Natalie Walton has been left confused after being fined for dropping off cigarettes in a village nearly 300km from her home. It was a place she hadn't visited in over 10 years. A Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for Ms Walton was sent to her parents' home in Gravesend, Kent, for littering in nearby Swanscombe. The notice, dated November 12, states that on October 29 a Dartford council officer witnessed her “committing an offence”, which was also recorded on a body-worn camera. says he must pay a fine of £75 (Rs 8,082) or appeal. .
The notice said Ms Walton could be taken to court and, if convicted, could have to pay a fine of “up to £2,500 (Rs 269,410)” for littering. added.
“As neither payment nor written objection has been received, you remain liable for the offense and prosecution proceedings in the Magistrates Court may be initiated against you immediately,” the notice added. .
Walton argued that he could not be a defendant because he is a non-smoker and had not visited the area where the incident occurred since he was a child. Ms Walton added that she had an alibi to prove she wasn't even in Kent at the time of the alleged crime.
“I hadn't been to Kent for months. Dartford City Council were going to fine me £75 because I hadn't even been to Kent. It's a bit strange. Swans “It's honestly even more ridiculous that I was accused of littering cigarettes on Com. I don't smoke and I've never been to the address they claim I was at,” she was quoted as saying. It was done. kent online.
“I feel completely the victim of fraud. Someone must have stolen my identity. Otherwise, the council’s security measures have been so broken that I have no proof that my name and Your address will be stolen.”
Watch: Banana-eating man buys artwork for Rs 52 million at auction
evidence submitted
As the controversy snowballed, Ms Walton produced bank transactions to prove she had been shopping at B&M and Tesco in Staffordshire at the time of the littering incident. Following her appeal and examination of the evidence, Dartford City Council announced that Ms Walton's FPN had been revoked.
“When I saw the email I felt relieved and a lot less stressed, but I still don't know how they thought it was me,” she said.
Meanwhile, the council claimed the real defendant had given officers the wrong address and pointed the finger at Ms Walton.
“Our enforcement team requested a current photo of Mr. Walton and upon receiving it, it was compared to the person in the footage. It was determined that this was not Mr. Walton and the FPN has now been revoked.”
The city council is investigating who the real culprit is, but could not provide a photo.
Despite the fine being rescinded, Walton said the whole ordeal was stressful, especially now that she is getting married in two weeks.
