{"id":159886,"date":"2025-11-29T16:16:11","date_gmt":"2025-11-29T16:16:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/159886\/"},"modified":"2025-11-29T16:16:11","modified_gmt":"2025-11-29T16:16:11","slug":"ministers-to-crack-down-on-for-profit-litter-enforcers-in-england-waste","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/159886\/","title":{"rendered":"Ministers to crack down on \u2018for-profit\u2019 litter enforcers in England | Waste"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ministers have signalled an imminent crackdown on so-called \u201cfor-profit\u201d litter enforcement arrangements in England<\/a>, where private firms are paid for each fixed penalty notice issued.<\/p>\n

Under long-awaited statutory guidance, councils would have to end contracts that allow private enforcers to receive between 50% to 100% of each fine they serve.<\/p>\n

Fixed penalty notices (FPN) for littering and breaching a public spaces protection order (PSPO) in the UK typically range from \u00a3100 to \u00a3200, or a potential prosecution in court with fines of up to \u00a31,000 or more for serious offences.<\/p>\n

PSPOs are used by local authorities to tackle specific anti-social behaviours in designated areas, such as dog fouling, street drinking, spitting and certain vehicle-related nuisances.<\/p>\n

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has indicated that it will implement<\/a> statutory guidance banning fining for profit to \u201chelp local authorities to consistently and appropriately exercise these powers\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe plan to bring forward statutory enforcement guidance on both littering and fly-tipping,\u201d the policy paper said. \u201cWe will refresh and modernise the code of practice on litter and refuse in England to improve local authorities\u2019 understanding of their duties.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThis will be a big step,\u201d said Josie Appleton, the director of the civil liberties group the Manifesto Club. \u201cThe fining-for-profit market accounts for the vast majority of both litter and PSPO penalties \u2013 at least 75% of PSPO penalties came from private companies \u2013 so the government will have to be firm if it wants to end the injustice.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, debate remains over what \u201cstatutory guidance\u201d will mean in practice. The current code of practice on litter and refuse, last updated in October 2023, already warns authorities to enforce proportionately and only when \u201cin the public interest\u201d.<\/p>\n

But those rules are still non-binding in many areas, and critics including Appleton said a formal ban was the only way to stop what she called \u201cinstitutionalised profit from public shame\u201d.<\/p>\n

Nayan Kisten said he was falsely accused of spitting by two private enforcement Kingdom Services officers in Tonbridge, Kent, last March.<\/p>\n

Kisten said the officers approached him and demanded his ID without clearly explaining what the issue was or providing evidence.<\/p>\n

Despite his denial and lack of objective evidence, Kisten was fined \u00a3125.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe officers were really dismissive of any discussion. They just wanted to process the fine as quickly as possible,\u201d he said. \u201cOnly once the fine was issued did they properly explain what was going on.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt took me six months of repeated emails to the council and being endlessly stonewalled by them before it finally confirmed the fine had been cancelled,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cBut I can see how people pay these fines out of fear, even when they\u2019re innocent. It\u2019s a scary, pressurising experience with the very real threat of a criminal record if you maintain your innocence,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

Critics have long warned that outsourcing litter enforcement to private companies results in a high volume of fines for minor and borderline offences.<\/p>\n

Although government guidance advising that revenue should not be a motivating factor, critics point to some performance-management contracts that explicitly tie reward to the number of penalties issued.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen private companies are paid per fine, it inevitably leads to absurd penalties and outrageous injustices,\u201d said Appleton. \u201cBut at last it seems that Defra and the Home Office are paying attention and are ready to do something about it.\u201d<\/p>\n

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 \u00a32,500 fine and costs if they lose.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the penalties themselves are due to rise: from July, the upper limit for litter FPNs will increase from \u00a3150 to \u00a3500, as part of new legislation.<\/p>\n

The Liberal Democrat peer Tim Clement-Jones has warned that raising fines so sharply, without properly curbing profit-linked enforcement, risks compounding existing inequities.<\/p>\n

\u201cPrivate companies frequently issue grossly out-of-proportion penalties, the vast majority of which are issued for innocuous actions that fall far outside anyone\u2019s definition of serious anti-social behaviour,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

He also criticised the lack of judicial scrutiny, arguing that the current FPN system \u201cundermines due process. They are issued solely based on the decision of an official and do not involve the production of evidence in court\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis lack of judicial scrutiny means that when innocent people are fined for innocuous actions they often feel completely helpless, lacking the means to appeal a decision made by incentive-driven officers,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

Defra has confirmed that it intends to publish the statutory guidance on littering enforcement in the new year.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Ministers have signalled an imminent crackdown on so-called \u201cfor-profit\u201d litter enforcement arrangements in England, where private firms are…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":159887,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22],"tags":[273,111,139,69,147],"class_list":{"0":"post-159886","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-environment","8":"tag-environment","9":"tag-new-zealand","10":"tag-newzealand","11":"tag-nz","12":"tag-science"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159886","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=159886"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159886\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/159887"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159886"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159886"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159886"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}