After being fined for dropping a cigarette in a community 182 miles from her home—a place she hadn’t been to in decades—a nonsmoker was left perplexed.
Natalie Walton, 31, was accused of littering in neighbouring Swanscombe and received a fixed penalty notice (FPN) at her parents’ home in Gravesend, Kent.
But according to Ms Walton, it couldn’t have been her since she doesn’t smoke, she hasn’t been to the scene of the crime since she was a youngster, and there is proof that she wasn’t even in Kent at the time.
She relocated 182 miles away to Staffordshire in 2021, and she hasn’t resided at her parents’ house, where the letters were sent, since then.
Additionally, she hasn’t been to Swanscombe in decades.
As per the letter dated November 12, she was observed ‘committing an infraction’ on October 29 by a Dartford council official and was required to either pay a £75 fine or appeal the decision.
It added: ‘As neither the payment nor the written challenge has been received, you remain liable for the offence and prosecution proceedings in the magistrates’ court may begin immediately against you.
‘If convicted you may have to pay a fine of up to £2,500 for littering.’
Ms Walton received a photo of the letter the same day her parents opened it.
Ms Walton began the appeal procedure after realising it couldn’t have been her because she had bank records demonstrating that she was shopping at Tesco and B&M in Staffordshire at the time.
Given that it occurred just weeks before her wedding, she acknowledged that the situation had been “stressful.”
She said: ‘I had not been to Kent for months. Dartford council were trying to fine me £75 for something I was not even there to do.
‘It is just a bit bizarre. I was accused of littering a cigarette in Swanscombe, which is honestly more absurd, as I do not smoke and have never been to the address they have claimed I was at.
‘I feel like a complete victim of fraud. Someone must have stolen my identity or the council’s security measures are so broken they will take a name and address with no proof.’
While the appeal was looked into, Ms Walton’s FPN was put on hold. Nevertheless, a second letter, dated November 19, arrived at her parents’ home saying the local authority was starting court proceedings.
Ms Walton said: ‘I am getting married in two weeks and I was so panicked I would have to pay out thousands. It has been so stressful.
‘Although I was told the fine was on hold, it was the impending doom and not knowing how long this was going to go on for.’
After reviewing the documentation Natalie had submitted, Dartford Council contacted her to inform her that the FPN had been revoked.
How were they even able to identify the offender without speaking with them and recording their details?
What was not said is how they made an identity deduction from a picture that was taken with bodycam footage. What methodology did they use? And what pictures did they use to make the comparison and finally the false identity?
Since they asked her to provide them with a picture of herself, the council now has a picture of her on file when they wouldn’t have otherwise, compromising this woman’s identity and data. Her right to privacy and to safeguard her identity from fraud and abuse are being violated.
THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO 