Woman who hired 'man with van' on Facebook fined £2k

Steep penalty but it's her own fault, if she had used a licenced disposal company she could have legally passed the responsibility to them, but instead she went with 'A1Dump4U' with most likely 0 paperwork.
Like she didn't really get fined 2k for hiring a man and van, she got fined £4/500 for breaching her duty of care regarding her waste disposal, the bulk of this fine has then came from her refusal to pay the first fine.

A woman who used a "man with a van" she found on social media to get rid of rubbish has been ordered to pay £1,900.
Simone Jackson, 38, of Broad Oak Lane, Bury, found someone on Facebook to remove waste which was later found dumped in nearby Lowes Road.
The council later identified her as the source of the waste and gave her a fixed penalty notice of £400. However, the authority said she did not pay it.
She was found guilty at Manchester Magistrates' Court of failing to comply with the householder's duty of care in the disposal of household waste and fined £500 and ordered to pay a £250 victim surcharge and £1,150 costs, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y40eexjd3o

she got fined £4/500 for breaching her duty of care regarding her waste disposal, the bulk of this fine has then came from her refusal to pay the first fine.

A woman who used a "man with a van" she found on social media to get rid of rubbish has been ordered to pay £1,900.
Simone Jackson, 38, of Broad Oak Lane, Bury, found someone on Facebook to remove waste which was later found dumped in nearby Lowes Road.
The council later identified her as the source of the waste and gave her a fixed penalty notice of £400. However, the authority said she did not pay it.
She was found guilty at Manchester Magistrates' Court of failing to comply with the householder's duty of care in the disposal of household waste and fined £500 and ordered to pay a £250 victim surcharge and £1,150 costs, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y40eexjd3o

Councils are known for trying it on so why wouldn't it be contested.
The £250 victim surcharge is another farce that should be removed.

Although i think it is a bit harsh (it was the man with the van who dumped the stuff), she should have done her homework and got someone with the correct licence/paperwork/whatever. Just like you would vet (or get recommendations for) any tradesman before you hire them to do jobs at your house.

It would have been a lot less if she admitted it when caught, the duty of care remains hers as she cannot pass it onto an unlicensed trader. The person who actually dumped it is obviously still liable for the act but they legally can't take the blame for the owner as they were never a valid disposal operator. As soon as the owner will have been asked for their paperwork and the operators licence details etc she would be sunk.
Worth remembering that you can be hit for up to £50'000 so £500 is kind of on the small side. Depending how much stuff/what it was, the cleanup cost and the cost of tracing her could easily be more than the fine (I have exp in this field)

Thats what i am saying, she should have done her homework when employing the waste disposal person, just like you would with any tradesmen.

They weren't trying it on, she was clearly guilty and the waste was traced back to her, it's that simple.

If you don't want extra court fees added to your fine, then don't contest something you are guilty of and have 0 chance of winning. As for a victim surcharge, what about the people having their view or street ruined by her dumped junk, or the extra staff who had to come clean it up?

Who even knows about that nonsense and it's not their place to do the states job of asking for "papers please"
I said in general they do and I see no difference in assuming it for this case.
I don't think you understand what a "victim surcharge" is, also all these extra charges undermine the right to a fair trial.

"I said in general they do and I see no difference in assuming it for this case."
That makes 0 sense. So even if you know you did the thing you're accused of and they have solid evidence against you, you'll insist on a trial and your entire defence is 'I heard about another council doing something dodgy someday so I'm refusing the bill'? You'd just get hammered with the same 2k in a heartbeat, prob more.
"I don't think you understand what a "victim surcharge" is, also all these extra charges undermine the right to a fair trial."
Do you? Push comes to shove I don't need to know the details of the VS, as I don't waste the council & courts time with nonsense excuses incurring extra fees. The idea that if you force the court to find you guilty by trial the punishment is more severe is not a new one and we're not about to change it.
She had a fair trial by all accounts, if she was found not guilty she wouldn't have paid a penny but she was found guilty due to the evidence, that comes with penalties. If you don't like that, then don't waste the courts time in a case you can't win. If you sued someone and lost you'd need to pay their fees as well, why would expect a trial to be substantially different?

Knowing what a "victim" surcharge is important if you're going to argue about it.
It's just an extra charge that gets tacked onto any crime that funds a lot of nonsense and should be scrapped. Apparently Canada's copied it too.

That really doesn't sound like you're in a position to correct me either and you haven't pointed out anything specific,

but I am and I have.
The person has a right to a fair trial to start with then these extra costs plus victim surcharge undermine that.
Then there's the grey area of the council trying to get ordinary people to be unpaid inspectors of these vanmen at a time when binmen are essentially doing the same to pressure the public for extra money.