Ministers to crack down on ‘for-profit’ litter enforcers in England | Waste

Ministers have signaled a looming crackdown on so-called “for-profit” littering schemes in England, where private companies are paid for every fixed penalty notice issued.

Under long-awaited statutory guidelines, councils should end contracts that allow private enforcement agents to receive between 50 and 100 per cent of each fine they serve.

Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) for littering and breaching a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) in the UK typically range from £100 to £200, or potential prosecution in court with fines of up to £1,000 or more for serious offenses.

PSPOs are used by local authorities to tackle certain anti-social behavior in designated areas, such as dog fouling, street drinking, spitting and some vehicle-related nuisance.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said it would implement statutory guidance banning fines for profiteering to “help local authorities exercise these powers consistently and appropriately”.

“We plan to propose law enforcement guidelines on littering and fly-tipping,” the policy document states. “We will update and modernize the waste code of practice and refuse in England to improve local authorities’ understanding of their duties.”

“This will be a big step,” said Josie Appleton, director of the civil liberties group Manifesto Club. “The for-profit fines market accounts for the vast majority of littering and PSPO penalties – at least 75% of PSPO penalties came from private companies – so the government will need to be firm if it is to end this injustice.

However, debate remains over what “statutory guidance” will mean in practice. The current code of practice on waste and rubbish, last updated in October 2023, already warns authorities to apply them proportionately and only when “in the public interest”.

But those rules are still not binding in many areas, and critics, including Appleton, have said a formal ban is the only way to end what she called “institutionalized profiteering from public shaming.”

Nayan Kisten said he was falsely accused of spitting by two private Kingdom Services officers in Tonbridge, Kent, last March.

Kisten said the officers approached him and asked for his ID without clearly explaining what the problem was or providing evidence.

Despite his denial and lack of objective evidence, Kisten was fined £125.

“The officers really rejected any discussion. They just wanted to process the fine as quickly as possible,” he said. “It was only after the fine was imposed that they properly explained what was happening.

“It took me six months of repeated emails to the council and relentless stonewalling from them before they finally confirmed that the fine had been cancelled,” he said.

“But I can see how people pay these fines out of fear, even if they are innocent. It’s a scary, high-pressure experience with the very real threat of a criminal record if you assert your innocence,” he added.

Critics have long warned that outsourcing waste control to private companies carries a high volume of fines for minor and borderline infractions.

Although government guidelines say income should not be a motivator, critics point to some performance management contracts that explicitly link reward to the number of sanctions imposed.

“When private companies are fined, it inevitably leads to absurd penalties and outrageous injustices,” Appleton said. “But it finally looks like Defra and the Home Office are paying attention and are prepared to do something.”

Others have also urged the government to address the lack of formal appeal rights: currently, people who refuse to pay must defend themselves in court, with the risk of a criminal conviction, a £2,500 fine and costs if they lose.

At the same time, the penalties themselves are set to increase: from July, the NPF limit on waste will increase from £150 to £500, under new legislation.

His Liberal Democrat counterpart, Tim Clement-Jones, warned that such a drastic increase in fines, without properly curbing the application of profits-related sanctions, risked worsening existing inequalities.

“Private companies frequently impose grossly disproportionate sanctions, the vast majority of which are imposed for innocuous acts that fall far outside the definition of serious anti-social behavior,” he said.

He also criticized the lack of judicial oversight, arguing that the current FPN system “undermines due process. They are issued solely based on the decision of an official and do not involve the production of evidence in court.”

“This lack of judicial oversight means that when innocent people are fined for innocuous acts, they often feel completely powerless, lacking the means to appeal a decision made by incentivized officers,” he added.

Defra has confirmed its intention to publish statutory guidance on the enforcement of littering rules in the new year.