- April 16, 2024
- Posted by: legaleseblogger
- Category: Related News
Try Free Now: Legalese tool without registration
## AI Legalese Decoder and the Northumbrian Water Letter on Sewer Blockages
We recently received a letter from Northumbrian Water regarding blockages in the sewers, a concern shared with all households in the area. The letter outlines the potential costs associated with clearing such blockages and emphasizes the importance of not flushing wipes, even those marketed as ‘flushable’. Northumbrian Water mentions using ‘innovative techniques’ to identify households contributing to the issue and states their intention to recover costs under Section 11 of the Water Industry Act 1991, labeling the disposal of wet wipes as a criminal offense.
While we are careful not to flush baby wipes or makeup wipes, we do use moist toilet tissue labeled as ‘flushable’ and certified as ‘fine to flush’. As a household committed to environmental responsibility, we are concerned about the implications of potentially being held accountable for using a product deemed ‘flushable’.
## How AI Legalese Decoder Can Help Navigate the Situation
AI Legalese Decoder can assist in deciphering the legal intricacies of the Water Industry Act 1991 and how it applies to products labeled as ‘flushable’. By analyzing the language of the Act, as well as industry standards for product labeling, the AI can provide insights into the likelihood of prosecution for flushing moist toilet tissue. Additionally, the AI can shed light on the potential liability of manufacturers in cases where their products are used in a manner that is considered illegal.
Utilizing AI Legalese Decoder can offer clarity and peace of mind in understanding the legal implications of the situation described in the Northumbrian Water letter. By leveraging the AI’s capabilities to interpret complex legal language, households can make informed decisions regarding their actions and potential responsibilities in relation to sewer blockages.
Try Free Now: Legalese tool without registration
AI Legalese Decoder: Making Legal Jargon Understandable
Legal documents are notorious for being filled with complex language and jargon that can be difficult for the average person to understand. This poses a problem for individuals who need to interpret legal documents for various purposes, such as signing contracts or resolving disputes. AI Legalese Decoder is a revolutionary tool that can help individuals decipher and understand the legal language used in documents.
With AI Legalese Decoder, users can simply input the legal text they need help with, and the tool will automatically scan and analyze the document to identify and translate any complicated legal terms or phrases. This can help users gain a clearer understanding of the content and ensure they are fully informed before making any legal decisions.
Furthermore, AI Legalese Decoder can also provide explanations and definitions for common legal terms, helping individuals build their legal vocabulary and knowledge. This can empower individuals to navigate legal documents more confidently and effectively, ultimately saving them time and money by avoiding costly mistakes or misunderstandings.
In conclusion, AI Legalese Decoder is a invaluable tool for anyone who needs to understand legal documents. By simplifying legal jargon and providing clear explanations, this tool can help individuals make informed decisions and navigate legal processes with ease. Don’t let complex legal language stand in your way – try AI Legalese Decoder today and unlock the power of understanding.
****** just grabbed a
[removed]
do you mean Section 111?
[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/56/section/111](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/56/section/111)
*1)Subject to the provisions of Chapter III of this Part, no person shall throw, empty or turn, or suffer or permit to be thrown or emptied or to pass, into any public sewer, or into any drain or sewer communicating with a public sewer—*
*(a)any matter likely to injure the sewer or drain, to interfere with the free flow of its contents or to affect prejudicially the treatment and disposal of its contents; or*
*(3)A person who contravenes any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable—*
*(a)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and to a further fine not exceeding £50 for each day on which the offence continues after conviction;*
*(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.*
so yeah it’s a thing
>”We would never dream of flushing baby wipes, makeup wipes etc, but we do use moist toilet tissue in moderation which the packaging calls ‘flushable’ and has ‘fine to flush’ certification.”
the Fine to Flush certification stopped being a thing last month (March 2024)
I don’t know how *likely* they are *to try to* recover from you… maybe this is a low key warning… but in fairness the water companies have been going on about this for a couple of years now and it’s possible and it’s technically an offence to do it
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[deleted]
I could flush a dead vole, but it would take a great deal longer than toilet paper to degrade and in the meantime it would block the drain.
They can look at the kind of sump points and see what’s collecting there. They can examine inspection points closer to groups of houses, and identify which group it seems to be coming from.
From there they would have to examine the output of each house, so they might find it cheaper to send everyone in that group a letter asking them to stop flushing wipes.
If that doesn’t fix the problem, then they might have to send a team in for a few days.
My previous neighbours had a teenage daughter that was flushing toilet wipes and face wipes that were marked as flushable. When she blocked our shared drain, there were dozens and dozens of them there.
The water company unblocked it, but we were both sent a letter warning us not to flush wet wipes or we would both foot the bill.
I wasn’t happy with the neighbours.
On an aside to that, the inspection points must be kept clear.
So when the other neighbour built a patio over the inspection point in his garden, the water company returned the next day with a big circular saw and cut the corner off his patio 😂
Section 11 of the Water Industry Act doesn’t create an offence of anything.
But don’t flush moist wipes down the toilet, they do (“flushable” or not) create blockages.
[removed]
I would say that given “fine to flush” certification only ended in March, and that you have only now received a communication from the water company informing you of potential wrongdoing, it would be difficult to demonstrate that you broke the relevant section of the act before that time. Because you weren’t knowingly putting anything into the sewer system that would damage it. You were flushing products that had been advertised by the manufacturer and certified by an independent body (Water UK) as appropriate for the sewer system. It is not reasonable to expect you to have acted otherwise. The important thing is to stop now that you have updated information.
As long as you stop using the wipes now, I reckon it’s extremely unlikely that you’ll be prosecuted.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
I would love to find out what these innovative techniques are. DNA testing your excrement to trace the tissue back to the dwelling of the person whose DNA it is? What a time to be alive…
Anyway, as far as I can make out this is two seperate things:
1) the action taken against the ‘offender’ and
2) the action taken against the manufacturer for making unlawful claims regarding their products. You can read more about this [here](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/green-claims-code-making-environmental-claims/environmental-claims-on-goods-and-services):
>What happens if businesses do not comply with consumer protection law?
>If a business does not comply with consumer protection law, the CMA and other bodies, such as Trading Standards Services, can bring court proceedings. In some cases, businesses may be required to pay redress to any consumers harmed by the breach of consumer protection law. The ASA could also take action against misleading advertisements that contravene the CAP or BCAP Codes.
>The CMA works closely with concurrent enforcers and with the ASA. In line with our usual practice, we will consider which authority is best placed to act, when taking decisions about enforcement action on misleading environmental claims. Businesses may also face legal action from consumers, who can bring legal proceedings in response to a business’s conduct or seek redress in the courts for certain breaches of consumer protection law.
So in other words, you could begin legal proceedings.
So it would be a group prosecution of the occupants of the property then?
I was of the belief (dangerous assumptions in the absence of actual knowledge!) that if it’s a criminal prosecution, it would need to be against the person actually responsible, tried in a criminal court to the ‘ beyond reasonable doubt’ standard. Civil prosecution for costs would be to the ‘balance of probability’.
Why would householder A be responsible for the actions of householders B and C if all are adults? Similar to seatbelts in a car – kids are the drivers responsibility, adults are directly prosecuted.
I’m not baiting here, genuinely interested as a lay man.
The legislation states ‘a person’, so I’m curious, whilst cameras could determine that 27 acacia avenue is the household, how do they determine the individual they will prosecute? They can’t determine what date it happened, so the householder could have had friends over who flushed a wipe after cleaning their kid, or a builder during some renovation. Unlike a road traffic offence which has specific legislation requiring a vehicle keeper to disclose the driver as they are legally responsible for the vehicle, a specific date and time is required for this to be valid. No such legislation appears to exist for a household, so how could it be enforced?
Presumably, Mrs Miggins could offer a defence of not being able to say who flushed, so the water co would not be able to show exactly what person should be prosecuted.
But don’t flush wipes!
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]