EPA dob in a litterer.

[BENT_8]

So the EPA have begun to enforce its new policy with regards to dobbing in litterers in cars from the 1st of February this year.
Today my Mother in-law received a warning letter claiming she was dobbed in for throwing a cigarette but out of her car window at 3:57pm on 2/2/17 on the road which runs past our kids school.
Apparently the first letter is a warning however if the vehicle is reported again it is a $210 fine plus a further $60 for victims of crime.

Here's the thing though, my Mother in-law has never smoked a cigarette in her life and has doctors who will support it as she suffers from severe asthma. Her husband has not smoked in 20yrs and when he did it was tobacco from a pipe. My Wife doesn't smoke, in fact, no one on our entire family smokes and to top it all off, the vehicle was nowhere near where it was reported as being and could be confirmed by bank transactions as she was shopping with my wife from 3.50pm when they dropped my Daughter off at the doctors until 5pm when they picked my Daughter up from the doctors.
To get from the Doctors to the shopping centre is in the opposite direction to the kids school so there is no way possible she would have gone via the school as it wouldn't make any sense to do so

This is bloody ridiculous!!

[TheInterceptor]

Sweet as, im gunna dob in all the people i hate and there aint a damn thing they can do to prove it otherwise. Yee haa for Australian laws......

[.:4:.]

I thought you need to have photo evidence to make a claim, although that also would be illegal using a phone camera. Anyways they will probably have to iron some bugs out in the early days. It doesn't sound like a bad idea because how hard is it to find a bin or but out in either the ash tray (old car) or mostly empty water bottle (new car), if it's a system run straight off allegations what's not to say some make it a game costing others fines for no reason.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by .:4:.

I thought you need to have photo evidence to make a claim, although that also would be illegal using a phone camera. Anyways they will probably have to iron some bugs out in the early days. It doesn't sound like a bad idea because how hard is it to find a bin or but out in either the ash tray (old car) or mostly empty water bottle (new car), if it's a system run straight off allegations what's not to say some make it a game costing others fines for no reason.

Totally agreed, its a good idea if its implemented properly but the case in point suggests that it is already being used to cause undue stress to unsuspecting innocent people.
And with regards to photographic evidence, photographic evidence of what, a car driving down the road?
I could walk out the front of my house, drop a smoke butt in the gutter and photograph every car which passes bye, that doesn't confirm that it fell from the car and what's the chances of actually capturing the moment a butt is tossed from a window and what sort of magnification would the camera require to confirm beyond reasonable doubt that an offence took place.

Surely you cant just photograph a smoke butt, a random car and take down the rego number, report it and its stiff **** to the registered owner.

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Totally agreed, its a good idea if its implemented properly but the case in point suggests that it is already being used to cause undue stress to unsuspecting innocent people.
And with regards to photographic evidence, photographic evidence of what, a car driving down the road?
I could walk out the front of my house, drop a smoke butt in the gutter and photograph every car which passes bye, that doesn't confirm that it fell from the car and what's the chances of actually capturing the moment a butt is tossed from a window and what sort of magnification would the camera require to confirm beyond reasonable doubt that an offence took place.

Surely you cant just photograph a smoke butt, a random car and take down the rego number, report it and its stiff **** to the registered owner.

Unless you drive with a dash cam, or walk with a go pro strapped to your head it's a very grey area. Unless the driver/walker has constant gps tracking, some rocket surgeon needs to think up a solid way to prove the event. A court date still leaves it all up to the jury. Without proof in stone its a game of speculation. It's not like the cops will set up a crime scene around some maccas rubbish and do dna tests because someone reported it.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by .:4:.

Unless you drive with a dash cam, or walk with a go pro strapped to your head it's a very grey area. Unless the driver/walker has constant gps tracking, some rocket surgeon needs to think up a solid way to prove the event. A court date still leaves it all up to the jury. Without proof in stone its a game of speculation. It's not like the cops will set up a crime scene around some maccas rubbish and do dna tests because someone reported it.

Agreed, it means the court system will be over run with people contesting it and innocent people will have to defend themselves at their time and associated costs.
It's a completely ridiculous setup by a busted **** broke government aimed at raising revenue by way of fraud.

[.:4:.]

I still think the idea isn't bad, it just needs a solid proof based claim process. Taking an rdo to front court to contest whether Bigfoot could beat a unicorn in a fight (exactly, never existed) to then if it doesn't go your way, you wasted an rdo and cost a days pay in the fine. Double cost to the one in the right. Massive social society fail.

[Adamz Ghia]

I use it quite often. Before the usual suspects have a go at me, no I am not perfect and if I get caught doing something wrong I cop it on the chin, like a grown adult should. If you are a disgusting pig and throw crap out of your car you deserve what you get.

[mike_nofx]

Have used it to dob in one jerk. He was doing 90 on the freeway in the right lane then threw out a butt which hit my windscreen. I had video evidence too.

I know there will be people who dislike what I have done, but... meh. Throwing butts out of the window is stupid. Also, bushfires have been started in this exact location.

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by Adamz Ghia

I use it quite often. Before the usual suspects have a go at me, no I am not perfect and if I get caught doing something wrong I cop it on the chin, like a grown adult should. If you are a disgusting pig and throw crap out of your car you deserve what you get.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure how the whole system works but I like the ideology of it, just not the entrapment part. I hate places being used like a bin. Nothing is worse then getting a plastic bag melted to your exhaust stinking out the car. I even had a concrete recycling truck with an uncovered load dent and scrape the door of an ex car before when a chunk departed company with the back of the truck. He was changing lanes then moved left to turn so I got no plate.

[FPV091]

It doesn't really work if tested. The Govt is relying on people thinking they don't want to take on the Govt (infringement notice from NSW EPA letterhead) so they'll just cough up money to avoid trouble.

In actual fact if you elect to take those fines to court the complainant must personally attend court and testify and prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged offence took place as they described. I think you'll find most nuissance complainants/dobbers (excusing the genuine ones) will not defend their allegations since they'll fear you'll identify them. As a result of no plaintiff evidence, the EPA will drop the charges.

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by FPV091

It doesn't really work if tested. The Govt is relying on people thinking they don't want to take on the Govt (infringement notice from NSW EPA letterhead) so they'll just cough up money to avoid trouble.

In actual fact if you elect to take those fines to court the complainant must personally attend court and testify and prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged offence took place as they described. I think you'll find most nuissance complainants/dobbers (excusing the genuine ones) will not defend their allegations since they'll fear you'll identify them. As a result of no plaintiff evidence, the EPA will drop the charges.

Which means the system works?

Since some guilty people might just think "yeah I was a D-Head I'll just pay it" and anyone innocent will try fight it and the fine will be dropped since the bogus complainer won't bother attending court.

If anyone contests my complaint (and I've only made one) I'll go to court and show my DashCam footage. If someone wants to fight a legit complaint I made I'll waste a day in court to show my footage.

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

Which means the system works?

Since some guilty people might just think "yeah I was a D-Head I'll just pay it" and anyone innocent will try fight it and the fine will be dropped since the bogus complainer won't bother attending court.

If anyone contests my complaint (and I've only made one) I'll go to court and show my DashCam footage. If someone wants to fight a legit complaint I made I'll waste a day in court to show my footage.

You had solid proof. And can back it up. Completely amicable. Not a fictional claim. If that was the system standard there would be no need for court dates and legal fees. I'm not quite sure who pays the judge, I could ask my mum who's a lawyer but then I'd have to talk to her, but if it's my taxes, I'll be annoyed. The education system and health system is where I want my tax going, and roads. Not "light rail"

[Pedro]

Well I don't know what State the OP lives in but dob in a litterer has been in Qld since I don't know when. I used it a couple of years ago when I was about to enter my car at the kerb side and a Holden Caprice came down the street and just as it got close to me the right hand rear window came down an an empty drink can came out the window. I dobbed the pig in and the authority got in touch with me later and asked if I'd appear in court to give evidence if the Holden moron wanted to go there and I said bloody oath.

[Express]

Littering app comes under fire



Richard Noone,
Central Coast Gosford Express Advocate

9 February, 2017


A MAN who had his fine for littering on the M1 thrown out of court after the only witness failed to show up says the environment watchdog’s “dob in a tosser” smartphone app is being abused by people making malicious or vexatious reports*.

Stephen Patrick Walker was driving his older model Toyota Landcruiser on the M1 at Somersby when he pulled into the adjacent lane to overtake a truck about 9.20am on January 16 last year.

He thinks he may have slowed down the car in the next lane “for about 30 seconds” as he went past the truck and pulled back into the left lane, but said his manoeuvre was safe and he “didn’t cut him off”.

A few weeks later he got a $230 fine from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) for the offence of “deposit litter from vehicle” after someone dobbed him in using the Report to EPA smartphone app.



An EPA sign encouraging motorist’s to report a ******.


He tried in vain for months to have the fine withdrawn through the State Debt Recovery Office, the EPA and even his local member, Terrigal state Liberal MP Adam Crouch.

“I did not commit this offence, but when I tried to find a way to resolve the matter I discovered there are two ways to sort it out – pay the fine or take the matter to court,” he said.

A little more than a year and three court appearances later, Mr Walker had the fine “withdrawn and dismissed” at Gosford Local Court on Wednesday after the key witness, who dobbed him in, “refused” to appear.

“He provided a written statement (to court) but he wouldn’t come to court to back it up,” Mr Walker said.

“I wanted him to show so I could put (the M1 incident) to him.”

The 55-year-old said he got a quote from a legal firm to represent him but it was $1500 a day plus GST, so he represented himself.



Stephen Walker represented himself in court. Picture: Mark Scott


The bricklayer also had to pay a fee of $50 for an annulment application, a further $23 to have the fine payment period extended – or risk losing his licence for failure to pay – and lost about $1000 in wages going to court three times. All for a $230 fine.

“I don’t understand why I had to take it to court and waste the court’s time,” he said. “I nearly paid it off but I just couldn’t because I didn’t do it.”

Mr Walker said he had since spoken to half a dozen people who had simply paid the fine rather than undertake the expensive and arduous task of fighting it in court, including “one bloke fined for tossing a cigarette out of the window who doesn’t even smoke”.

“I believe they are using this app to satisfy themselves by reporting people that have somehow offended them on the M1,” he said.

“It’s just so easy to abuse it.”

Now he has been cleared Mr Walker wants to make a formal complaint to police that the witness made “a false declaration on a government document” but said he couldn’t because he needed the witness’ details, including an address. He only has a name.

He said the app gave people the power to bring fines against complete strangers over minor grievances and the recipient had to “prove their innocence” as opposed to the central tenant of Australia’s legal system, which was the presumption of innocence “until proven guilty”.

In the AppStore description the EPA states: “Whether you’re on the road, cycling or walking, the app is at your fingertips. Simply record the vehicle details, tell us where and when you saw it and the [EPA] will take care of the rest”.



The alleged littering offence occurred on the M1. Picture by Mark Scott


WHAT THE EPA SAYS

However the app has been panned in reviews with users critical there is no function to upload a photograph, which could provide irrefutable evidence.

The Environment Protection Authority has defended its Report Littering from Vehicles app claiming appropriate safeguards are in place to stop it being abused.

“The predominant aim of the app is to deter would-be litterers by increasing the number of potential witnesses to their littering behaviour and subsequently increasing their chances of getting caught and receiving a fine,” an EPA spokesman said.

“Over 20 specific mandatory criteria must be completed by a reporter and these are reviewed by the Roads and Maritime Services and the EPA,” an agency spokesman said.

“As well, reporters must agree to the EPA terms and conditions and make a declaration that the information that they have provided is true and correct.”

In Stephen Walker’s case, the EPA considers the reporting system was used in good faith.

The spokesman said the witness in the case was willing to attend court but could not get time off work after the matter was set down for hearing with just three working days’ notice.


.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...595ce123c3d37c



.

[Junkyard-Dog]

Well I'm all for having this enforced. It's disgusting that some smokers just throw their butts out the window. Even when I was a smoker I hated those types.

It's a shame about your mother in law being falsely fined though.

[theunfairadvant]

Before you go reporting like the case above you need a dashcam as prove that the driver in front of you actually did do the crime and not someone that just cut you off in traffic.

[FGX-351]

If I were to be accused of anything I'd expect to see evidential proof.
Although here in QLD regardless of innocence, all court appearances incur an offenders levy regardless.
I'm not a fan of this one but obviously I agree with the practicality if it's done correctly.

[FairmontGS]

James Valentine on ABC Radio Sydney 1300-1500 daily has been following this for 6 months and attacking the system. There's been some hilarious moments when Gov-co has come onto the radio to be interviewed and can't justify the reversal of burden of proof. Latest instalment was last week.

Generally, nuisance makers who have reported you won't turn up and that's an end to it.

[Peter B - CV8]

Originally Posted by FairmontGS

James Valentine on ABC Radio Sydney 1300-1500 daily has been following this for 6 months and attacking the system. There's been some hilarious moments when Gov-co has come onto the radio to be interviewed and can't justify the reversal of burden of proof. Latest instalment was last week.

Generally, nuisance makers who have reported you won't turn up and that's an end to it.

If the person reporting the "said" incident isn't prepared to face court - then they should wear the cost of the court fees etc etc for the action that ensues.

[FairmontGS]

Originally Posted by Peter B - CV8

If the person reporting the "said" incident isn't prepared to face court - then they should wear the cost of the court fees etc etc for the action that ensues.

Well EPA ends up wearing the costs because their case failed, so same-same.

[chrisandsharon]

I wouldn't bother. Pigs that were raised by pigs and so on will be nothing but pigs, and there's plenty of em' - they don't know any different. I was behind a lady the other day who emptied the entire contents of her ashtray on the road in front of me - literally opened her drivers door while stopped and emptied the the lot on the road. I've got the entire act on 1080 HD camera but wouldn't waste my time reporting.

I'm just thankful my parents raised me to 'put your rubbish in the bloody bin'.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Junkyard-Dog

Well I'm all for having this enforced. It's disgusting that some smokers just throw their butts out the window. Even when I was a smoker I hated those types.

It's a shame about your mother in law being falsely fined though.

Thankfully she wasn't actually fined, it was just a warning letter but the fact that she received one for doing something she couldn't possibly have done makes a mockery of the system.
I've got no problem with people dobbing in others for doing the wrong thing but there should be some burden of proof placed upon the dobber before it can escalate to fines and court appearances and the accused should be able to face their accuser with full disclosure of name and address so wrongful accusations can be prosecuted.
Its ok for the EPA to say they have criteria to meet, but clearly it wasn't met on this occasion because the car was nowhere near where it was reported and no one who travels in it smokes, I'm fact, if my Father in-law discovered someone had smoked in any of his cars the EPA would be the least of that persons worries, trust me.

[GT450]

I returned from a race weekend a long time ago to be handed a Vic Pol members card with a message from my daughter to call him back as he had been whilst i was away.
I did so and was told, in no uncertain terms , that I had been reported for brake testing someone the other side of the city. I was asked if i had been in the area on that day and said I had but I was unsure if I was on that particular road.
Anyway they called to see me and it was getting serious when something the officer said made me realise the car that i had been reported driving was in the driveway all weekend, as I was in my wifes car.
Suddenly it was no longer relevant , whoever had reported me had got it wrong, but i had no right to redress, someone had just got it wrong. Now i think I know who did it , a spiteful b***ard that I worked with but i could never prove it and believe me they were going to charge me unless i could prove it wasn't me.Did they care? not one iota.
GT450

[Ben73]

I hate when people litter, but I think people who make bogus reports to get back people are horrible people.

I was sitting at a roundabout when the passenger of the car ahead threw some sort of wrapper out the window. I have a dashcam, but it's to much effort to report people because if they fight it you have to attend court. Screw that I'm not wasting my time over something small. If I was something bigger, dirtier and hit my car I would think about reporting it though.
At night time when I cop the sparks across my windscreen from the person throwing a ciggy out the window I usually just highbeam them. They probably can't put two and two together, but it makes me feel better. Yes I do make sure it's was the car in front before flashing my lights.
The number of smokers has dropped down a lot lately, so haven't copped the sparks for a few years now.

I live in a new housing estate and there is rubbish everywhere. Most of it has been blown out of those huge uncovered bins on the construction sites, but I am sick of cleaning up building material packaging and cans of V on my front lawn.
I swear energy drink companies are being kept in business by tradies.

[last fairlane]

I had a similar problem not with littering but an unroadworthy vehicle
about ten or so years back I was dobbed in by an unknown person about my truck being not road worthy I got a letter from Qld transport that I had been seen in an URW condition so I rang transport and asked what the hell the said the same thing so I asked who it was (we cant say privacy issue) was the reply
anyway they gave me a date to have the truck inspected and to bring $30 for the privalige anyway I just ignored it and went on my way I must of upset someone that day
John

[BPXR6T]

Hmmm. Driving to a mates house last night and a grub cut the car in front of me off. I had to turn so follow him and he dumps a couple of jim beam cans out the passenger window, then pulls into a house two doors down. FFS, why. People **** me.

[commodorenutt]

In the early 90s we used to have a young-ish bloke at the bottom of the cul-de-sac, who lived in his parents garage. He would reverse his Gemini coupe straight out into the middle of the loop - facing the opposite direction to where he needed to go - open the door, dump out the rubbish (last nights maccas bags, cans etc) then proceed to do a single-wheeler 180 degree burnout to leave the street.

He didn't last long before the HWP cop next door to us caught up with him one day.... but his excuse was priceless "I work for council, driving the street sweeper, and I know we're doing this street today, so it will pick it all up."

He wasn't driving for council much longer - losing his licence for a period of time (points + the neg driving charge).