djemal failed to turn up at court on December 1st, Tottenham Magistrates found her guilty of littering and she was fined £525.00, with full costs of £382.00. A collection order was also granted, providing for bailiffs to visit the home to collect the money.
A woman was fined over £900 last week for dropping a cigarette on the pavement and failing to pay her penalty notice.
Cllr Nilgun Canver, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods,said:
"People seem to think it's ok to drop cigarette butts in the street. Well it's not ok. It costs the council a lot of money to sweep up this litter and I hope this fine will make people think twice before throwing a butt away in future."
On Thursday the 5th of August Haringey Council Enforcement Officers spotted Kristina Djemal of 13 Charmwood Road, Enfield, throwing away a cigarette in Wood Green High Road and making no attempt to pick it up.
The officers were in the middle a litter patrol exercise with local police at the time.
Djemal was advised that dropping the cigarette was a littering offence and issued her with a fixed penalty notice of £75.
Despite reminder letters being sent, the fixed penalty notice was not paid, and the case was referred for prosecution.
Although Djemal failed to turn up at court on December 1st, Tottenham Magistrates found her guilty of littering and she was fined £525.00, with full costs of £382.00. A collection order was also granted, providing for bailiffs to visit the home to collect the money.
Tags for Forum Posts: litter
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Don't be daft, Storky. Not in any way. Please explain the mischief you're about with that question. Does this sound like a council supported website.
I think you know the story of how the site started, of how every resident group, every political party and every public service (except, oddly, the local police) were very suspicious of us. They've learned to live with us, but that doesn't mean we're getting backhanders..
If I ever accepted any money for Harringay Online from any agency or organisation (or member), it would be on the strict understanding that this would give them no rights or influence.
I haven't asked for or accepted any money and it's unlikely I ever will. (Except for a making the difference bid when we were urged to do so by members)
(I hope you're not seriously suggesting that Liz's stance on litter is done in some guise as a secret Council agent!)
-
-
Where's the clue to the humour Storky? Or should I assume everything's 'in humour' unless otherwise alerted.
Is the 'out more' also in humour? Humour or not, I'm afraid it's way wide of the mark. I don't run a desk-based business. Although my recent flurry of activity on HoL has been occasioned by a knackered ankle and the completion of a major project last week (luckily the ankle came on the evening of completion day!)
Where da love, Mr Stork? Where da love? -
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
I will admit, at the suggestion of some members, I once asked for some money from Making the Difference to pay for running costs, the council told me where to go...and most people thought that was for the best.
No, Storky, no council money here. It has always been self financing, intially by its founder and now we are supported entirely by the generosity of Harringay people who donate sums both large and small and revenue from small selected ads like the one for Fair Deal on the front page.
Now, I'm sure you just asked me that question to give me a good excuse to link to the donate page didn't you?
-
-
PS: And in fact often forgo ad revenue in favour of negotiating offers for members like a free yoga course, free art course and now a wonderful free Nordman Fir.
-
-
Ooh a free Christmas tree. Want that!
Seriously Hugh, it was Storky's cunning plan to suggest to people to put a little something in the HOL Christmas Stocking. Ho, ho ho -
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I got mine from Anthos and they gave me a discount because my children were so cute. You don't get that often. Skiing in half term is only for the very wealthy.
Off-topic that Huge. -
-
-
I know you try your best to stay focussed Joan and since your story had cute kids in and it's about Christmas.....well we'll let it slip this time...
-
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Paul: this is not a question of being protective of the council. Whether or not Haringey Council efficiently and effectively discharges it duties is a matter distinct from the tasks it ought to be performing. Litter prevention, enforcement and prosecution is an aim and responsbility that I for one support.
My main criticism would be that enforcement overall is slight and inconstant.
It is little surprise that this woman thought she would get away with littering because the long-term resolve and day-to-day determination of the council is absent.
For the same reason, this case is seen as sensational. On the one hand, its good that the case has had publicity, even with some exaggeration, as an example to others; on the other hand its remarkableness suggests that enforcement is patchy and it causes shock and horror.
I would rather see steady consistent enforcement, over many years, with gradually rising penalites. That might have a better chance of affecting behaviour rather than the odd court case involving a huge overall fine, that results in near-hysterical reaction.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
" . . . of course lucrative revenue streams . . . for the council."
I'm not so sure Birdy. Fines in Magistrates Courts are income for the Courts. Costs awarded to the Council may or may not cover the council's actual expenditure in bringing a case. But overall they do not. Then, court costs awarded don't equal costs recovered - as many successful litigants know only too well.
There are also 'hidden' costs ─ "a litter patrol exercise with local police" doesn't come free.
Your and other people's comments on this thread raise some further interesting questions. For example, about the right size of fines for particular behaviour. (Though this one would have been a lot cheaper if Ms Djemal had paid the fixed penalty in the first place. (And, possibly, had she turned up for the hearing and even apologised.)
A further question is the effectiveness of these high-profile street "swoops", compared to continuous low-level work on enforcement and change behaviour. We probably need both. But the Coalition's cuts will make that ever harder.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor. But I don't "protect" the Council either. As anyone looking at my
Flickr pages will see.)
-
-
Think I may have pointed you, Alan, in the direction of this Joseph Rowntree report on Street Cleanliness but others may wish to look at it. The section entitled Does resource allocation follow risk? goes some way to tackling your question.
Haringey, although they are targetting resources better in enforcemement, are probably not tackling fundamental problems with Enterprise who manage the cleaning of the streets about the appropriateness of the service delivery i.e. the narrow brooms issue, the efficiency of the 'street hoover' in built up areas like Green Lanes, and also the effectiveness of the routine cleaning patterns, for example; street sweeping not occuring the day after refuse collection but almost a week later, the leaving of green bags overnight encouraging others to dump, the reliance on the reporting method for clearing fly tipping thereby establishing the 'unofficial refuse collection service' for those who are prepared to take the risk of being caught and fined which must be percieved as being low enough to be worth it, and many of the other things you talk about on your Flickr pages concerning how Enterprise's methods help to establish patterns of dumping for others to emulate.
These, incidentally are some of the things we bring up in Community Volunteer meetings as well as the sense of helplessness many people feel in the face of issues which never seem to go away like dog poo, dumping and littering
-
-
p.s. @Dave. We can talk about whatever you want to talk about.
My point is simply that meeting people face to face helps to dispel any misconceptions that may have been formed in the online world.
-
Permalink Reply by maggie on
-
Nope, she was fined £75 for dropping the cigarette butt!
She then failed to pay the fixed penalty notice so it then went to court and she was then fined £525, with costs of £382. The same happens when you get a £60 ticket for a parking offence, if you don't pay it, it goes up- and up.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
