Natalie Walton is left confused after being fined for leaving out a cigarette in a village nearly 300 kilometers from her home – a place she has not visited for over a decade. A fixed penalty notice (FPN) addressed to Ms Walton was sent to her parents’ home in Gravesend, Kent, accusing her of littering in nearby Swanscombe. The notice, dated November 12, said a Dartford Council officer witnessed him “committing the offence”, which was also recorded on a body-worn camera, on October 29, and fined him £75 (Rs 8,082). The fine will have to be paid or an appeal will have to be made against it. ,
The notice said Ms Walton could be taken to court and if found guilty, could face a fine of up to £2,500 (Rs 2,69,410) for littering.
“Since neither payment nor written challenge has been received, you are liable for the offense and prosecution proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court may immediately commence against you,” the notice said.
Ms Walton claimed she could not be accused because she did not smoke and had not been to the place where the crime took place since she was a child. Ms Walton said she had an alibi which proved she was not even in Kent at the time of the alleged crime.
“I haven’t been to Kent for months. Dartford Council were trying to fine me £75 for something I didn’t even go there to do. It’s a bit strange. They threw cigarettes at me in Swanscombe “Which is honestly more absurd, because I don’t smoke and I’ve never been to the address they claimed I was at,” she was quoted as saying. kentonline,
“I feel like I’ve been a complete victim of fraud. Someone must have stolen my identity or the council’s security measures are so bad they’ll take the name and address without any proof.”
Watch: Man Eats Banana artwork bought at auction for Rs 52 crore
evidence presented
As the controversy escalated, Ms Walton produced her bank transactions, which proved she had been shopping at B&M and Tesco in Staffordshire at the time of the littering incident. Following her protest and investigation of the evidence, Dartford Council said Ms Walton’s FPN was cancelled.
“When I saw the email, I was relieved and felt a lot less stressed, but I still couldn’t figure out how they thought it was me,” she said.
Meanwhile, the council said the real accused had given officers the wrong address and directed them towards Ms Walton.
“Our enforcement team requested a current photo of Ms. Walton and upon receiving it was compared to the person in the footage. It was found that this was not Ms. Walton and the FPN has now been cancelled.”
The council is still investigating who the real culprit is but has been unable to provide photos.
Despite the fine being quashed, Ms Walton said the whole incident left her stressed, especially as she was getting married in two weeks.
