Man cautioned in connection with Bushey Heath fly-tipping

Man cautioned in connection with Bushey Heath fly-tipping

Man cautioned in connection with Bushey Heath fly-tipping

First published in News Watford Observer: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

A 62-year-old man has been given a police caution for allowing his vehicle to be used to dump rubbish illegally.

His white transit van was half filled with fence panels, which were dumped in Hilfield Lane South in Bushey Heath last Wednesday (May 14).

Covert cameras installed in Hilfield Lane South helped track down the transit van belonging to the man.

PC Phil Tuck from the Borehamwood and Elstree Neighbourhood Team said: "Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the responsible keeper of the vehicle is liable for the offence.

"Fly-tipping is a criminal offence and carries a penalty of up to £50,000.

"We are installing cameras at fly-tipping sites across Hertsmere including Hilfield Lane South, Hilfield Lane and Pegmire Lane in Aldenham.

"Residents may not be aware that they need a receipt from a registered waste carrier - otherwise they could be fined."

In the past nine months, 17 people have been summoned to court, charged or cautioned as a result of the police and council working closely together.

On Monday June 9, a father and son are being dealt with at Watford Magistrates Court for failing in their responsibilities for controlled waste which resulted in 16 duty of care offences leading to fly-tipping. Rubbish dumped includes chairs and plasterboard.

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:41pm Tue 27 May 14

WatfordBandB says...

So not even something that the local tip would reject, what a lazy Cretin...
So not even something that the local tip would reject, what a lazy Cretin... WatfordBandB
  • Score: 10

4:18pm Tue 27 May 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

A caution?

Is that all?
A caution? Is that all? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 10

5:13pm Tue 27 May 14

S/O man says...

You sound disappointed Phil, maybe like your lack of votes, you expected better.
You sound disappointed Phil, maybe like your lack of votes, you expected better. S/O man
  • Score: -13

5:13pm Tue 27 May 14

G_Whiz says...

I'm glad the Police have put up 'secret' cameras at those sites. SSShhh, but don't tell anyone though, as the rubbish will get dumped elsewhere!

Being the Liberal i am, i'm horrified with these cameras. Criminal's should be free to go about their business without fear of cameras.... Jeeze what is this world coming too?
I'm glad the Police have put up 'secret' cameras at those sites. SSShhh, but don't tell anyone though, as the rubbish will get dumped elsewhere! Being the Liberal i am, i'm horrified with these cameras. Criminal's should be free to go about their business without fear of cameras.... Jeeze what is this world coming too? G_Whiz
  • Score: 4

8:44pm Tue 27 May 14

G_Whiz says...

S/O man wrote:
You sound disappointed Phil, maybe like your lack of votes, you expected better.
oooh - spiteful!
[quote][p][bold]S/O man[/bold] wrote: You sound disappointed Phil, maybe like your lack of votes, you expected better.[/p][/quote]oooh - spiteful! G_Whiz
  • Score: 3

9:30pm Tue 27 May 14

LuthersLoveChild says...

name and shame please?
name and shame please? LuthersLoveChild
  • Score: 6

9:30pm Tue 27 May 14

LSC says...

We are paying to install cameras but not bothering to prosecute people when they provide the evidence to convict them? How stupid is that?
We are paying to install cameras but not bothering to prosecute people when they provide the evidence to convict them? How stupid is that? LSC
  • Score: 7

11:53pm Tue 27 May 14

james the 1st says...

LSC wrote:
We are paying to install cameras but not bothering to prosecute people when they provide the evidence to convict them? How stupid is that?
very stupid...pointless
at least charge for clearing it up
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: We are paying to install cameras but not bothering to prosecute people when they provide the evidence to convict them? How stupid is that?[/p][/quote]very stupid...pointless at least charge for clearing it up james the 1st
  • Score: 3

8:18am Wed 28 May 14

garston tony says...

The article does say he was given a caution for 'allowing his vehicle to be used for fly tipping', that suggests that he was not with the van himself at the time (otherwise surely he would have been charged with fly tipping himself) and I assume the police can not prove that he was aware that whoever did have the van was going to fly tip. Hence why only the caution.

It could be that the father and son in court on the 9th June are the ones that did the actual tipping, otherwise not sure why it would be mentioned directly in relation to the caution
The article does say he was given a caution for 'allowing his vehicle to be used for fly tipping', that suggests that he was not with the van himself at the time (otherwise surely he would have been charged with fly tipping himself) and I assume the police can not prove that he was aware that whoever did have the van was going to fly tip. Hence why only the caution. It could be that the father and son in court on the 9th June are the ones that did the actual tipping, otherwise not sure why it would be mentioned directly in relation to the caution garston tony
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree